Skip to content

Take that, “creepy weirdos” of the GOP! Florida-vacationing AOC tops photo of herself lunching with sockless boyfriend with photo of herself canoodling with underpants-less Bill Porter

The pair put their arms around one another to take a selfie together

Image: U.K. Daily Mail

That fun-loving AOC is at it again!

We know that nothing interferes with the Dem congresswoman’s idea of a good time than those dumb old New York City covid restrictions: the masks, the vax mandates, the rest of the joy-killers that have New Yorkers huddling terrified inside their apartments.

So she bolted her icy and fear-ridden home city as soon as she could for a New Year’s weekend vacation in freedom-loving Florida, where sunshine, palmettos, and bans on mandates abound.

But–oops!–while the real Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez loves nothing so much as a good time, the public-persona Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is something of a…coronavirus stiff. Here she is pulling a long face on Twitter when Texas dropped its mask mandate in March 2021:

Repealing the mask mandate now endangers so many people, especially essential workers & the vulnerable.

So when AOC showed up in a photo of her maskless self lunching in Miami with boyfriend (and Prince Harry clone) Riley Roberts, much laughter ensued. Especially when former Trump advisor Steve Cortes noted that the center of the photo consisted of shorts-clad Roberts’s sockless man-toes as he sat across the table from AOC. Cortes tweeted:

Her guy is showing his gross pale male feet in public (not at a pool/beach) with hideous sandals.

Well! Our AOC didn’t like that! So she responded:

If Republicans are mad they can’t date me they can just say that instead of projecting their sexual frustrations onto my boyfriend’s feet,” she tweeted, adding “Ya creepy weirdos.” She added, “It’s starting to get old ignoring the very obvious, strange, and deranged sexual frustrations that underpin the Republican fixation on me, women, & LGBT+ people in general. These people clearly need therapy, won’t do it, and use politics as their outlet instead. It’s really weird.”

Then she took action: Hey Republicans, if you don’t like sockless bare feet on one of my guys, how about an underpants-less bare crotch? So the very next day or so of her Florida vacation AOC headed out to what’s been described as a Miami drag bar to have herself photographed in the arms of purse-clutching actor Billy Porter wearing, um, nothing underneath his orange-printed flyaway caftan. Scroll down to the photo of the two embracing for a selfie in this U.K. Daily Mail story. Fortunately a shadow–or maybe the efforts of a Daily Mail photo editor–blots out the fine details of what Porter is putting on full display while AOC…looks up at the sky and seemingly pretends to be focused on something else.

At this point you might be asking yourself: Who’s the “creepy weirdo” now?

But you’ve got to admit this: A bare man-crotch trumps bare man-toes any old day.

Posted by Charlotte Allen

Merry Christmas!

Good people all, this Christmas time
Consider well and bear in mind
What our good God for us has done
In sending His beloved Son
With Mary holy we should pray
To God with love this Christmas Day
In Bethlehem upon that morn
There was a blessed Messiah born

Posted by Charlotte Allen

Invasion of the Body Snatchers: Pod people led by Hillary Clinton duplicate take over White House Christmas special–“You’re next!”

The Northwell Health Nurse Choir at the White House (PBS)
PBS.org

Hmmm….

A species of gelatinous creatures, having abandoned their dying planet and traveled to Earth, land in San Francisco. They infiltrate Earth’s ecosystem, latching onto plant life and taking the form of small pods with fragrant pink flowers. Elizabeth Driscoll, a laboratory scientist at the San Francisco Health Department, brings one of the flowers home, where she lives with her boyfriend, Geoffrey. Leaving the flower on their bedside table, she awakens the next morning to discover Geoffrey behaving strangely cold and distant.

Elizabeth’s colleague, Matthew Bennell, suggests she speak to his psychiatrist friend, David Kibner, who is holding a book-signing party to promote his new self-help book. As Elizabeth and Matthew drive to the bookstore, a hysterical man on the road screams to them, shouting “They’re coming! You’ll be next!” before being chased away by a mob of people and then hit by a car.

