Random Totty

Last weekend I watched Hitchcock’s brilliant movie To Catch A Thief, and it’s always a pleasure to gaze upon the mid-1950s Grace Kelly and her Sunbeam Alpine sports car:

…not to mention the glorious scenery of the Midi:

However, in all this ogling, a random brain cell fastened on the other cutie in the movie, the teenager Danielle, who has a crush on the (much-older) Cary Grant.

In real life, her name was Brigitte Auber, and in the movie, she’s given the tomboy treatment — no doubt to reinforce the illusion of her age (she was actually nearly 30 when the movie was made), as much as to make her less alluring than the leading lady.

Of course, outside that look, she was a lot more interesting:

But Brigitte’s real claim to fame is that she helped turn her then-boyfriend, one Alain Delon, into a movie star.

By the way, Brigitte Auber will be turning 100 in a month’s time.

Quote Of The Day

…from Britishland:

The fundamental problem confronting PM Keir Starmer and Chancellor* Reeves is that Britain’s state is reliant on growth to fund itself, while also doing its apparent best to block it. The transition to net zero, the generosity of the welfare state that undermines work incentives, the planning system that effectively vetoes investment, and the tax system that pays for the same, have more effectively blocked Britain’s prosperity than any number of de-growth activists. The result of this stagnation, coupled with a fiscal state already stretched to its limits, is that each disappointing growth out-turn finds the Prime Minister and Chancellor attempting to find new ways to make it through one more Office for Budget Responsibility forecast period while the premium applied to British debt continues to go up.

Sucks to be them, dunnit?  Although under FJB’s presidency, we were headed alarmingly down the same path.


*Chancellor of the Exchequer is kinda like our Treasury Secretary, only the Chancellor actually sets and defines the national budget.

Sick Of The Exaggeration

From Stephen Green (and a veritable host of others):

“The Democrats have a destructive addiction to the 20% side of a whole host of 80/20 issues.”

I can’t remember who first uttered the “80/20 issues” trope, but I’ll bet it was a Democrat like James Carville or Bill Maher.

With all things, scale matters.

Are you telling me that 20% of voters — that’s one in every five voters — supports:

  • men competing in women’s sports
  • gender-reversal surgery on minor children without parental notification (let alone consent)
  • not expelling criminal illegal aliens
  • not ending the flood of illegal immigrants who draw money from public health- and education services, at the expense of U.S. citizens
  • deficit spending and a ballooning national debt
  • a voting system that enables voter fraud and crooked elections (in guess who’s favor)
  • Hamas-sponsored riots and
  • anti-Semitic attacks on Jews in college campuses
  • eco-terrorism and obstructive demonstrations
  • violent demonstrations against public officials (e.g. Supreme Court justices) who dare to oppose their agenda
  • waste, abuse and outright fraud in the federal government budget
  • sending foreign aid money — by the billion — to sponsor overt anti-American activities abroad
  • siphoning “foreign aid” money — by the tens of millions — to line the pockets of executives running Washington D.C. non-profit organizations
  • a military weakened by woke DEI policies and regulations
  • a foreign policy that supports enemies of the U.S. (e.g. Iran) rather than chastises them
  • over-regulation of industry which chokes off economic progress
  • schools which have failed our children, and the government department that is responsible for that failure
  • a mandate that all cars sold in the U.S. be EVs, by 2030 — i.e. five years’ time — with no supporting infrastructure to sustain them
  • [insert your favorite issues here]

Seriously?  One in every five voters supports all the above?

Let me tell you right now:  it’s not 20%, but more like 5%.  In other words, the Democrats are supporting splinter issues that may find favor with only five in every hundred U.S. citizens — and even 5% may be too high.

So let’s quit this exaggeration of their support, please.  Most of their positions are deeply unpopular with almost all voters, and an “80/20” apportionment gives a misleading impression.  Numbers matter, so let’s start using the more-correct one.


Speaking of numbers, here’s a recent poll highlight:

When asked in an open-ended question to name the Democratic leader they feel “best reflects the core values” of the party, “10% of Democratic-aligned adults name New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 9% former vice president Kamala Harris, 8% Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and 6% House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. Another 4% each name former president Barack Obama and Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett, with Schumer joining a handful of others at 2%.”

When AOC is your standard-bearer (and the rest are equally dire)…

Buh-Bye

Straight from the horse’s mouth:

“Arriving aliens bear the burden of establishing admissibility to the United States. Our Customs & Border Patrol officers adhere to strict protocols to identify and stop threats, using rigorous screening, vetting, strong law enforcement partnerships, and keen inspectional skills to keep threats out of the country. CBP is committed to protecting the United States from national security threats.”

So when they found some Lebanese terrorsymp doctor trying to come into the U.S. who couldn’t explain why she wanted to come back here, and despite her having a valid visa, they kicked her back over to Lebanon.

Of course, all the pics on her phone (which she’d tried to delete) of known Hamas assholes, and the fact that she’d gone back to Shitholia to attend the funeral of one of said assholes, had absolutely no impact on the Usual Suspects in the media, who started wailing their Usual Bullshit about rights, legal blah blah blah and OrangeManBad.

Too bad we couldn’t have sent a few of them back with her, on one-way tickets.

Oh and by the way, this is the pic of the good doctor most often used by said media terrorsymps:

…and this is what she normally looks like:

Just FYI.

With What?

The can be only one reaction to this little snippet:

Canada PM Mark Carney Promises Zelensky More Support for Ukraine

Lessee:  Canuckistan has few actual soldiers, no tanks, no aircraft and no spare money.  (To be fair, their snipers are pretty good, but snipers don’t win battles, let alone wars.)

So what kind of “support” are we talking aboot, Markey-Mark?  According to the Ukes:

“The Prime Minister made the right points about how we need to step up pressure on Moscow. The shadow fleet, the banking sector,” Zelensky wrote. “We must impose all-out sanctions on everything that provides Russia with funding for its war. Only then can we force Putin to a just and lasting peace.”

Zelensky also indicated that Canada was interested in investing in the reconstruction of post-war Ukraine and in joint defense deals to produce weaponry.

“Canada is interested in military-industrial and defense cooperation,” Zelensky said. “Throughout this war, we have gained significant experience in the production of EW systems, long-range missiles, and drones. Ukraine is ready for joint production.”

No you’re not.  Your factories have been bombed to shit, while Canuckistan has none that aren’t reliant on U.S. subsidies and trade.

And we all know how POTUS Trump feels about that.

Good luck, guys.