Subscribe via RSS Feed

Author Page for Scott Lemieux

rss feed

Hopefully A New Round of Upper-Class Tax Cuts Will Unleash More of This Kind of Innovation

[ 179 ] April 19, 2017 |

The thing is, our benign Silicon Valley titans are simply better and smarter people than you or me. I mean, if plutocrats were taxed at the kind of rates that prevailed when the United States had Full Communism before Reagan, would we get immensely valuable and proactive new products like this?

One of the most lavishly funded gadget startups in Silicon Valley last year was Juicero Inc. It makes a juice machine. The product was an unlikely pick for top technology investors, but they were drawn to the idea of an internet-connected device that transforms single-serving packets of chopped fruits and vegetables into a refreshing and healthy beverage.

Doug Evans, the company’s founder, would compare himself with Steve Jobs in his pursuit of juicing perfection. He declared that his juice press wields four tons of force—“enough to lift two Teslas,” he said. Google’s venture capital arm and other backers poured about $120 million into the startup. Juicero sells the machine for $400, plus the cost of individual juice packs delivered weekly. Tech blogs have dubbed it a “Keurig for juice.”

But after the product hit the market, some investors were surprised to discover a much cheaper alternative: You can squeeze the Juicero bags with your bare hands. Two backers said the final device was bulkier than what was originally pitched and that they were puzzled to find that customers could achieve similar results without it. Bloomberg performed its own press test, pitting a Juicero machine against a reporter’s grip. The experiment found that squeezing the bag yields nearly the same amount of juice just as quickly—and in some cases, faster—than using the device.

Juicero declined to comment. A person close to the company said Juicero is aware the packs can be squeezed by hand but that most people would prefer to use the machine because the process is more consistent and less messy. The device also reads a QR code printed on the back of each produce pack and checks the source against an online database to ensure the contents haven’t expired or been recalled, the person said. The expiration date is also printed on the pack.

All hail the SUPERGENIUS of our Silicon Valley overlords!

This is a brilliant idea, no doubt. But over breakfast this morning a perhaps even more shatteringly DISRUPTIVE paradigm occurred to me. What if you made a juice out of the extract of fruit…and put it in a bottle, eliminating the need for squeezing (whether at the free or $400 price point) altogether? I know, sounds crazy, but I think it could work! He’s a quick sketch of my transformative proposal:


Please send all seven-figure venture capital investments to the address on the right of the page.


Fox News Has Finally Had Enough of Bill O’Reilly

[ 57 ] April 19, 2017 |

A welcome, if decidedly postmature, decision:

The Murdochs have decided Bill O’Reilly’s 21-year run at Fox News will come to an end. According to sources briefed on the discussions, network executives are preparing to announce O’Reilly’s departure before he returns from an Italian vacation on April 24. Now the big questions are how the exit will look and who will replace him.

Wednesday morning, according to sources, executives are holding emergency meetings to discuss how they can sever the relationship with the country’s highest-rated cable-news host without causing collateral damage to the network. The board of Fox News’ parent company, 21st Century Fox, is scheduled to meet on Thursday to discuss the matter.

Sources briefed on the discussions say O’Reilly’s exit negotiations are moving quickly. Right now, a key issue on the table is whether he would be allowed to say good-bye to his audience, perhaps the most loyal in all of cable (O’Reilly’s ratings have ticked up during the sexual-harassment allegations). Fox executives are leaning against allowing him to have a sign-off, sources say. The other main issue on the table is money. O’Reilly recently signed a new multiyear contract worth more than $20 million per year. When Roger Ailes left Fox News last summer, the Murdochs paid out $40 million, the remainder of his contract.

It’s better that he be off the air than on the air, but given the large if not Ailes-level golden parachute he almost certainly has coming, I wouldn’t call this a “good” outcome either.

On his way out, his lawyer did contribute this classic to the annals of non-denial denials:

“It is outrageous that an allegation from an anonymous person about something that purportedly happened almost a decade ago is being treated as fact, especially where there is obviously an orchestrated campaign by activists and lawyers to destroy Mr. O’Reilly and enrich themselves through publicity-driven donation,” Mr. Kasowitz said.

That’s quite a few words to avoid saying “he didn’t do it.”

Goodbye, and Bad Luck

[ 50 ] April 19, 2017 |


One of America’s most disgusting politicians — and that ain’t an easy contest! — will be retreating from the slime from whence he emerged:

Rep. Jason Chaffetz will not seek re-election in 2018, two sources who have been informed of his decision told BuzzFeed on Wednesday morning.