Posted by Charlotte Allen

Me for the WSJ: With my Peruvian mother, I’m as Latina as Rachel Zegler–and I say hey gringos, quit calling us Hispanics “Latinx”

Rachel Zegler
Image: 20th Century Fox

From my latest for the Wall Street Journal:

I can’t even figure out how “Latinx” is supposed to be pronounced. Does it rhyme with “sphinx” (how it looks on the printed page) or “Kleenex”? Sen. Elizabeth Warren says “Latin-ex,” as if referring to a Cuban man she once dumped. A word with a consonant followed by an x makes no sense in Spanish.


Actual Latinos shun the word “Latinx.” According to a November 2021 poll by Bendixen & Amandi International, only 2% of Americans of Latin descent refer to themselves that way. Some 68% prefer “Hispanic” to “Latino” and “Latina.” And 40% are offended by “Latinx,” which means it’s a mistake for a politician to use the word, at least around Latino constituents.

But woke journalists love “Latinx.” It’s everywhere, even in Cook’s Country magazine, which recently promised to feature more “Latinx” recipes. As you’ve undoubtedly guessed, the word originated in academia. During the mid-2000s, professors were casting about for a gender-neutral substitute for the clunky “Latina/o” and preposterous “Latin@” that they were already using. Someone suggested “Latinx,” and it caught on in journals with names like Feministas Unidas and Cultural Dynamics. Soon enough, articles were appearing in the mainstream press with titles like this one from the Washington Post: “A Latinx New Yorker feels at home in a Latinx Community Searching for its identity in London.”…

Read the whole thing here.

Posted by Charlotte Allen

Me for the D.C. Examiner: “Gay martyr” Oscar Wilde was actually more like a Victorian Jimmy Savile

Napoleon Sarony, Wikimedia Commons // Public Domain
Image: Wikimedia Commons

From my latest for the Washington Examiner:

Astonishingly for a man whose early writings often extolled the beauty of boys and who had formed intense male friendships that were more like romantic attachments, Wilde had no homosexual experience until 1886, when he was in his thirties and met then-17-year-old Robert “Robbie” Ross. That first encounter brought Wilde the “joy, the delirium” (Wilde’s own words) of sexual liberation. But as [new biographer Matthew] Sturgis writes: “Henceforth his actions would demand secrecy and the elaborations of a double life.” There were more young men, quite a few more. In 1891, Wilde met Bosie, then an undergraduate at Oxford and an aspiring poet of distinctly less talent than Wilde (he coined the phrase “the love that dare not speak its name”), and became infatuated. Bosie was a piece of work, vain, petulant, and whiny, even as Wilde, generous to a fault, showered him with expensive gifts and treats. It is difficult to decide who in the Queensberry affair was the worse: the brutish, vindictive marquess determined to destroy Wilde, or his self-centered, tantrum-prone son.

Bosie’s promiscuity was “voracious,” as Sturgis writes, and he introduced Wilde to a netherworld of boy prostitution: professional rent-boys and working-class teenagers willing to service older men for a good dinner or a suit of new clothes. Wilde liked to hand out silver cigarette cases, and he handed out a good many. Few of these erotic finds were over age 18, and at least one youth was only 14. Sturgis does not varnish over these episodes, and he paints quite a sordid picture. Those who think that Wilde’s two-year prison sentence for such activities was outrageous might consider what sort of sentence he might receive under current laws regarding paid sex with minors.

After his libel action against Queensberry failed, Wilde’s arrest was imminent, and friends urged him to leave the country. Wilde refused, a decision that some have attributed to a stance of heroic defiance but that Sturgis contends was mostly due to inertia. Two criminal trials followed, in which Wilde’s efforts to sidestep prosecutors’ questions with his customary witticisms made him look even worse. Victorian prisons were no joke, especially for a 40-year-old man used to luxurious living, and amid many other indignities, he fell and ruptured his right eardrum; the resultant chronic infection led ultimately to his death. He had always been but one step ahead of his creditors even when he was raking in money from his plays, and his conviction was followed by bankruptcy and the loss of his London house and all his possessions, including his manuscripts. Still, he was right back with Bosie within months after his release.

