Wage Gap x 46

I thought something sounded fishy about the claim that the star of Wonder Woman made 46 times less than the star of the new Superman movies.

No, Gal Gadot Isn’t Making 46 Times Less Than Henry Cavill

It would be perfectly indicative of the gender pay gap that lingers in Hollywood . . . if it were at all true. As the Elle article that sent the stat viral said itself, Cavill’s $14 million earnings include bonuses for box-office performance, while Gadot’s $300,000, per a 2014 Variety report, is just the base salary for each movie she’s made thus far in the DC Universe.
***
For superhero franchises just getting started, though, the process is usually simple: find a star on the rise, pay him or her relatively little, and then offer more if the franchise takes off. Marvel pioneered the effort with Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, and Chris Hemsworth, all of whom were reportedly paid less than $500,000 for their first solo superhero outings but eventually landed much bigger paydays for subsequent entries. (Downey Jr. famously made $50 million for The Avengers, and helped his co-stars negotiate higher salaries themselves.) Cavill, like Hemsworth and Evans and Gadot when their franchises started, was more of an unknown and likely to have signed the same lowball salary contract with a promise of future returns.

So while Gadot’s $300,000 is pretty small compared with the millions her movie has made, she hasn’t sold herself short; the actress hasn’t yet signed a deal for the now-inevitable Wonder Woman 2, and her agents are surely already working to net their 10 percent of her much-larger payday. (Director Patty Jenkins is also expected to negotiate for a higher payday, even though her contract doesn’t include an option for a sequel, which Gadot’s does.) Given Wonder Woman’s popularity compared with the tepid returns for Batman’s and Superman’s latest outings, it’s not hard to imagine Gadot following in Robert Downey Jr.’s footsteps as the de facto leader of the franchise. First woman to be paid $50 million for a superhero movie? We wouldn’t be surprised.

Encouraging Violence II

IT’S TRUMP’S FAULT!

Republican congressman says TRUMP is partly to blame for ‘demons that have been unleashed’ in lead up to baseball shooting

Rep. Mark Sanford, R-S.C., talked about the role President Trump’s rhetoric played in the hostility that led up to Wednesday’s shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., and others, in an Alexandria ball field.

‘I would argue that the president has unleashed, it’s partially, again not in any way totally, but partially to blame for demons that have been unleashed,’ Sanford said Thursday on Morning Joe.

The South Carolina congressman-turned-governor-turned-congressman said he’s noticed a discernible difference in how his constituents talk to each other, and thought they might be taking a cue from the top.

We’re at an inflection point,’ Sanford said. ‘There are forces at play that I’ve never seen before over the roughly 20 years I’ve been involved in politics.’

Sanford talked about a recent town hall he hosted at a senior center, which seemingly got out of control.

It ‘was like out of a movie,’ Sanford told the Morning Joe hosts, saying he was shocked by what his constituents said to one another.

Making a broader statement, he lumped some of Trump’s campaign rhetoric in.
‘Whether it’s what I saw at a senior center back home and people saying “FU” and “FU” and “FU” to each other … at a retirement center where they’re going to see each other playing croquet the next day,’ he said.

‘Or with what happened yesterday, again not with what happened, but the fact that, you know, you’ve got the top guy saying “I wish I could hit you in the face, and if not, why don’t you and I’ll pay your legal fees,” Sanford continued.

 

Guess what, cuck, some of us noticed this shift in tone years ago, long before Trump showed up.  People are sick of being constantly attacked and, because they have been, are getting very quick on the eff you draw.  After all, it’s the only argument that works anymore since reason and discussions go nowhere.

Encouraging Violence

Gun control?  No, how about BernieBro Control.  The media didn’t bother to mention that the “white supremacist” who murdered people in Oregon was a Bernie supporter, but the shooter in Alexandria wasn’t attacking a muslim, he was attacking Republicans so white supremacist is out as an excuse.

Bernie disavows!

‘I have just been informed that the alleged shooter at the Republican baseball practice this morning is someone who apparently volunteered on my presidential campaign,’ Sanders said to a near-empty Senate chamber, speaking for he benefit of C-SPAN and YouTube viewers.

