Linked by Meade in the comments to "An affected or simpering smile; a silly, conceited, smiling look," which is a post about the criticism of the smile — the "smirk" — on the face of the Covington Catholic schoolboy Nick Sandmann.
Sandmann is smiling, but it's not a natural, happy smile, because — as he wrote in his statement — he was anxious and trying to express that he "was not going to become angry, intimidated or be provoked into a larger confrontation." So that's just about exactly the the position of Gary Cooper's interlocutor. Cooper ("The Virginian") says, "If you want to call me that, smile." And Walter Huston ("Trampas") smiles non-naturally and anxiously, as he says, "With a gun against my belly, I always smile."
When I think of a person who is smiling when he is not in a condition of relaxed happiness, I think of the beautiful Charlie Chaplin song "Smile" — sung with unearthly warmth by Nat King Cole:
Smile, though your heart is achingADDED: I think Bob Dylan was influenced by "The Virginian" when he wrote "The Ballad Of Frankie Lee And Judas Priest":
Smile, even though it's breaking
When there are clouds in the sky
You'll get by...
“Eternity?” said Frankie Lee
With a voice as cold as ice
“That’s right,” said Judas Priest, “Eternity
Though you might call it ‘Paradise’”
“I don’t call it anything”
Said Frankie Lee with a smile
“All right,” said Judas Priest
“I’ll see you after a while”
Posts
111 comments:
"because — as he wrote in his statement"
Does it make sense to post what the not-white guy says he was thinking and doing?
One of the more tragic smiles is from the silent film "The Man Who Laughs".
Grey skies are gonna clear up.
Put on a happy face.
Love Nat King Cole. Cooper does a better Southern accent in "Sargent York".
Is Althouse overcompensating out of guilt for jumping to an ill-informed judgement against the kids? Why was she so fast to condemn the young men?
Maybe it would be more therapeutic if she were to give serious thought to her prejudices and biases.
Thanks, Nonapod. I had never seen that before. Fantastically melodramatic and completely effective.
It made me think of the J.D. Salinger story "The Laughing Man," and I see from Wikipedia:
""The Laughing Man" is a short story by J. D. Salinger, published originally in The New Yorker on March 19, 1949; and also in Salinger’s short story collection Nine Stories.[1] It largely takes the structure of a story within a story and is thematically occupied with the relationship between narrative and narrator, and the end of youth. The story is inspired by the Victor Hugo novel of the same name: The Man Who Laughs (L'homme qui rit)."
Stop lying about me, Bill.
Bill writes: "Why was she so fast to condemn the young men?"
But I did not do that.
Bill you can attempt to quote what you believe supports your question and analyze it and say why you think your question is justified or apologize to me.
If you can't do that — soon — I will delete your comment.
I thought Sandmann's quiet dignity and his unwillingness to be provoked by the guy banging a drum inches from his head was an echo of the non-violent stance Dr. King encouraged civil rights protesters to adopt. On this MLK Day, we shouldn't let the parallel go unremarked.
There must be many examples from film of a character smiling under conditions where the smile is forced or used to cover some other emotion. This is the sort of thing that great actors can do very well, and I wish I could think of some examples.
This makes me think of the line from "Steel Magnolias": "Laughter through tears is my favorite emotion."
I'd also like to think of other examples of someone playing a musical instrument (or blowing a whistle) right in someone's face.
How was that ever absorbed as a kindly dignified gesture?
Come on Althouse. Give it up. You made a mistake admit it. You can delete or not. It is your blog.
To support my point you are feeling guilty about the boy:
You said you were charmed by the activist's description as the boys were just rambunctious. You assumed they were much more than being rambunctious.
You said you couldn't get yourself to play the video. That would be because you thought the video would show racist behavior towards an innocent Indian.
"... because I realize that my idea of what happened — which you're jumping on me about in the comments to the previous post — was influenced by listening to what Scott Adams said about it yesterday..." That is a confession you jumped to the same conclusion as Adams and others in the media.
You thought you knew what happened with reviewing the material available. That is jumping to a conclusion.
Grin and bear it.
Ann Althouse said...
Bill writes: "Why was she so fast to condemn the young men?"
But I did not do that.
Professor Althouse; with complete respect, from one of your adoring readers...
I'm not going to presume to think i know what's in your mind; BUT!
To me (and MANY Here), it sure Appeared that you were (overly) fast to (Openly!) condemn the young men. It now appears that you are saying that we misinterpreted you (and, in fact, were too fast to condemn you).
However, you may (or may not :) wish to think about how your words can be (mis)interpreted. I like you, and was Shocked to feel that you had thrown these boys under the bus.
Words have meanings
ps. thanx for all the ratz!