Chaffetz later confirmed in a statement on Facebook that he will “will not be a candidate for any office in 2018.”

“Since late 2003 I have been fully engaged with politics as a campaign manager, a chief of staff, a candidate and as a Member of Congress. I have long advocated public service should be for a limited time and not a lifetime or full career. Many of you have heard me advocate, ‘Get in, serve, and get out.’ After more than 1,500 nights away from my home, it is time. I may run again for public office, but not in 2018,” he said.

Donald Trump can be secure that Chaffetz will continue to be his completely servile lickspittle and fail to exercise his institutional responsibilities even if he’s not running for anything.

As for why he’s actually leaving, I have no idea, but this is certainly what I want to be true:

[Jane Alexander voice] If you guys could just get Jason Chaffetz…that would be beautiful.


[ 75 ] April 19, 2017 |

Solid showing, but not quite the outright majority needed for a runoff:

Roughly five hours after polling locations closed, major networks began projecting that Georgia’s 6th District special election would be heading toward a runoff on June 20.

That means Democrat Jon Ossoff and Republican Karen Handel, the race’s top two vote-getters, will have nine more weeks of expensive and heating campaigning before voters will decide who will replace Tom Price, now Trump’s health secretary, as the representative for Atlanta’s affluent, leafy northern suburbs in the House.

The runoff is definitely not a lock but it’s winnable. However it turns out, needless to say the lesson will be that the Democratic Party is permanently doomed because of its perfidious neoliberalism.

Political Media Loves Gossipy Book That Ignores Political Media’s Role In Election

[ 315 ] April 18, 2017 |


You know the drill. After every losing presidential campaign, there will be multiple books consisting of random inside baseball anecdotes from the losing campaign. They will get fawning reviews and the Mark Halperin one will get made into an HBO movie. The core premise of all such books is that structural factors are irrelevant, and that a campaign losing proves that the losing campaign was worse. The strategists with access to the reporter assure the reporter that they were right about everything but were ignored; field offices assure the reporter that they would have won if given enough money; disagreements within the campaign team are revealed; self-interested claims are always taken at face value if they reflect badly on the losing campaign. And, critically, the role played by the media is always ignored. Michiko Kakutani’s review of the first quickie campaign book hits every mark, but let’s just consider this:

There was a perfect storm of other factors, of course, that contributed to Clinton’s loss, including Russian meddling in the election to help elect Trump; the controversial decision by the F.B.I. director, James Comey, to send a letter to Congress about Clinton’s emails less than two weeks before Election Day; and the global wave of populist discontent with the status quo (signaled earlier in the year by the British “Brexit” vote) that helped fuel the rise of both Trump and Bernie Sanders. In a recent interview, Clinton added that she believed “misogyny played a role” in her loss.


After a planned appearance in Green Bay with President Obama was postponed, the authors write, Clinton never set foot in Wisconsin, a key state. In fact, they suggest, the campaign tended to take battleground states like Wisconsin and Michigan (the very states that would help hand the presidency to Trump) for granted until it was too late, and instead looked at expanding the electoral map beyond Democratic-held turf and traditional swing states to places like Arizona.

The Comey letter (which almost certainly changed the outcome of the campaign) and Russian interference (which might have, but the impact is much harder to measure) are given the usual yadda-yadda graf that makes no effort to determine how important they were and is written in a matter that suggests that even bringing them up is whining. On the other hand, resource allocation decisions that we know were not decisive (insufficient resources dedicated to WI and MI) are asserted to be crucial causal factors. But, again, the problem is that neither campaign devoted much attention to Michigan, and Clinton fought hard and consistently outspent Trump in Pennsylvania. The latter case is crucial, not only because WI and MI are meaningless without PA, but the outcome in PA shows that you can’t just assume that dedicating more resources would have changed the outcome. But, of course, the acknowledging that campaign tactics are a rather minor factor in determining the outcome of presidential elections would completely undermine books that argue that campaign tactics are massively important.

