“Fearless Girl” statue is an excellent monument to how stupid Feminism is

In lower Manhattan there is a famous bronze statue of a charging bull that symbolizes economic strength and courage during hard times. Seizing on the popularity of Victim Mentality, an opposing statue of a girl staring down the bull with her hands on her hips as her hair and skirt blows in the wind stands across from it was placed across from it to protest Wall Street not having enough women in it or something .

The statue was a Hedge Fund sponsored publicity play (specifically, it was released right before International Women’s Day to call for “more representation of women in corporate boardrooms” – presumably by the boardrooms who are supposedly denying qualified brilliant women to sit on their boards in favor of inferior males because I guess the thesis is that Wall Street dislikes females more than it loves money?), but that hasn’t stopped it from being lauded as a Social Justice icon for the marginalized…or something. I keep saying “or something” only because the purpose and message is so incoherent. A little girl isn’t afraid of economic strength? Why would she be? Or are its supporters praising it because they’re taking it more literally and seeing it as “girls don’t need to be afraid of giant menacing things that are about to kill them”? It just doesn’t make any sense.

But that vague incoherence is a key factor on why it’s receiving praise of course – the more minimalist the canvas, the easier it is for the audience to fill in the gaps with their own confirmation bias and ideology. It’s only the suckers like me who actually apply objective logic to the constant themes among the differing interpretations that ruin any chance of appreciating this publicity stunt as any kind of meaningful art.

The history of the bulls presence is a lot more interesting than the story of the Fearless Girl. Sculptor Arturo Di Modica, an Italian immigrant, just made the thing without direction or permit with $350,000 of his own money used to cast the 7,100 lb bronze bull and just dropped it off in front of the New York Stock Exchange in December 1989 as a gesture to lift the spirits of American traders after the stock crash of a few years earlier. That’s a uniquely American story of positivity, where as the addition of this girl staring down the bull is multi-levels of nonsense victim propaganda.

Nicole Gelinas points out that the support by the mayor of the city only sets a dangerous precedent:

That’s because the mayor has set an arbitrary precedent — this statue can stay because I like its politics — that’ll be used against the city in court. What if Black Lives Matter protesters want a statue of police brutalizing a black man in front of One Police Plaza?

But the bigger problem with Fearless Girl is that it casts stereotypes in bronze: Men do important things, and women get in the way.

The bull is the primary actor: He is charging. The girl’s job is to impede him. This is how Wall Street has long worked — and it’s changing, but slowly.

Take the management committee of State Street’s parent company. Of its 14 members, two are women. One, the chief administrative officer, is a top regulatory official. The other is the human-resources chief and “citizenship officer.”

On Goldman Sachs’ 33-member management committee, five of our women — at least four of whom are in similar, growth-restraining positions.

Yes, growth-restraining: These are great jobs and require deep skill. But they’re bureaucratic rather than entrepreneurial. If a department head — a man — wants to start up a new unit, it’s the regulatory experts who will say, no, you can’t.

Similarly, a trading head may want to hire someone — but the human-resources chief nixes it.

Indeed, the area of “compliance” — which sounds like an S&M activity but has to do with ensuring that the bank and its employees don’t launder money, steal or do other bad things — is where women have done well.

Di Modica is rightfully annoyed by the addition of the girl to his art piece, and while he is being mocked for noting that it violates his rights as an artist – he’s obviously correct. The addition of the girl is akin to that SNL skin where then Mayor Rudy Guiliani says that he will stop graffiti not by removing it from the city but by adding the word “sucks” after peoples nicknames. That’s all this dumb girl statue is: piggybacking on someone else’s art (a MANS art, no less – real feminist message there…) to flip the original message into a new and negative one. That’s a jerk move.

Slate’s Christina Cauterucci elaborates:

Before Fearless Girl came on the scene, the bull was an encouraging representation of a booming economy. Now, charging toward a tiny human, it’s a stand-in for the gendered forces that work against women’s success in the workplace. This isn’t the same kind of contextual shift that might result from a curator’s juxtaposition of two works; the girl is derivative. Di Modica meant his bull to stand alone—now, it’s as if Visbal and New York City have made a solo piece a diptych without his consent.

diptych is a a painting on two hinged wooden panels that may be closed like a book, and that’s exactly what has happened.