I read Sandmann's statement last night and here is the thing that impressed me the most about it- he did not apologize or fake apologize. He stood his ground just like he did at the march. This is the sort of courage the cuckservatives at NRO and other so-called right-leaning media outlets can't quite find in themselves. As for the left-leaning outlets, I don't expect anything else, so I won't even offer a criticism because it is beneath me.
I'd also like to think of other examples of someone playing a musical instrument (or blowing a whistle) right in someone's face.
More Cowbell
It isn't the smile. It is the lack of fear.
Fear is the only means we have to control other people. We can encourage, nudge, incite, but that is eliciting agreement.
I listened to part of a discussion about the events at Evergreen College where the faculty gave up their ability to control events by a vote of 70-2. The two being Bret Weinstein and his wife Heather Heyling. After the vote a number who voted for said they wanted to vote against but were afraid.
These boys were not afraid. That is intolerable. They must be made to suffer and to be afraid, otherwise the whole edifice of social justice control will collapse.
Ann Althouse said...
I'd also like to think of other examples of someone playing a musical instrument (or blowing a whistle) right in someone's face.
How was that ever absorbed as a kindly dignified gesture?
People fuck with the British Queen's Guards (the dudes with the tall bearskin hats) all the time, I guess.
Are you asking when is doing that to someone perceived as OK? It's OK to do that (incredibly rude/semi-violent) thing when you're doing it to the correct target. Hell, Antifa-types blow storm whistles right in the faces/ears of people they're protesting all the time and no one cares--Antifa's the good guy so it's just fine. Same in this case--the "sacred elder" is the good guy so it's cool of him to beat a drum inches from a guy's face and it's the guy's fault for smirking. Obviously.
In fairness, this is why I love this blog. I took a hard shot at Althouse. She responded with strong pushback. Put up or shut up or I'll delete.
I defended my position. I'm sure Althouse doesn't agree with my interpretation but she allowed it.
It's a shame this type of banter is almost extinct. Big kudos to Althouse for being a free speech forum.
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a ...
There is a time to smirk, but this wasn't it.
Ann Althouse said...I'd also like to think of other examples of someone playing a musical instrument (or blowing a whistle) right in someone's face.
I have a mental image of someone pointing a vuvuzela at someone's face. I think I saw it in one of your videos during the recall protests.
From the outtakes of the film:
"With a gun against my belly, I always soil myself, which makes me laugh."
"CUT!"
Our Professor asked Bill to justify his remark; i guess i should justify mine too :(
Our Professor Althouse referred to a cruxifixion (defenstration? Smearing?) of some people.
When people replied along the lines of: HEY! it's a bum rap!
Professor Althouse told us that a defence of those people was indefensible, or at least Totally inappropriate
("It's kind of hijacking this post to do a defense of the boys."),
And followed up with something remenisant of Marc Antony's "I come not to praise Ceasar but to bury him" ("I didn't attack or defend them and I won't watch the video.").
To me, putting up a scurrilous video, and then refusing to allow discussion of it (and BRAGGING about your refusal to even see (like a See-No-Evil Monkey,) exculpatory evidence was Very Troubling.
You say (now) that you didn't smear; it seemed like a smear, please don't fail me
ps thanx for all the ratz
It's an example of the Kuleshov effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuleshov_effect
How you interpret one shot in a film is influenced by the shots that precede and follow it.
The difference between an arrogant smirk and a nervous smile to defuse conflict is the difference between the establishing shots.
The original establishing shot is a Native American veteran claiming he was surrounded and harassed.
The second establishing shot is the film of a protestor wading into a crowd and putting his drum directly under Sandman's nose.
Which establishing shot you see determines how you interpret the scene.
We think of cameras as showing the truth, but it's closer to say that they show us a forced perspective. Things which are slightly out of frame, or simply not included in the cut, are totally invisible.
"You thought you knew what happened with reviewing the material available. That is jumping to a conclusion."
You should have the grace to admit that you discovered you were wrong.
I refrained from making a judgment and I refused even to watch the video, because I didn't want to look at it, so I couldn't make a judgment.
The only thing I did was imagine that the drumming man meant well, and to go on to the subject of moderation and mediators.
You're not just jumping to a conclusion, you are making a conclusion that doesn't fit the facts and sticking to it even in the face of evidence that you are wrong.
You are committing the very sin you're trying to call out.
I'd also like to think of other examples of someone playing a musical instrument (or blowing a whistle) right in someone's face.
How was that ever absorbed as a kindly dignified gesture?
If you're primed to see it as harassment by the school kids, you interpret it as a drummer continuing to drum after the school kid has invaded his space along with a crowd of his friends.
Althouse, you should poll your own readers about whether you jumped to conclusions. Certainly, your unwillingness to review evidence didn't help your case.