And the yadda-yadda graf is also notable for what’s missing — the media. Kakutani’s newspaper devoted 5 (out of 6) above-the-fold stories to Comey’s “controversial” letter the weekend after it came out. As Kakutani tastefully omits, like so many media outlets the Times was played — there was no basis for the belief that Weiner’s laptop would contain evidence implicating Clinton and the FBI quickly determined that it didn’t. The Times played a major role in amplifying the FBI director’s baseless implication that Clinton was a crook less than two weeks before the election. So I think why you can see why Kakutani passes over this remarkable and unique aspect of the 2016 campaign in a few words before returning to the bog-standard, unfalsifiable second-guessing that happens after every losing campaign.

But it’s a nice racket. Amazingly enough, pundits who were obsessed with Clinton’s EMAILS! are very pleased by books which assure them that they were irrelevant to the campaign:

Screen Shot 2017-04-18 at 12.03.47 PM

Does the Clinton campaign need self-examination? Sure. But so does the media, and all signs are that we’re never getting it.

A One-Way Ratchet

[ 103 ] April 18, 2017 |

John-Yoo-on-CNN-800x430Call your agent!

This is a good roundup of the greatest hits of the latest addition to the NYT op-ed page, but I think we have to start with this:

I am not sorry Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the operational mastermind of 9/11, was waterboarded 183 times… I am sorry KSM remains alive nearly 12 years after his capture. He has been let off far too lightly. As for his waterboarding, it never would have happened if he had been truthful with his captors. It stopped as soon as he became cooperative. As far as I’m concerned, he waterboarded himself.

“If they hadn’t done, what I told them not to do, they’d still be a alive.” Plenty more where this came from.

So why did the NYT feel this was the voice it needed to add? Well:

The charge that Stephens is a “climate denialist” is “terribly unfair,” Bennet said. “There’s more than one kind of denial,” he continued. “And to pretend like the views of a thinker like Bret, and the millions of people who agree with him on a range of issues, should simply be ignored, that they’re outside the bounds of reasonable debate, is a really dangerous form of delusion.”

There, is, indeed, more than one form of denial.

First of all, it’s not really clear what void Stephens is filling at the Times unless support for torture and climitae denialism are views the editors really think need a hearing. Their relatively small stable of columnists already includes two genteel white male conservatives who don’t support Trump. What contribution is Stephens making here, exactly?

But, of course, there’s a bigger problem here, and Calderone and Bauman point out:

But as far as embracing views far to the left or right, the Times’ full-time opinion writers have never represented a particularly wide range. The paper has never had a Pat Buchanan or Steve Bannon, a strident right-wing populist arguing against free trade, immigration and U.S. intervention abroad. Nor has it played host to a regular columnist from the anti-war left in the vein of Michael Moore, or an anti-capitalist like Naomi Klein.

Amazing how this commitment to hearing a broad array of viewpoints can always justify hiring another standard-issue Republican white guy but can never justify hiring anyone to Paul Krugman’s left.

Yet Another Amazing Coincidence

[ 435 ] April 17, 2017 |


Drum notes that Trump’s approval ratings shot up 6 points after the director of the FBI decided to imply that his opponent was a crook less than two weeks before the election, generating a massive wave of negative media coverage at a time when an unusually high percentage of voters were making up their minds:

Screen Shot 2017-04-17 at 3.52.10 PM

Some of this might be Republicans coming home. But compare Mitt Romney:


And when you combine this with everything else…the idea that the Comey letter did not change the outcome of the election ceteris paribus is massively implausible.

As a counterpoint, Andrew Sullivan — who is willing to discuss his hatred of Hillary Clinton with only the very greatest reluctance — remains confident that Hillary Clinton’s campaign tactics are the sole relevant variable. For example, she didn’t distribute her voters as efficiently in Electoral College terms as John Kerry and Al Gore chose to, and she did not contest Wisconsin (and, apparently, its 60 electoral votes) vigorously enough. Do these very compelling explanations mean we should ignore the effect that coverage of the Comey letter had on the race? I report, you decide!

Trump Isn’t a “Centrist.” He’s the More Racist Third Term of George W. Bush.

[ 69 ] April 17, 2017 |


Beutler observes that it’s still very wrong to say that Trump is meaningfully pivoting to the center:

It is strange, for instance, to describe the combined law enforcement policy of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, economic policy of adviser Gary Cohn, and foreign policy of Trump’s Twitter feed and the military generals in his good graces as “centrism.” Trump has instead taken the three-pronged fusionism of standard movement conservatism—pro-corporate economic policy, religious right-wing social policy, and hawkish foreign policy—and stripped away any pretense of concern for racial equality and inclusiveness. Describing that kind of platform as “centrist” is both inaccurate and a gift to reactionary forces in society.