So much for Artists’ rights though: Mayor Bill de Blasio has already extended the permit to allow Fearless Girl to remain on display until next year. Last week he tweeted a link to a Newsweek story about Di Modica’s complaints with a message suggesting any rejection of Fearless Girl was misogynist:

This idiotic strawman of course feeds exactly into the Victim Propaganda message that looks past any examination of logic about the message and boils it down to the most basic of false premise’s: that women are oppressed and hated and persecuted for “taking up space”. At the time of this writing, 42 thousand people Liked that Tweet and over 20 thousand retweeted it – presumably non-ironically. That makes tens of thousands of people who sincerely believe this insane premise.

In the New York Times, Ginia Bellafante points out the elitism at play via the False Feminism of Fearless Girl

Corporate feminism operates with the singular goal of aiding and abetting a universe of mothers who tuck their daughters in at night whispering, “Someday, honey, you can lead the emerging markets and sovereign debt team at Citigroup, and then become a director at Yahoo.” The point of “Fearless Girl” was to advertise a State Street initiative pushing companies to include more women on their boards. Although the firm has said it is working to improve the number of female executives in its own ranks, it hasn’t been close to exemplary in this regard: Of its 28-person leadership team, only five are women, according to the company website.

Gavin McInnes puts it’s more bluntly: The statue only proves that feminists are dumb…

Why Gretchen Carlson is probably going to hell

Former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson settled a sexual harassment lawsuit with the network for $20 Million over a single comment she decided she didn’t like and a nebulous tone with her morning show co-host she found to be displeasing to her. The lawsuit cost the networks founder and Chief Executive Officer Roger Ailes, the accused party by Carlsons lawsuit, to have to resign from his position and the company.

Getty images

Gretchen Carlson seems like a nice Christian woman so it is my hope that there is more to this story that for some reason her and her lawyers decided to keep secret from their public filings because otherwise she is a horrible human being that almost surely is going to hell. Whatever anyone thinks of Fox News or of Roger Ailes and regardless of whether he is a nice guy or a jerk (I have no idea so I have no non-profession-related opinion on him), his deposition from the network he built over Carlsons stated accusation is a reprehensible mortal sin and extreme miscarriage of social justice.

When I first heard of the lawsuit I erroneously assumed that Carlson was alleging something that actually happened… Nope… The lawsuit makes no claim of Carlson being touched, sexually propositioned, or harassed in any way whatsoever. This made it odd that she received $20 Million in a settlement of a “sexual harassment” lawsuit when no harassment, sexual or otherwise, was even alleged. Instead, the allegation in the lawsuit that falsely masquerade as being of “sexual harassment” (bringing shame to her and her lawyers for cheapening the serious charge and term) is just one big conspiracy theory based on one alleged inappropriate comment her boss Roger Ailes allegedly made, one alleged time, 9 months before her contract wasn’t renewed at Fox…

The single comment in question was Ailes allegedly saying to her “I think you and I should have had a sexual relationship a long time ago and then you’d be good and better and I’d be good and better.” That’s it. and that ain’t harassment. That comment might be rude, it’s almost surely not wise, and it might even be wildly inappropriate – but it ain’t “harassment”, it isn’t a demand or threat, and it for damn sure isn’t worth $2 let alone $20 million. To think otherwise, you have to believe that that sentence is so damaging to ones ears and psychological stability that they would pay 20 million dollars in order to not have it said towards them. Since no one anywhere, ever would ever think that – Carlsons pay day becomes not a vindication of an abused woman who wouldn’t take crap from a lecherous corporate jerk abusing his power but rather a scam that ruined someones livelihood for the personal gain and obscene enrichment of an individual who wasn’t harmed and suffered no damages to justify such a payout. Don’t Christians believe that to be a sin?…

Of course, Carlson didn’t bring the lawsuit over that one sentence alone – she claimed the lawsuit was justified because her contract with Fox News Channel was not renewed this past June and she says that lack of renewal was because of Aile’s comment and the implications she drew from it (evidently only 9 months later and not at the time) that she was fired. She doesn’t specify exactly what implication she drew from the alleged comment but presumably she interpreted “we should have had a sexual relationship years ago” to mean “if you don’t have sex with me, I will fire you in 9 months if your ratings do poorly”. Or maybe “even if your ratings AREN’T a huge disappointment to the network”?. Idk. But a good way to avoid the gray area in this situation would have been for Ailes to have not made the comment and for Carlson to have been a better on-air Talent because then the contract renewal wouldn’t have poor ratings or a verbalized sentiment that “we should have boned back in the day” as the culprit.