Also, characterizing the whole affair as "nothing" was unfair.
"One of the more tragic smiles is from the silent film 'The Man Who Laughs.'"
That character, or the face of that character, was the inspiration for the Joker.
Re:
"You thought you knew what happened with reviewing the material available. That is jumping to a conclusion."
"You should have the grace to admit that you discovered you were wrong."
I think that sentence was meant to read "You thought you knew what happened withOUT reviewing the material available."
I am Laslo.
This has been fascinating to observe.
gilbar said...
When people replied along the lines of: HEY! it's a bum rap!
Professor Althouse told us that a defence of those people was indefensible, or at least Totally inappropriate
("It's kind of hijacking this post to do a defense of the boys.")
THIS did happen, which seemed like Althouse was unwilling to examine the underlying story, as if she was "patronizing" the Indian by assuming his good intentions, and in the course of things it was denying the victims their defense. Good people can disagree about what was actually meant and was unintended in the resulting back and forth, but I find the whole exercise fascinating. I see Althouse caught in a situation that she did not create so much as stumble into, and people reading into her comments things she did not say or do. And at the center is a young man and his friends who are being criticized for things they did not do or say.
Utterly enlightening to the human condition! THIS is why I can't help checking in here at least once a day. I wish I had more time to join the fracas.
On top of all comments foregoing ...
Professora's *Man in the Middle* came with his camera crew to frame shots and further his narrative.
Not at all M-i-t-M.
"I have a mental image of someone pointing a vuvuzela at someone's face. I think I saw it in one of your videos during the recall protests."
Ah, yes. Why didn't I think of that? And I thought of the bullhorn guy coming right up to Meade and talking at him.
chickenlittle said...
Also, characterizing the whole affair as "nothing" was unfair.
The actual events were more ore less nothing. What happened was not newsworthy.
It was how the events were leveraged by CNN and downstream partisans that is something.
"Professora's *Man in the Middle* came with his camera crew to frame shots and further his narrative."
You mean the guy at the Wisconsin protests? No, that was Meade happening upon him and videoing him.
"The actual events were more ore less nothing. What happened was not newsworthy. It was how the events were leveraged by CNN and downstream partisans that is something."
Thank you, Henry. That's exactly right. What I called "nothing" was the original event. I wanted to ignore it and thought everyone should ignore it. But THEY didn't, so my ignoring it was completely ineffective and I decided to talk about something, to just get started. I chose to highlight that one lawyer's moderate, seemingly conciliatory statement.
I will admit that my initial guess about it was that it was nothing, and that's also what I thought after I viewed it.
Zach said...
It's an example of the Kuleshov effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuleshov_effect....
We think of cameras as showing the truth, but it's closer to say that they show us a forced perspective. Things which are slightly out of frame, or simply not included in the cut, are totally invisible.
This is one of the most intriguing lines of analysis, and totally missing from the way the media has chosen to present the story.
Also, characterizing the whole affair as "nothing" was unfair.
In Althouse's defense, I'd note that it should have been next to nothing. Stuff like what happened at the Lincoln Memorial probably happens everyday. But CNN chose to distort the event to score political points. That they continue to do so in the face of a preponderance of contrary evidence invokes malicious intent. The frustration comes from people seeing CNN not held accountable. That's why people will cheer seeing CNN challenged in court. At long last there must be some accountability.
"We think of cameras as showing the truth, but it's closer to say that they show us a forced perspective. Things which are slightly out of frame, or simply not included in the cut, are totally invisible."
This is obvious to anyone who has watched a lot of porn.
I am Laslo.
Sorry, I just wrote essentially what Henry wrote.
another part of this octopus,
https://www.prweb.com/releases/lakota/justice/prweb8897526.htm
this is Daniel sheehan of the christic institute, the peak crazy conspiracists in the 80s, who had much cache in Hollywood,
This has also been said before but wasn't Phillips just getting in someone's face -- just like a famous politician told him to do?
The act of smiling has the ability to suppress other emotions - fear, rage, confusion, and so on. It also has a calming effect. Also, smiling is a good tactic when being intinmidated, as it diminishes the effect of the intimidation, and expresses that the ‘agressor’s tactics aren’t working.
Ms. Althouse, here is the problem with the stance you are taking today- you also quoted this in the first post as a counter to those who were hijacking the thread:
"School officials and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Covington released a joint statement Saturday. “We condemn the actions of the Covington Catholic High School students towards Nathan Phillips specifically, and Native Americans in general,” the statement said. “The matter is being investigated and we will take appropriate action, up to and including expulsion.”
If your only complaint is that they were hijacking the thread, then this latter quotation is out of place, is it not? It is you countering the defense of the teenagers directly. Why do this if you were only annoyed at having the thread hijacked?