Chait has similar thoughts:

From the perspective of 2017, more than eight years after Bush departed office, the comparison between the two presidents may sound comforting. That is largely because Bush has disappeared into his painting studio, his reputation benefitting from both his general absence from the political scene and the particular contrast with his frightening, orange quasi-nemesis. It is easy to look back on Bush’s tenure as comparatively benign — but Bush’s presidency was a period of gross misgovernance. His legacy includes not only Iraq and Katrina, but his obsession with cutting taxes for the rich, a comprehensive fealty to the business lobby, rampant corruption, refusal to take any steps to limit climate change, and a deregulatory agenda that set the conditions for the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

The Bush presidency was the most comprehensive governing failure of any administration since at least Herbert Hoover, and it ought to have poisoned the party’s national brand as deeply as it did Hoover’s GOP (which did not win another presidential election for twenty years). But the Republican Party managed to largely skirt the reputational fallout from the Bush catastrophe. It did so, in part, through the tea party: Conservatives hailed right-wing protests against Barack Obama as a call for ideological purity, cleansing the supposed big-government, cronyist tendencies of the Bush administration. The Republican Party of the Obama era insisted it had learned the lessons of the Bush years, when its agenda had devolved into little more than shoveling cash to K Street. The post-Bush GOP was allegedly sadder and wiser and filled with righteous abhorrence for the temptations of lobbyists and deficit spending.

Those lessons have all been forgotten. The Republican government, under Trump, has retraced the steps it took under Bush — from the obsession with tax cuts for the rich, to the vanishing line between the party’s paid lobbyists and its public servants. The reality is that, contrary to the willful misreading of conservatives elites, the tea-party revolution was not fundamentally a reaction against deficits or crony capitalism: It was a heavily racialized backlash against social change. And that spirit — the true animating spirit of the grassroots right — has lived on in Trump’s presidency.


The Trumpian mix of K Street economics and Breitbartian racial messaging is not a perfectly natural one. Trump’s vicious ethnonationalism makes his wealthy advisers and donors (many of them the same people) uncomfortable, especially the portions that disrupt their transborder workforce. And Trump’s elitist economic policy is the opposite of what his downscale white base thought he would deliver. But it fits together closely enough to function. The political reality Trump has discovered through trial and error is that he is delivering each constituency the thing it most craves. Trump’s white-identity politics satisfy his voting base enough to make his plutocratic economics tolerable. And the financial and political elite are willing to swallow their qualms about his ugly ethnonationalism because they are going to get paid. If you thought George W. Bush was generally.

In terms of “political time,” I’m more convinced than ever that to the extent that regime politics is applicable to polarized, ideologically coherent partisan coalitions, Trump is an “articulation” president rather than a”disjunctive” one. The Trump administration is just a further refinement of Reaganism: tax cuts, attacks on civil rights from the executive and judicial branches, deregulation, but lacking the ability to carry out frontal assaults on major New Deal programs. Trump doesn’t fundamentally change this, and even a one-term Trump presidency wouldn’t indicate that this coalition is no longer a viable force.

Jack Shafer: Media Analysis For People Who Think Maureen Dowd is Too Deep and Too Funny

[ 66 ] April 14, 2017 |

Above: Jack Shafer (Michael Palin) interacts with a pompous yet naive schlub who expects to learn something from Politico’s media critic (John Cleese)

Jack Shafer — the only pundit with the courage to tell it like it is, that everything about the media’s coverage of the 2016 campaign was just fine — has one MOAB take:

Observers have been waiting for more than a year for Donald Trump to stop acting like a beer hall bouncer and start acting more presidential. On Wednesday, that wish came true, as Baby Donald completed his transformation into a standard chief executive of the United States by espousing many of the hallmark policies one would have associated with President Hillary Clinton.

Really? Hillary Clinton advocated putting neoconfederate reactionaries on the Supreme Court, taking health insurance away from 25 million people to pay for upper-class tax cuts, more upper-class tax cuts, issue racist travel bans, defunding Planned Parenthood, and gutting the EPA? I did. not. know. that. Actually, I still don’t know that.

Hillary Clinton’s presidency would have been a family affair, with Bill and Chelsea mobbing the White House with their advice; Trump has seated daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner at on his roundtable and acts on their guidance.