Unfortunately for Carlsons eternal soul, the evidence supports the Roger Ailes side and depicts her to be a vindictive greedy lying liar. Ailes claims that she was let go because her “disappointingly low ratings were dragging down the afternoon lineup” and that the lawsuit was just petty retaliation for FNC not taking on her drag. Carlson claims that her ratings were great and the real reason she was fired was in retaliation for rebuffing her boss’ sexual advances.

Okay then… lets examine those claims…

RATINGS
Carlsons lawsuit claims that she was fired from FNC despite her show doing well in the ratings in contrast to Ailes saying that her ratings were “disappointing”. The reality? Her ratings were in fact disappointing. Her show, The Real Story, didn’t completely flop by every standard – just by the standards of the network she was employed by – i.e. – her shows performance disappointing. My personal take on it was that it was one of the weakest most dull pieces of programming that Fox News had to offer, but my opinion doesn’t matter – the collective’s does. Well, SURPRISE – the collective agreed with me: Gretchen Carlsons show trailed nearly all of Fox News Channels other programming. Carlson tried to spin this as a good thing because the time slot improved over last year, but so did all of cable news because it is an election year. Also don’t forget the part where regardless of the time slot improving along with the rest of the network and the rest of all cable news – her show remained one of the least watched shows on the whole network… Fox is held to a higher standard with its #1 position in the cable wars and it shouldn’t be a surprise when the weakest link is excised from the chain. Further, Carlson didn’t just lose to her above-average performers at her own network, but she actually lost to the competition. “CNN Newsroom with Brooke Baldwin” beat “The Real Story” by 2% in the eminently important 25 to 54-year-old demographic in June (the month Carlson was not renewed).

SEXUAL HARASSMENT
As stated above, Gretchen Carlson filed her lawsuit over losing a show that was one of the worst rated on her network and lost to the competition in the key financial demo due to a conspiracy theory and unspecified tone of not being appreciated (she claims, because she is a woman). Her entire case against Ailes was the “we should have had a sexual relationship years ago” line that she found so wildly distasteful and offensive that she… continued working for him, thanked him in her book for all he’s done for her, and wrote him hand written notes with smiley faces thanking him for his support and asking to be put on the air in prime time more – which Ailes granted her, presumably without any sexual requirements.

Gretchen Carlson further alleges that her co-host Steve Doocy wasn’t nice to her, or something. In what sounds like an entitled 7th graders attempt to get a teacher to reprimand a boy she doesn’t think is giving her the attention she deserves, Carlson alleges her Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy of “attempting to put her in her place by refusing to accept and treat her as an intelligent and insightful female journalist rather than a blond female prop.” Notice there is no actual allegation – just nebulous whining with no example to support the claim whatsoever. Not even a single quote of Steve Doocy ever saying anything that would even hint at anything resembling the sentiment she alleges (“blonde female prop” are her and her lawyers words, not anything Doocy is alleged to have ever said. Sounds like a personal self-worth issue to me). Just a completely irresponsible unsupported smear.

If Carlson really thought that Roger Ailes was demanding that she have sex with him to keep her job, why did she stay at that job? If Carlson thought that her cohost Steve Doocy didn’t respect her then why didn’t she ever bring it up with him? and if she thought that she was being treated in a sexist fashion towards Doocy off-air, why did she think it was okay to treat him in a sexist fashion ON-air, including the time she made small-penis and erectile dysfunction jokes about him in a segment on Fox & Friends in where she surprise gifted him “Turkish Viagra”?