Professora says...
*I will admit that my initial guess about it was that it was nothing, and that's also what I thought after I viewed it.*
Like saying how the hell did this case citation make it into text book?
Class, i will not talk about it you will not bring it up either.
No grades for you.
"Also, characterizing the whole affair as "nothing" was unfair."
What are you calling "the whole affair"? I didn't call what the media did nothing. If you say that I did, you're being unfair to me.
"Ms. Althouse, here is the problem with the stance you are taking today- you also quoted this in the first post as a counter to those who were hijacking the thread: "School officials and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Covington released a joint statement Saturday. “We condemn the actions of the Covington Catholic High School students towards Nathan Phillips specifically, and Native Americans in general,” the statement said. “The matter is being investigated and we will take appropriate action, up to and including expulsion.” If your only complaint is that they were hijacking the thread, then this latter quotation is out of place, is it not? It is you countering the defense of the teenagers directly. Why do this if you were only annoyed at having the thread hijacked?"
I wrote that as a way to say: I don't know all the evidence, and I see what you're saying, but I'm also seeing this, so I don't know.
is the truth allowed more than a flash between narratives,
https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/20/kavanaugh-perjury-impeachment/
I mean the drummer guy on the Mall with his crew. How did any of this nothing get on the media anyway?
I may have been on the Mall and walked by as if nothing.
Now this is thrust into our faces for evaluation and moral calibration >>> which is the good and which is evil.
This is when and where casuistic evasiveness is very revealing.
he was there as a counterprotester, inaugural resistance agitator, remember how they pushed the 'Russian evidence' before the inaugural, two years ago,
Two things about the supposed 'smirk':
1. If you have a minute or two of film of anyone who's not asleep or paralyzed, and pick out the frame that makes him (or her) look the worst, he will look very bad. Remember all the Bush-as-chimp pictures? We all look like chimps for a fraction of a second every now and then, so someone with enough film (and time) on his hands can make any of us look like a chimp. The MSM picked the one frame that made the kid look most smirky, and they did it with malice aforethought. They do the same with Trump pictures.
2. Humans have a lot more different emotions than facial expressions to display them. You might say we have highly-differentiated human brains stuck behind simple apish faces. This can cause problems. Two examples:
a. I paid my way through college moving furniture (and packing, and driving, and crate-making) for Mayflower, though I was not at all suited for physical labor (back then I was 6'1", 130 pounds). One of my fellow-movers once asked me why I always grinned when I picked up something heavy, and I told him "that's not a grin, that's a grimace": a completely different emotion, even if the expression of it is pretty much the same.
b. I teach high-school and middle-school and am professionally obligated to do what I would do anyway, which is to talk to any student who looks depressed to make sure they're OK. Students who look depressed are often not depressed at all, just tired or thinking seriously about some difficult assignment or personal decision, but the expressions are pretty much the same. (In those cases, I tell them what I just told you all in paragraphs '2' and 'a' to lighten the mood and reduce mutual embarrassment, and remind them that teachers are required to ask.)
The point is that a 'keeping my cool in a tense and possibly dangerous situation' smile (see stlcdr 12:00pm) looks just like an 'I'm getting away with awesome stuff' smirk (cf. Peter Strzok) but has an entirely different meaning. The MSM should be ashamed of conflating the two to trash the kid.
As I recall, the first time I read the phrase "shit-eating grin" was in Tom Wolfe's "Mau-mauing the Flackcatchers": it described the expression of the poor junior bureaucrat (the flack-catcher) sent out to deal with Black Panthers demonstrating in an openly thuggish and threatening way. I would be unfair to call the Kentucky kid's expression a shit-eating grin, but it was more like that (and his situation much more like the flack-catcher's) than Peter Strzok's smirks.
Here is a take on what is happening in the culture that I agree with:
The Radical End.
The people in charge have lost control- of both events and their own self-interest.
"As I recall, the first time I read the phrase "shit-eating grin" was in Tom Wolfe's "Mau-mauing the Flackcatchers": it described the expression of the poor junior bureaucrat (the flack-catcher) sent out to deal with Black Panthers demonstrating in an openly thuggish and threatening way. I would be unfair to call the Kentucky kid's expression a shit-eating grin, but it was more like that (and his situation much more like the flack-catcher's) than Peter Strzok's smirks."
Funny you should mention that. Meade and I have talked repeatedly about "Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers" over the weekend with respect to the Covington Catholic schoolboys incident.
"“Ha-unnnnh,” says the Flak Catcher. It is one of those laughs that starts out as a laugh but ends up like he got hit in the stomach halfway through. It’s the first assault on his dignity. So he breaks into his shit-eating grin, which is always phase two. Why do so many bureaucrats, deans, preachers, college presidents, try to smile when the mau-mauing starts? It’s fatal, this smiling. When some bad dude is challenging your manhood, your smile just proves that he is right and you are chickenshit—unless you are a bad man yourself with so much heart that you can make that smile say, “Just keep on talking, sucker, because I’m gonna count to ten and then squash you.”"