Hillary Clinton is married to a former president of the United States and has a Graspingly Ambitious daughter who will be totally running for some unspecified political office any day now, which when you think about it is just like Donald Trump making his completely unqualified children and in-laws prominent jobs in the West Wing while some of his other children continue to run his business so he can extract bribes more effectively.

Hillary Clinton would have gone to war with the Republican Congress, vowing to campaign against them once they refused to pass her legislation; Trump has come close to realizing that goal, telling the leader of the troublesome House Freedom Caucus, “Mark, I’m coming after you.”

“Come close” — now that’s how you bullshit.

Elsewhere on the Clintonification front, Trump through his legislative bungling has preserved Obamacare, which he vowed to repeal

Yes, trying and failing to repeal the ACA while threatening to damage it administratively makes him pretty much exactly like Hillary Clinton.

and is ready to make common cause with Democrats to pass an infrastructure pork bill.

LOL sure keep waiting for that (and also “pork bill” okay.) Jack Shafer received his MA in political science from Trump University, just like Hillary Clinton.

When not drawing on Clinton for inspiration, Trump has turned to Barack Obama. Before and during the campaign, he criticized Obama for golfing instead of tending to whatever crisis in high fermentation that moment. “I’m going to be working for you. I’m not going to have time to go play golf,” Trump said last August. He’s taken a mulligan on that pledge as president, exceeding Obama’s devotion to the links with gusto. According to a Palm Beach Post tally, Trump played 14 times during his first 82 days in office while Obama averaged about 9.3 trips to the courses every 82 days for his entire presidency.

Republicans used to speciously criticize Obama for playing golf, Trump plays golf all the time, which shows that Trump is like Hillary Clin…have I reached my minimum word count yet?

To his credit—or detriment, depending on where you stand—Trump has remained stalwart on several of his signature issues. He’s taken decidedly anti-Clinton policy moves on abortion, immigration, environmental regulation, illicit drugs and crime.

Don’t forget the Supreme Court. And taxes. Anyway, when you ignore the many issues where they’re different really Trump is the same as Hillary Clinton. Jack Shafer does not have any cheese at all. Not a scrap. He was deliberately wasting your time.

Will the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny Dump a Truck Full of Money on Your Front Lawn This Week? It’s Possible!

[ 80 ] April 14, 2017 |


Ann Althouse’s response to Linda Greenhouse starts…problematically:

But I think it’s easily possible for many Americans to see the Supreme Court as a legitimate, independent branch — and not in spite of but because of the election. The death of Antonin Scalia, less than a year before the presidential election, made what we want from the Court a big issue in the campaign. Denying the outgoing President his choice gave Americans our choice. What sort of person belongs on the Court? Candidate Trump committed to a list of names, and Hillary Clinton had endless opportunities to criticize his choices and offer her own, and the people voted. It seems to have been the decisive issue for many of us. The kind of Justices Trump promised to nominate — and Gorsuch was known and named — are what Americans think belongs on the Court.

Even leaving aside the fact that the Court wasn’t a particularly big issue in the campaign, I remain unclear why what the electorate said in 2016 is more indicative of what the public wants out of the Supreme Court than what it said in 2012. The bigger problem with this argument is that the American people spoke…and said they preferred Hillary Clinton, although they were thwarted by America’s undemocratic presidential selection process.

Look, from a procedural standpoint there’s a perfectly reasonable defense of McConnell’s actions. The Supreme Court is a political branch; the norm that the Senate will defer to a president’s choices is dead; McConnell had an opportunity within the rules of the Senate to take a Supreme Court seat and he took it. But let’s not make some mystical defense of his actions in terms of the people’s will.

But now we get to the real rube-running:

But here’s the tricky part. Once the nominee is confirmed and goes on the Court, he (or she) becomes independent. There’s life tenure, and the Justice has sworn to follow the judicial method and to stick to deciding cases according to the law. It’s not supposed to be political.

So the other way that it’s possible for people not to see the Supreme Court as a partisan tool is if they believe what the nominees always say in the confirmation process: Partisanship and political preference have no place in the work of a judge. It’s what Gorsuch assured us. It’s what everyone else on the Court assured us. And it’s what Merrick Garland would have assured us.

Now, it’s probably not what Linda Greenhouse believes, nor is it what her compatriots in the coastal elite believe. And I can tell you it’s not what is generally believed on the higher altitudes of the Blue Island where I live. But I at least understand how many of my fellow Americans can believe it.