CONCLUSION (HOW SHE GOT AWAY WITH IT)
Given the evidence, and lack thereof of anything being alleged, you might be asking “how the hell did this phony get away with a $20 million settlement and why did Roger Ailes have to leave his position at the network in seeming disgrace?”…

Because of the bad press and damage to the company. I’ll once again note the possibility that an internal investigation found something improper that Carlson didn’t even allege in her legal filings and by pure coincidence Ailes got caught Al Capone style in this mess and deserved the outsting – but from the available public evidence, it merely looks like Gretchen Carlson complained publicly and loudly (and legally) about things entirely un-complaint-worthy (as evidenced by her own action at the time and afterward) and put the company in a situation where they had to either suffer millions of dollars worth of bad publicity in an election year when everything else is otherwise going great only to spend tens of millions in a legal battle that some idiot judge might actually award against them anyway – OR – usher Ailes out and pay off Carlson $20million for no reason other than she blackmailed the company for it. Remember: she alleges no harassment, no physical contact, no improper solicitation, and no evidence to support unjustified non-renewal of her crappy show on the network. Her accusations amount entirely to (paraphrasing) “Roger Ailes [whom I had a great relationship with, was friendly with, wrote hand written smiley notes to, and publicly thanked for giving me great opportunities] said a crass remark one time and then 9 months later when my show lost to the competing one on CNN in the ratings and did so poorly that it drug down the rest of the shows around me, my contract wasn’t renewed. Also, another on-air talent, Steve Doocey, didn’t appear to respect me very much. Give me $20 million dollars because I’m a victim now”.

People, me included, typically think that if a settlement like that takes place and the person in question resigned from their position, they must have been wildly guilty – and i’m shamed to even add the caveat (unsupported by any current evidence available) that that may be exactly the case for all I know – because “where there’s smoke, there’s fire”.

Know where there’s also allegedly a lot of fire? In hell, where vindictive liars who make tens of millions of dollars off of fabricating grievances to assassinate peoples characters and end their careers in revenge for their own professional failures.

Video: Mean parents won’t let adorable child keep a dead fish as a toy

As ridiculously cute as this viral video is, it kindov hurts my feelings to watch.
This kid went fishing and is so fascinated by one of the fish that he wants to keep it as a toy. That part is hilarious, but I found it heartbreaking to watch him unravel as he sees himself losing the appeal and not understanding why.

Obviously this had to be milked for at least a little while by the adults for the comedy gold, and I totally support that, but I wish they would have then explained a better reason for the “no” verdict on why he can’t put the dead fish in his toy box and keep it as a toy. My fantasy version of this is that after the camera was turned off, he got a full scientific explanation of the decomposition of organic matter to make him understand that the cool thing he’s holding now will not stay that way, making him accept through realization that he’s not being arbitrarily denied a reasonable request but rather that his intentions are simply unfeasible.

DAMN DANIEL is the best thing to happen to the internet in ages…

Zero percent irony. I like it and approve of it and am happy for these dudes.

If you’re late to the party: this string of snapchats of a dude commenting on his friend Daniels style (twice with white Vans) somehow caught fire and is now millions of views strong, half a million likes and re-tweets and it’s all beautifully wonderous. Here it is:

Enjoy the remixes…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6GN46_gjI8

4 Superbowl 2016 Lowlights

OMFG! I’m so excited for this years Superbowl football team competition game!!! jk. I know nothing about the teams or even the sport and would say I am unable to care less except for the fact that I know I hope the ponies win over the kitties cuz everyone is telling me the kitties are gonna take it, so I’m betting on TeamHorse. I intend to spend the time focusing on things that actually matter and peeking my head into the Grand Hall every once in awhile when Wheeler yells that commercials are on but anything else I catch will be noted.

UPDATE: Didn’t do much as far as life-blogging the event cuz it bored me to tears so badly but go me for betting on the winners. Now here are 5 losing moments from it all:

1- National Anthem Butchery
The American National Anthem should be sung up-tempo at a brisk pace without dramatic change to the inflection of the words. Why is this formula so abhorrent to musical blowhards? Lady Gaga is more talented and has better style than the silly hair and glitter suit with matching eyelids she wore while underperforming the anthem in that drawn out goofy style. Talented singers should be using the opportunity to showcase the anthem, not their spin on it. I like the idea of a Lady Gaga style rendition of the anthem delivered in a Gaga style costume and get-up, but not this style and not this get-up. I disapproved.