Wolfe, Tom. Radical Chic & Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers (p. 96). Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kindle Edition.
I never felt that Professor Althouse was joining in the attack on the students. I felt she was mostly leaving it up to us to form our own conclusions. I did chide her on saying it was nothing, but my comment was mostly tongue in cheek. In fact, most of her commentary seems to be directed at the writings of others and not about the original event.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/native-american-elder-nathan-phillips-teen-nick-sandmann-give-versions-of-encounter/2019/01/21/f349ebf6-2574-43d3-a7b5-0e626ba05a0d_video.html
> you can make that smile say, “Just keep on talking, sucker, because I’m gonna count to ten and then squash you.”"
Remember the black demonstrator shouting through a bullhorn at the Starbuck barista for our last racial dust-up...
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/philadelphia-starbucks-protest-photo-meme-twitter-black-men-arrest-20180417.html
In that one a manager called the cops when people of color loitered in the restaurant without buying anything. The liberal owner of starbucks sent everyone through racial bias training and removed any requirement to buy anything to use the bathroom or sit in a starbucks. Still, the bullhorn guy showed up in the face of the white cashier, who does not smile.
How should you look when facing down the mob?
Davy Crockett explains the power of a grin to subdue an angry bear.
On the thread addressing the last name of the student at issue, I posted:
"Althouse is trying to change the subject because she knows she made a mistake getting ahead of her skis on this non-story. Quite a few people did;"
Our gracious host said that was false. I won't rehash other commenters' citations to passages showing Althouse was giving the original story credibility when it deserved none. When so many long time loyal readers see the same thing, perhaps it is there whether intended or not. Nothing to be defensive about -- a lot of reasonable people assumed the story was credible only to learn it was not.
Multiple offenses by the kid: White, Christian, pro-life, pro-America, MAGA hats, and smiling - no shit, smiling. No quarter for him in LeftAmerika.
Besides, new fake news was needed to distract from the old fake news.
“Stop lying about me, Bill.
Bill writes: "Why was she so fast to condemn the young men?"
But I did not do that.
Bill you can attempt to quote what you believe supports your question and analyze it and say why you think your question is justified or apologize to me.
If you can't do that — soon — I will delete your comment.”
Ha, your rightist readers do this to me all the time. They lie, they exaggerate, they imagine, and project.
“When so many long time loyal readers see the same thing, perhaps it is there whether intended or not.”
It’s because you Trumpists no longer have an original thought, cults don’t like it.
Whatever, Inga Your role on this blog is mindless rage -- frequently wrong, never in doubt. It' entertaining. Uninformative but entertaining. You play your role.
“Whatever, Inga Your role on this blog is mindless rage -- frequently wrong, never in doubt. It' entertaining. Uninformative but entertaining. You play your role.”
Ah, more lying, maybe projection too. I’m here to express my opinion, in response to the subject matter or pertinent comments. Nothing more. You IMAGINE you know why I’m here and what my “role” is.
I’m here to express my opinion, in response to the subject matter or pertinent comments.
You don't have an opinion. You cut and paste from a menu of talking points. I have never seen you go to any depth and attach core beliefs, and world view influences of the talking point.
You regurgitate the 'us against them' dregs, not quite sure of what you are against, or why.I have seen others try to engage you, but you devolve into insults. See a perfect example of your whit is the several posts above.
Whatever, keep ragin'. Makes the blog more amusing.
Was what happened at the Lincoln Memorial nothing or was it anti-white racism, which in this particular incident started with the black "protestors" hurling epithets and ended in a high tech lynching in the mainstream media? Anti-white racism is racism, that is the point to remember, and it has infected our hostile elites from top to bottom. It is a mob mentality and it is completely out of control.
Frankie Lee is a great song, and I don't care who smirks when I say that. Or who is ready to tell me that it is now problematic. There is a boy referenced in the song - don't know if he went to catholic school or not.
"No one tried to say a thing when they carried him out in jest
Except, of course, the little neighbor boy who carried him to rest
And he just walked along, alone, with his guilt so well concealed
And muttered underneath his breath:
Nothing is revealed."
Nothing being an identified theme of this latest sound-and-fury.
Iowan, I’m not here to engage you people, although I’m pulled into doing it occasionally. I have often supported MY opinion with links and cites and quotes, which is more than so many of you do. You read and listen to rightist shit peddlers and then regurgitate almost word for word what they’ve written or said. You’re simply too dishonest to use citations to support what you read there and repeated here.