‘I am sickened by this despicable act, and let me be as clear as I can be: Violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society and I condemn this action in the strongest possible terms.’

Just a little problem there, Bernie…

Sanders to faithful: Take down Trump, take over Democratic Party

Bernie Sanders’ permanent “political revolution” rolled into Chicago on Saturday night, as the Vermont senator called on progressive activists gathered here to beat back President Donald Trump’s agenda while remaking the Democratic Party.
***
Sanders also took a series of stinging shots at Trump, labeling him “perhaps the worst and most dangerous president in the history of our country” and a habitual liar.

Not what you were going for, Bernie?  But if people truly believe that Trump and the Republicans are horrible, scary, evil people out to destroy them, their lives, and their country, it’s not a big jump from “beating back” to violence.  The liberals already have assassination on their minds.  They’ve been play acting at it with their stabbings and beheadings.  They’re working hard to dehumanize their enemies so big surprise if someone actually decides to turn the play acting into a reality.

But it doesn’t matter who or why or what happened because the left will always dive straight for that too many guns! narrative.

The Trans-turian Candidate

Move over, Brianna Wu, you’ve got competition!

Will 2017 Be the ‘Year of the Trans Candidate’?

Virginia native Danica Roem is running for a seat in her state’s House of Delegates. Should she emerge victorious from the June 13 Democratic primary, the 32-year-old would challenge longtime Republican incumbent Bob Marshall to represent Virginia’s 13th district and become the first openly transgender representative in the chamber.

A win in the general election would also make Roem the third openly transgender state legislator to ever hold office in the U.S., and one of only a few openly trans elected officials in the world.
***
Despite facing three other Democrats in the primary, Roem is optimistic. She has received several endorsements, including one from the Victory Fund, a national LGBTQ political organization.

“We are making 2017 the year of the trans candidate,” Victory Fund President Aisha C. Moodie-Mills said. “We have more transgender people running this cycle than almost all other cycles combined.”

Roem is one of at least 20 transgender candidates currently running for office across the U.S., according to the LGBTQ Representation and Rights Initiative.

Dear old Brianna is also running against several other Democrats.  The party is so weak and degenerate that the crazies are coming out of the woodwork to eat it alive.

Buckley Should Have Listened

George Will notices that bad people are getting conservatism dirty.

Conservatism is soiled by scowling primitives

In 1950, the year before William F. Buckley burst into the national conversation, the literary critic Lionel Trilling revealed why the nation was ripe for Buckley’s high-spirited romp through its political and cultural controversies. Liberalism, Trilling declared, was “not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition” in mid-century America because conservatism was expressed merely in “irritable mental gestures.” Buckley would change that by infusing conservatism with brio, bringing elegance to its advocacy and altering the nation’s trajectory while having a grand time.

Today, conservatism is soiled by scowling primitives whose irritable gestures lack mental ingredients. America needs a reminder of conservatism before vulgarians hijacked it, and a hint of how it became susceptible to hijacking.
***
[Buckley], to his credit, befriended Whittaker Chambers, whose autobiography “Witness” became a canonical text of conservatism. Unfortunately, it injected conservatism with a sour, whiney, complaining, crybaby populism. It is the screechy and dominant tone of the loutish faux conservatism that today is erasing Buckley’s legacy of infectious cheerfulness and unapologetic embrace of high culture.

Chambers wallowed in cloying sentimentality and curdled resentment about “the plain men and women” — “my people, humble people, strong in common sense, in common goodness” — enduring the “musk of snobbism” emanating from the “socially formidable circles” of the “nicest people” produced by “certain collegiate eyries.” Buckley, a Bach aficionado from Yale and ocean mariner from the New York Yacht Club, was unembarrassed about having good taste and without guilt about savoring the good life.

Of course a Yalie elitist is so much better than a back-to-the-land bumpkin farmer–regardless of said bumkin’s own “good taste” or education.  There’s a funny thing, however, about him attacking the “sour, whiney, complaining, crybaby populism” of Whittaker Chambers.  First of all, the idea that Witness is the “canonical text of conservatism” is absurd.  Chambers described himself as “a man of the right” explicitly stating he was NOT a conservative.  There are more than a few passages in Witness that struck me as being close to a proto-alt-right take on things.  All the more reason for Will to hate him.  But most interesting of all is a quote from Chambers included in the forward to the 50th anniversary edition of Witness written by Buckley himself.