2- The Black-Power Halftime Show


For historians looking back at this post, I should note that this is written in the year 2016 in America, the least oppressive, most opportunity-giving country to minorities of all kinds on the planet. Beyonce went of the deep end with a literal “black power” performance. The “literal” addition is necessary to note that it’s not a disconnected observer tsk-tsk-ing something they don’t understand in some by-gone time of cultural bubble commentating but rather an information exposed internet-connected time where the ridiculous pandering to the lowest common denominator of by-gone segregations are being bizarrely glorified. Having such a whine-fest of supposed victimhood of an entire race of people, 60 years after any law allowing any kind of government allowable suppression of a race in the midst of a black-skinned presidents 2nd term in office is so small minded and counter-productive to unity, tolerance, and general acceptance that it is the kind of thing that deserves scorn and ridicule, not celebration at such a big event. Idk what the people who approved this display where thinking. It doesn’t help anything to re-inforce victim mindedness through an empowerment message when there is no racial oppression of any significance to overcome. Be empowered because you’re a person in a free society, not because you’re a black person in a white society. Get with the times, you dummies.

#Beyoncé Super Bowl performance yesterday. #DoubleStandard#BlackPantherparty#SuperBowl50

Posted by Johnathan Gentry on Monday, February 8, 2016

3- Absent: Good Commercials. Present: Dumb Attacks on them
The only thing I watch during this event and I already forgot them all. The only ones I remember are from tangential stories about them like the monkey baby thing allegedly being a tongue twister (i have no problem saying it) and the abortion rights group NARAL getting mad at the Doritos commercial that “humanized” a human fetus. I’m fine with people choosing abortion if their pregnancy has negative affects on their Doritos or other snack chip supply but it it’s more than a little-bit-completely stupid of an argument that developing human babies shouldn’t be humanized just because it makes you feel better about snipping it outta you, should you want to. Funny that humanizing animals is encouraged but humanizing human babies – omgz! noez!

4- Ponies Beat the Kitties
Everyone told me the cat team was going to ride the horse team to an easy win so evidently this was a big upset. Good.

Amy Schumer’s real failure is selling out to PC Principal

Amy Schumer is getting bashed for stealing jokes but I dint that topic to be without smoking-guns and far too pedestrian even if there was outright proof paired with a full admission from Schumer herself. I like Amy and she falls in my “can’t help but to root for” category but she is letting me down with her capitulation to political correctness, the opposition to which is what built her foundation of fame.

Gavin McInness dissects the topic exquisitely, here:

 

Dumb “If you’re cold, they’re cold” meme has dumb ripple effects on zoos

Awhile ago a meme began surfacing in different iterations using a completely  baseless emotional fallacy that claimed “If you’re cold, they’re cold” regarding cats and dogs in the snow. The premise is of course the lie that “cats and dogs are people too” and thus should be treated exactly the same as what would be humane or kind to a human being, instead of simply what is humane and kind for a cat or a dog.

I blame it for furthering pop-culture ignorance on how fur-laden animals generate and retain body heat in contradistinction to puny fleshy humans.

I’m connecting the dots from that mass distributed ignorance to the fear instilled in animal keepers now who are too afraid to post animals in snow without disclaimers that they are not abusing them by letting them freeze to death or otherwise causing them great suffering.

The Twitter account for the Smithsonian’s National Zoo & Conservation Biology Institute wants to make extra super sure you know their animals are safe in snow. So much so that nearly every tweet from January 21st-23rd mentioned some kind of thinly masked disclaimer that the animals are not being horrifically neglected. 

The Starbucks Christmas Cups Controversy that Wasn’t

Mollie Hemingway recaps the chain of events by noting that on November 5, Raheem Kassam of Breitbart London wrote what she accurately describes as “a pretty tongue-in-cheek report on the new ‘This is really not a Christmas cup but sort of vaguely holiday-themed’ to-go cup from Starbucks” and points out its tongue-in-cheekness through the use of lines like “And behold, Starbucks did conceive and bear a red cup, and called his name blasphemy” and “Frankly, the only thing that can redeem them from this whitewashing of Christmas is to print Bible verses on their cups next year. Not that I’d buy their burnt coffee anyway. And certainly not while they keep spelling my name ‘Ragih’ (right) on their cups.”

I thought it was a totally fine piece that poked fun at the cup for being even more bland than normal, but I noticed that some of the more liberal Christians (names hidden to protect those of us who tweet impulsively) I follow were immediately aghast at this Breitbart piece, on the assumption it was meant to launch a serious War on Christmas battle.