And how can nominee after nominee sit before the Senate and swear they will do something if no one can possibly think that it’s true? It’s possible.

And that’s why the Supreme Court isn’t even broken, let alone the sole possession of the Republican Party.

You really have to love the assertion that it’s only “coastal elites” who deny that “[p]artisanship and political preference have no place in the work” of a Supreme Court justice. Apparently, she’s using the Trumpian definition, i.e. “people who know what they’re talking about.” The idea that political preference does not play a major role in the work of a Supreme Court justice is quite simply absurd. (Does Althouse think that Mitch McConnell denied Marrick Garland a hearing because of his strong commitment to a particular legal method?)

It doesn’t even require a particularly strong form of legal realism to recognize this obvious truth. There are, in my view, any number of legal questions to which the relevant text provides determinate answers, and there are also many cases in which a legal question is resolved by a black-letter precedent a court is bound to follow. To state the obvious, virtually none of the cases that come to a top appellate court that for the most part carefully chooses its own docket and is permitted to overrule its own precedents fall into this category. Virtually by definition Supreme Court cases involve cases where reasonable people can disagree about what the law means, and in politically salient cases these questions are going to be resolved politically. And when dealing with broad constitutional principles like “unreasonable serach and seizure” or “due process of the law” or “cruel and unusual punishment” the idea that there could be determinate answers technically derived from applying legal methods in cases of any interest is wrong on its face.

This doesn’t mean that the law is irrelevant to the Supreme Court. Votes on the merits in politically salient cases are largely determined by policy preferences, but the law matters to what cases the Supreme Court chooses to resolve, what legal questions the court chooses to answer, etc. But the idea that it’s possible that Neil Gorsuch, a longtime Republican operative who reaches results that conservatives find politically agreeable in case after case, will suddenly turn into Santa Claus an impartial, apolitical legal technician is transparent nonsense.

I genuinely wonder how a tenured law professor can write this twaddle. Is she insulting the intelligence of her readers? Is she trying to convince herself her career wasn’t devoted to a lie a la Larry Lessig? It’s bizarre.

Jeffrey Lord is the George Washington of Pathetic Donald Trump Lickspittles

[ 46 ] April 14, 2017 |


Heckuva job, CNN!

The White House’s attempt to gather Democratic votes for a scheme of this sort, said Lord on CNN, qualifies as a historic moment. “I want to say something here that I know will probably drive Symone crazy, but think of President Trump as the Martin Luther King of health care,” Lord argued. “When I was a kid, President Kennedy didn’t want to introduce the civil rights bill because he said it wasn’t popular, he didn’t have the votes for it, etc. Dr. King kept putting people in the streets in harm’s way to put the pressure on so that the bill would be introduced.”

These are the wages of “shape of the Earth, views differ” as an imperative to structure your commentary. An analogy that is both offensive and makes no sense on any level, explicitly made solely to piss off the liberal foil. Our media is not learning.

How’re you going to make your way in the world when you weren’t cut out for working?

[ 80 ] April 13, 2017 |

To make a highly unoriginal observation, the Trump administration is an object lesson in just how far the most mediocre affluent white men can ascend. This starts at the top, with the guy who has gotten himself portrayed as a brilliant businessman by parlaying a massive inherited fortune into one that is almost certainly much smaller than it would be had he just put the whole shebang in a mutual fund. There’s his spokesman, who can’t get through an anodyne press conference without doing stuff like babbling about how Hitler never used poison gas with the Notably Rare Exception of his Holocaust Gallerias. And then there’s his useless children and in-laws, who seem to be getting an undue benefit of the doubt because they’re inept kleptocrats rather than fascists:

iuielvylldtkjj32xskwAbove: Vineyard Vines is proud to announce its new spring look, suitable for military cosplay

Clearly, commentary on this picture has to be outsourced to Magary:

Behold idiot son-in-law Jared Kushner—the man now in charge of brokering Middle East peace, Uberizing the federal government, reforming the entire criminal justice system, and keeping Donald Trump’s hands off his wife. This perfect still frame from a David O. Russell film has also been put in charge of beating ISIS. Yes, ISIS!

And what better way to terrify the caliphate than by sauntering around in a bulletproof vest that’s been personalized like a pair of Underoos, and then wearing it OVER a goddamn blazer? It’s a sharp look, one that says, “I’d like to make a war, but I’d also like a mint julep.”

Page 2 of 90912345...102030...Last »