Philosophical question: Is Freddie Krueger the anti-Sandman or the ultimate Sandman? ....I think it was nice for Hans Christian Anderson to tell kids that the good kids get to have dreams and the bad kids get no dreams at all. That must be reassuring to kids, because dreamless nights are rare.. They probably shouldn't be told Freddy Krueger as a bedtime story. Freddy and the Dreamers....... Maybe in the next sequel they can have Freddy wear a MAGA hat. That would be a cool macabre touch, even more terrifying than the razor extensions on his fingers.
Inga lecturing others on projection.
That's rich.
they were there to provoke, phillips is a long time activist, most recently in the pipeline protests, akin to that of the tea party protest of 2009, that McClatchy accepted a totally fraudulent account, he also created a ruckus in eastern Michigan u, two years before, he's a contractor by training, but also has been featured in a song by skrillex, and a kickstarter documentary some years ago,
Befuddled NPC Inga thinks both
a) This topic is too-much discussed
and
b) can't stay out of the thread.
Even her NPC programming is total shit.
I did make a mistake once in my life. I thought I was wrong on something but I turned out to be right.
Ah another dumbass who IMAGINES what I think. Hey loser, go find a quote of mine where I said the subject was discussed “too much”. I laughed at you for being hysterical about it. But you don’t seem to be too bright. Maybe that was over your head. I was laughing at YOU.
“a) This topic is too-much discussed
and
b) can't stay out of the thread.”
youre exactly the type of zampolit, you fled Yugoslavia from:
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2019/01/21/now-why-oh-why-would-he-do-that-nathan-phillips-covington-story-keeps-changing-from-outlet-to-outlet/
"There you go man, keep as cool as you can.
Face piles
And piles
Of trials
With smiles.
It riles them to believe
that you perceive
the web they weave
And keep on thinking free."
Luke L,
SPLC agrees w/ you:
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2015/history-hebrew-israelism
one narrative, another collapses:
http://thefederalist.com/2019/01/21/fifth-circuit-lifts-injunction-providing-new-hope-pro-life-advocates/
I didn't call what the media did nothing.
when people fall to their deaths, some say "it's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden deceleration".
So, when the Professor says "this is nothing", is that analogous to the 'falling',
but the harm comes right after?
"I'd also like to think of other examples of someone playing a musical instrument (or blowing a whistle) right in someone's face.
How was that ever absorbed as a kindly dignified gesture?"
He's an Indigian. Everything they do, and don't do, is kindly, dignified, promotes the health of Mother Earth, and praises the Great Spirit.
Let’s not overlook the well known “shit eater smile.”
I notice that one "liberal" commenter (and by "liberal" I mean of course "tax-happy, coercion-addicted, power-tripping government humper and State fellator")--probably some "super-evolved" type who is foursquare against bullying and violence*-- called the kid with the MAGA hat the owner of the world's most punchable face. Sorry, David Hogg--the crown now goes to another kid!
*Except of course bullying and violence by the State.
His grin
Their chagrin
I once asked an archeologist what was his most memorable find. He said it was the skeletons of a Navajo woman and child in an old well, with an Apache arrowhead in the mess of bones. I wonder if the Apache were drumming and the Navajo were smiling....
@JML
if she was smiling and wearing a MAGA hat, she got what was coming to her
Inga: "I have often supported MY opinion with links and cites and quotes, which is more than so many of you do."
LOL
Yeah, no one here privides links. Just Inga!
Whats most amusing is the astonishing number of times Inga has posted links where the headline implies agreement with one of her assertions but upon actually reading the content disproves her point!
#IngaOnlyReadsHeadlines
wondering if Nathan Phillips is 1/1024th "Recon Ranger"
Sometimes kids smile.
Yeah Chief Tom Tom will want to disappear pretty quickly now we are finding out more about him. Doxxing works in two directions lefties, or did you not think that far ahead? My guess is he may have been in the 103rd Mess kit repair Battalion in Fort Wayne, Indiana not Nam'. Or maybe him, Blumenthal and Tom Harkin were Top Gun Pilots shooting down Migs over Hanoi? Time will tell.
Althouse is full of shit as usual, and refuses to ever admit she made a mistake. A lot of post menopausal women who are used to having a taxpayer funded tenured position where students have to listen to her bullshit and cant correct her without risking their grades are like that.
See how pissy she is getting called out for being wrong? This is the lying Kavanaugh accuser and splooge stooge all over again.