And that is exactly what happened. When I first started seeing mention of this non-controversy, it was zero-percent from outraged Christians, who were no where to be found, and 100% from hippies mocking the “war on Christmas trope”.

In response to the people talking about the outrage, some people started trickling in joining the dialog with low-level notation of the removal of Christmas imagery being unfortunate. And that’s it. In fact – I’m one of those people: I didn’t notice and didn’t care and continue to not care, but while other people are talking about it, I’m going to add my 2 cents in that yes, it’s a lame move that the Christmas imagery was deleted from an international chains seasonal cuppery. That was the totality of the buzz on this issue until a Christian shock jock made a laughably stupid video in where he is seen transparently leveraging the semi-trending topic for his own gain while doing what essentially amounted to a commercial for Starbucks and his clownish self.

On November 5, Josh Feuerstein, an Arizona preacher, Facebook vertical video ranter, and Fred Durst-style backwards cap-wearer, basically a Christian version of Howard Stern, posted a 1-minute 18-second video about a red-hued mass-produced beverage receptible. You see, he went to Starbucks to get his morning cup of coffee and was handed a simple red cup. He immediately felt triggered by this holiday-colored but not holiday-decorated design, so he retreated to his safe space of portrait-oriented internet video and expressed this offense to the world.

And horrifically, the world listened. As of this writing Feuerstein’s video has 12,247,900 views, 153,895 likes, 447,838 shares, and 36,094 comments. Normally I don’t recommend reading comments on internet posts, but in this case it’s illuminating.

In the video, Feuerstein claims to have “tricked” Starbucks into putting Christmas on their cups by telling them his name was “Merry Christmas” so that when his beverage was ready, that would be the marker on the cup and then he encourages everyone watching to do the same (and to of course connect using a hashtag that promotes himself in this silly exercise).


Image credit

This stunt and the attention it got only raised the volume on the previous version of the sentiment on this non-topic: No one caring about the cups, but as long as it’s showing up everywhere as a headlined discussion allegedly going on, most people say that the design change was for the worse. That’s it. No protests or organized boycott sweeping the nation, or even any national commentators jumping on board claiming these coffee cups are an outrage of any kind. Yet there *have* been plenty headlines claiming that is the case, as opportunists have found themselves unable to pass at the prospect of making Christians looking like the perpetually outraged idiots we keep seeing from hippies in service to politically Leftist causes.

But while any real controversy fails to actually manifest, the “War on Christmas” of course re-appears as it does every year. As Mollie Hemingway reminds:

Every year we see battles over Christmas and whether it’s under siege. These battles usually take place in the public square or the market. Should town squares have Christmas trees? What about malls? Should they be renamed holiday trees? Unnamed “holy days” are less offensive than the specific holy day we all know we’re marking, right? Can government school students sing carols and not have their choir instructor sued into financial ruin? Or is it better to stick with such choral classics as “Dreidel, Dreidel, Dreidel” and “I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus” or whatever is less offensive than a Bach Christmas cantata?

Stories about the battles are easy to write. When the two sides are politically correct bullies and supposedly pious protesters who have nothing better to complain about, it’s easier still to simply root for casualties. But what if we didn’t just respond to shock jocks trolling for traffic and revenue-generating clicks and instead thought through the tension between commercialization and sacralization of holy days?

 In the meantime, this hoax of a story has been great PR for Starbucks.

 

 

 

“Thanks for the free stuff, Suckers!” – Clock Boy Ahmed to move to Quatar (and sues school)

Ahmed Mohamed, the kid who was briefly detained by police after bringing the innards from a disassembled nightstand clock to school in a briefcase and plugged it in to be found instead of obeying his teachers instruction to keep it covered since they both acknowledged that it looked like a bomb, is moving to the middle east with his crazy whom I am deducing put him up to all this (I don’t have proof of this – I’m just concluding based on his fathers radical past, anti-american suggestions and 9/11 Conspiracy pushing vs Ahmed himself whom by all accounts seems like a regular and pleasant American kid unfortunate enough to be in such a situation where he’s used as a prop in such a way).

Known as “clock boy”, Ahmed was briefly but high-profile-ly a pop-culture darling as hippie editors across the media scrambled to lionize his bomb prank that received no punishment (just brief inconvenience as he was questioned) as an example of racist America persecuting muslims.