[I]f the Republican Party cannot get some grip on the actually world we live in and from it generalize and actively promote a program that means something to the masses of people–why somebody else will.  Then there will be nothing to argue.  The voters will simply vote Republicans into a singularity.  The Republican Party will became like one of those dark little shops which apparently never sell anything.  If, for any reason, you go in, you find at the back an old man, fingering for his own pleasure some oddments of cloth.  Nobody wants to buy them, which is fine because the old man is not really interested in selling.

It’s a wonder Buckley didn’t write him out of the conservative movement–perhaps it is Chambers denial of the lable that saved him.  But it’s more the wonder that Buckley could have included this in his reminiscence and been completely unaware of its implication.  Even fifty years ago Chambers could see where the Republicans were headed.  They haven’t got anything meaningful for the masses and they will be replaced.  Buckley should have listened.

Then again maybe he did.  Maybe he simply didn’t care.  For as Vox Day, one of those scowling primitives, writes, Buckley “was, without question, a significant part of the problem; he was no true soldier of the Right, but rather, the treacherous captain of the Left’s Cuckservative Guard.”  He built up conservatism all right–a conservatism doomed to failure.

White People Are Always Worse

In the face of Islamic terror attacks, Gavin McInnes takes on the Myth of White Terrorism:

Another common refrain regarding Islamic terror is groups like the SPLC reminding us that “In America, the face of terrorism is white.” This was made perfectly clear in a viral video circulated by AJ+ that featured lots of American skinheads Sieg Heiling next to images of dead babies and quotes such as “White supremacists are more responsible for terror attacks than people acting in the name of Islam.” WHAT?!
***
They like to start these studies on September 12th, 2001, but I ain’t buying it. I start the day before and that gives us 2,996 deaths. Then we had seventeen killed by the Beltway Sniper in 2002. Fort Hood left thirteen dead in 2009, and the Boston Marathon bombing four years later left six dead (with 280 brutal injuries, including the woman who lost her leg and just married the man who rescued her). In 2014, a jihadist beheaded his boss. Sixteen were killed in San Bernardino in 2015 and the Orlando nightclub shooting left fifty dead. That’s 3,099.

The white-supremacist deaths are around the “death from spider bites” level. There was Klansman Frazier Glenn Miller, who hated Jews so much he shot three men in an old-folks’ home he assumed were Jewish. There’s also that guy who came to NYC to kill blacks and got one. Finally, we have the member of the “Alt-Reich” (never heard of it) who stabbed a black student to death last week. That’s five.

How you make 3,100 look less than five takes some backbreaking mental acrobatics. Fort Hood and the Oklahoma beheading are considered “workplace violence.” They include “plots” and count virtually anything suspicious that either happens to a minority or is done by a right-winger. Any of those sovereign-state nuts who murder a cop is counted as white-supremacist terrorism, no matter what the race. If a white guy kills a pedophile priest for raping him, it’s neo-Nazi terrorism. They count that sad nut who flew his plane into an IRS building as domestic terrorism. A prank call to a synagogue is an act of domestic terrorism, and now a goofy 13-year-old is just as dangerous as Osama bin Laden. I’m not exaggerating. The above attacks are counted as “incidents,” so 9/11 only counts as one and the Alt-Reich kid counts as the same. We’re reaching a level of disingenuous where you have trouble believing they believe their own rhetoric.

The mental gymnastics are easy because, as we know, Islam is a religion of peace and white people are evil.  Facts shouldn’t get in the way of this.  But those pesky facts keep intruding:

Even if you take their numbers at face value, we have a serious Islamic terrorism problem in America. Muslims represent barely 2% of the population. According to their parameters, “Nazis” are about half the population. Assuming terrorists are almost always male, why are 80 million people coming up with the same kind of crime stats as less than 3 million? Probably because they have a predilection for terror (we knew this already because one in four American Muslims age 18–25 thinks “suicide bombing is sometimes or often justified”). Whoops, your propaganda just disproved your propaganda!