Althouse is pathologically incapable of ever admitting she was wrong, and having a stooge like Meade around whose meal ticket and roof over his head depend on never telling her otherwise doesn't help.
she was mistaken, but she offers this forum as a socratic exercise:
https://libertyunyielding.com/2019/01/21/thousands-of-central-american-migrants-taking-mexico-up-on-offer-of-temporary-asylum-work-visas/
if she was smiling and wearing a MAGA hat, she got what was coming to her
To be fair, a short skirt, a bare midriff, a MAGA hat, or a nervous smile, could all trigger a deviant, hostile response.
The Democrats think that they have a gun to their bellies with regard to the Shutdown.
Except that the lack of movement in negotiations CAUSED the shut down.
Trump said '5.7 billion dollars'.
Now at this point, they can come up with a small ask, a BIG ASK, or a NOPE.
Pelosi went with a NOPE. And continued to go with a NOPE. And when he asked again went with a NOPE.
So this is grabbing his gun, slapping it in his hand, and shoving it into their bellies.
I don't mind that they get SOMETHING. That is how negotiating is done. They SHOULD extort something from him. Something worth 5.7 billion dollars. Maybe even 20 billion dollars.
But going with 'never going to happen' is just asking for this kind of action.
Nathan Phillips was born in 1955. He claimed to have joined the military at 17. That puts him at 1972. The last Marine combat unit left Vietnam in 1971
Phillips states that he is a “Vietnam Times Veteran”
I refrained from making a judgment and I refused even to watch the video, because I didn't want to look at it, so I couldn't make a judgment.
The only thing I did was imagine that the drumming man meant well, and to go on to the subject of moderation and mediators.
This is out of order.
1) The media told you School Boys bad, Drumming Man good.
2) You 'imagine(d) that the drumming man meant well.
3) Then you 'refused even to watch the video' which may (in this case DID) offer exonerating evidence.
Imagine if you will a DA doing that. A woman...let's call her Christine, claims that some guy...call him Brett, raped her.
Brett says he didn't do it.
There is a DNA swab.
The DA 'refuses to look at the DNA swab'.
Would a person reasonably call that 'jumping to a conclusion'?
Would a reasonable person say 'that is denying a person exonerating evidence'?
Now, to be fair, Althouse owes Brett or these 'beautiful boys' nothing. The media sold her a bill of goods and despite DECADES of witnessing and highlighting media malfeasance, she 'refused to watch the video.'
That is fair to a point...but not to the point that she was spoon fed an conclusion and she lapped it up...by once again just 'believing the minority' ANY minority over White Males. By refusing to examine evidence against...white men until forced to by OTHER spoon fed media claims.
(Shakes head) I am very glad I do not live in Wisconsin on any jury you might be a part of.
And this from the Courier Journal, aka the Crooked Journal.
"Asked about its role, RunSwitch released a statement saying that the firm "has been retained by the Sandmann family to offer professional counsel with what has become a national media story. We are working with the family to ensure an accurate recounting of events which occurred this past weekend.”
"RunSwitch partners Steve Bryant and Gary Gerdemann said that Sandmann family asked people they knew over the weekend about getting help with handling the media.
"They reached out to our firm, and we responded," said Bryant, adding that the business specializes in crisis management "all over the country."
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2019/01/21/covington-catholic-runswitch-pr-helped-student-in-controversial-video/2638400002/?fbclid=IwAR322qomDRMoqUvNuAY6HZ1IQksbJ-F889ua3dtJhAM2C4jXwllIREPidls
Blogger JML said...
I once asked an archeologist what was his most memorable find. He said it was the skeletons of a Navajo woman and child in an old well, with an Apache arrowhead in the mess of bones. I wonder if the Apache were drumming and the Navajo were smiling....
Maybe she had a red feather in her hair...
FIDO summed that up for me. The lapse of logic of not wanting to look at evidence wouldn't absolve anyone if it turns out it was exculpatory. It's o.k to let your prejudice guide you to a conclusion you are inclined to take but you should at least be honest about it. Its like the Kavanaugh debacle in that what many people posted regarding the whole affair should exclude them from any future jury duty as they do not have the ability to use deductive reasoning or common sense.
Gk1: "My guess is he may have been in the 103rd Mess kit repair Battalion in Fort Wayne, Indiana not Nam'. Or maybe him, Blumenthal and Tom Harkin were Top Gun Pilots shooting down Migs over Hanoi? Time will tell."
Uh oh.
Now you've done it.
You have pointed what lying Stolen Valor Dem hacks Blumenthal and Harkin are and LLR Chuck, who immediately leaps to the defense of any and every dem/lefty under all circumstances, is not going to like that at all.
At. All.
@ 3:33 PM : Nice. Thanks for that 50 yr old blast from the past. Put a big wide shit-eatin grin on my moody old face.