After it was virtually unanimously confirmed that this was a hoax and said media-hippies were duped out of confirmation-bias that desperately hopes someone somewhere will embody their narrative of racist persecution, Ahmed faded from the headlines and now his family is moving to Qatar – a country that aids and abets terrorists – instead of accept his invites to intern at Twitter or go to MIT…

Ahmed responded, “I would love to!! MIT is my dream school.”

Eyman said Qatar is “basically like America,” because American universities like Texas A&M and Carnegie Mellon have Qatari-side campuses.

Also in the press release, Mohamed Elhassen Mohamed said: “After careful consideration of all the generous offers received, we would like to announce that we have accepted a kind offer from Qatar Foundation for Education, Science and Community Development (QF) for Ahmed to join the prestigious QF Young Innovators Program, which reflects the organization’s on-going dedication to empowering young people and fostering a culture of innovation and creativity.”

Earlier this month, QF gifted the teen and his family with a trip and tour of the five-mile Education City, founded by Al Jazeera creator Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, who is closely associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and opposes what he calls the “Judaization of Jerusalem” in referencing the Jewish Holy City and Israeli capitol, founded it. In late 2012, the New York Times reported Al Thani pledged $400 million to fund Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Mohamed Elhassen Mohamed said he was hugely impressed by the complex.

Of course…

Through out their entire time in the media spotlight, the family played the Islamophobia card, blaming the arrest and suspension on Ahmed being a “Muslim boy.” Earlier today, San Jose, California Democrat Rep. Mike Honda organized a press conference with Ahmed and the family to announce his effort in asking the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate Ahmed’s arrest and treatment by police, ABC News reported.

“We are going to move to a place where my kids can study and learn and all of them being accepted by that country,” said the patriarch earlier today to the Dallas news outlet. However, as Breitbart Texas reported, Ahmed’s clock woes happened based on the state and federal safe school and zero tolerance policies. Even the Associated Press agreed, blaming “rigid disciplinary policies” adopted by schools in the 199os.

But that wasn’t before getting shout outs from tech companies like Facebook and Google, and an invite to meet President Obama, and thousands of dollars in donations, and lots of free swag for some reason.

Ahmed with a ton of tech goodies gifted to him by Microsoft because Reasons.

UPDATE: Suing from Quatar, the family also wants $15 million from the city and school due to the psychological damage Ahmed allegedly suffered by being lawfully detained after committing a crime…

After he was released, he was invited to both Google (where he met Sergey Brin) and Facebook. President Barack Obama called him an inspiration for kids who want to study science and invited him to the White House. Time magazine named him in its list of “30 Most Influential Teens of 2015.

But that was all then. Now, it’s time for the legal action. After no charges were filed against him and he finally got his clock back, attorneys for Ahmed and his family have written to both the city of Irving and to the Irving Independent School District and made demands.

As the Dallas Morning News reports, the letters ask for $10 million from the city and $5 million from the school district. They say he was “publicly mistreated.” They say he suffered “severe psychological trauma.”

Anne Romney on being a baller Grandma

Future first lady Ann Romney (yes this post was written in 2015 before the Romney 2016 announcement has been treated seriously by anyone or been made or hinted at) is a delightful person. Via IJ Review:

It’s not hilarious. but I like it. Partially cuz of my confirmation-bias in how much I like Ann Romney but also because of the personality that leaks through. She’s so obviously not in her element with this brand of Silly but its not stiff or phony the way it is when you see someone like Hillary Clinton try to do comedy. Ann is plenty stiff in it but that’s because she’s a grandma and not a performer – contrary to Hillary Clinton doing skit appearances that come off robotic because just letting any kind of personal looseness happen comes off as wildly uncomfortable for her. In other words: Ann comes off as a grandma doing an impression of a comedian while Hillary’s attempts at levity look like a robot doing an impression of a human being.

I also find it adorable that the Romney’s are so Ned-Flandersian that the original title of “baller grandma” was too raunchy for her and she opted for the 2nd choice of “Freakin Awesome Grandma” instead. Hot Air summarized it well:

Best goof on a famously wholesome mom’s image since Barbara “Leave It To Beaver” Billingsley spoke jive in “Airplane!”