@gilbar, did Phillips describe himself as a “Vietnam Times Veteran,” or as a “Vietnam Era Veteran”? The latter has a legal definition:
“A “Vietnam Era” Veteran is defined as any Veteran who served during the official time frame of the Vietnam War anywhere in the world as defined by Congress and the Department of Veterans Affairs.”. The official time frame is 1961 to 1975. So Phillips certainly is a Vietnam Era Veteran, as am I (though I served at an earlier date than Phillips).
Neither of us is a Vietnam Veteran, which (without the word “Era”) means someone who actually served in Vietnam during the period of time of US combat operations.
Hope this clarifies things, because Nathan Phillips is reprehensible enough without adding stolen valor to his list of sins.
@Meade
Our pleasure, LM
on a cautionary note: with that diet you may be
Blasting, billowing, bursting forth
With the power of ten billion butterfly sneezes
so dont stray far from the commode!
GK1
A DA has a legal, ethical and moral DUTY to look at exonerating evidence.
Althouse has no such obligation and when finally the preponderance of the evidence forced her to look at it, she came to the right conclusion, one that some bloggers want to pretend doesn't exist, others STILL deny exists (We have always been at War with Eurasia), and many MANY others want to pretend that they never ever jumped to a conclusion.
But there was quite a bit of intellectual arm twisting to get her to that juncture. Effort that she didn't want to engage in; effort eschewed which left us with (to her) the rather comfortable narrative 'Smirking (clearly not beautiful) White Boys Bad, Drumming Man good' intact.
This intellectual laziness is a nice passive aggressive way to tacitly leave an agenda to further. See Christine Blasey Ford.
Alas, facts got in the way of comfortable 'well meaning' narrative.
It is a hard thing to try to continue a reputation of 'idea tester' and 'evidence gatherer' and 'media critic'...and at the same juncture, 'refuse to even watch the video'. A bit of cognitive dissonance there.
So I don't blame her for her inactions, but I refuse to grant the desired reputation without the effort necessary to maintain them.
FIDO ...
I second you on requiring and demanding intellectual honesty.
The further question is
*Can Feminism survive intellectually honest enquiry*?
I'm going to show you a video clip - first I'm going to tell you what it is about: an angry young man shoving an old lady and she's terrified.
I run the seconds long, tight shot clip and sure enough, a kid with an angry grimmace pushes HARD an old lady. Her expression is one of terror.
Now, to paraphrase something I remember from William F Buckley eons ago ... You might say shoving grandma is always morally wrong.
But YOU would be wrong. Because there is a whole world of difference between shoving grandma into the path of a speeding bus and shoving her out of the way of a speeding bus.
Now I show you, without priming your expectations, a longer clip that shows the true context - the "angry" kid just saved the life of a woman who, at the last second, realized a bus was about to run her down.
I hope the Covington boys and their families end up bankrupting CNN, WaPo, Kathy Griffin and every lying media outlet and public person who has been trying to ruin these families lives.
I've long had a 48 hour rule for myself on anything dealing with race stuff because it usually turns up a hoax or 180 degrees from first narrative.
Paul McCartney was influenced by Chaplin's 'Smile' when he wrote 'No More Rain':
Laugh, when your eyes are burning
Smile, when your heart is filled with pain
Sigh, as you brush away your sorrow
Make a vow, that's it's not going to happen again
It's not right, in one life
Too much rain
You, know the wheels keep turning
Why, do the tears run down your face
We, use to hide away our feelings
But for now, tell yourself it won't happen again
It's not right, in one life
Too much rain
It's too much for anyone, Too hard for anyone
Who wants a happy and peaceful life
You've gotta learn to laugh
Smile, when your spinning round and round
Sigh, as you think about tomorrow
Make a vow, that you're gonna be happy again
It's all right, in your life
No more rain
It's too much for anyone, Too hard for anyone
Who wants a happy and peaceful life
You've gotta learn to laugh
Charlie the kiddie diddler laying a liplock on Baby Jackie there. No wonder why Hollywood welcomed him back. LaLa Land, pedo since the Silents.
The thing I'm going to latch on to to try and disprove the narrative when people still beat it is this:
"The claim is the Native American, Nathan Phillips, attempted to get between two angry groups and defuse the situation. Let me ask you: If you saw two groups, one clearly shouting racial and homophobic slurs at the other, the second rejecting the homophobia -- which one would you think is more in need of being defused? Ok, let's say you still approach the other group instead -- maybe he did hear someone shout 'Build the Wall,' even though thus far there's no video evidence, and he found that more likely to spark violence than what the other side was saying. When, ever, have you deemed the best way to defuse a situation to invade someone's personal space chanting in a language they don't understand?"
It leaves me with a couple options. One, what I believe, it is a bullshit claim that Phillips wanted to defuse the situation. Two, he has no idea how to actually defuse a tense situation, and was doing more harm than good. There might be some other reason, but those are the two I see.
Post a Comment