Read the whole thing here.

Posted by Charlotte Allen

Me for Quillette: Sam Peckinpah’s “Straw Dogs”–50 years old and still driving liberals crazy

Brutal and Unreformed—Sam Peckinpah’s ‘Straw Dogs’ at 50
Image: Quillette

From my latest for Quillette:

December 22nd will be the 50th anniversary of the release of Sam Peckinpah’s Straw Dogs, a film so marked by violent killings and violent sex that, according to Peckinpah’s biographer, David Weddle, a third of the audience walked out of its premiere before the end. But most of those who remained, Weddle reports, hooted and cheered as protagonist David Sumner, a hitherto-passive American academic played by Dustin Hoffman, ruthlessly repelled a passel of homicidal home-invaders besieging the English farmhouse where he lived with his wife. Set in the fictional village of Wakely amid the stark West Country moorlands of Cornwall, Straw Dogs was one of a clutch of films released during this period that examined the lethal conflict between savage rubes and clueless city sophistos—a counterpart to Ted Kotcheff’s grim Australian psychodrama, Wake in Fright (also 1971), and John Boorman’s Southern backwater classic, Deliverance (1972).

Controversial from the day of its release, Peckinpah’s film has remained so for five decades, both for its presumed glorification of violence and for its unsympathetic treatment of Sumner’s young and beautiful Wakely-born wife, Amy (Susan George, then only 20). The day before the siege, Amy is raped by two members of the mob—her former boyfriend, Charlie Venner (Del Henney) and his malevolent companion, Norman Scutt (Ken Hutchison). Clad only in underclothes and a hip-length bathrobe, she admits Venner to the Sumners’ home in her husband’s absence with the offer of a drink. At first, she resists Venner’s violent assault (he slugs her, drags her across the stone floor by her hair, and shreds her clothing), but then hungrily reciprocates, desperate for the passion denied by her sterile marriage and feckless husband.

The second sexual assault occurs immediately after the first, when Scutt appears and forces Venner at gunpoint—at least, at first—to restrain Amy while he sodomizes her, a horrifying experience for Amy and audience alike. The first of these attacks produced more outrage than the second—the suggestion that a woman could enjoy being forcibly dominated by a man was (and still is) categorically verboten in the canons of contemporary feminism, and the scene immediately became a flashpoint of liberal film criticism….

Among the harshest of the film’s early critics was the New Yorker’s Pauline Kael. In an essay published on January 29th, 1972, Kael excoriated Peckinpah for patenting what she described as an “aesthetic of cruelty.”

Read the whole thing here.

Posted by Charlotte Allen

Me for the Epoch Times: Freedom of the press–unless you’re Abigail Shrier or Dr. Seuss

Image: The Amazing World of Dr. Seuss Museum

From my latest for the Epoch Times:

The American Booksellers Association is a trade organization for America’s dwindling number of independent, non-chain bookstores. Those community-based stores “serve a unique role in promoting the open exchange of ideas” the ABA’s website declares.

Unless, it would seem, the “ideas” are deemed objectionable by the progressive powers that be. Then, the ABA switches from promoter of “open exchange” to iron-fisted censor worthy of the 17th-century Puritans who banned all books that criticized their Massachusetts theocracy. Nor is the American Booksellers Association alone as an organization ostensibly devoted to the values of free speech and a free press exemplified in the Constitution’s First Amendment, but in actuality an enforcer of canceling whatever products of speech and press are ruled out of bounds by a left-leaning cultural establishment….

Case in point: the ABA’s treatment of Abigail Shrier’s best-selling “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters.” Shrier, a veteran journalist, cites research studies to argue that the current surge of teen-age girls deciding they are born into the wrong body and are actually boys is simply a reaction to adolescent anxieties, encouraged by social media, that doctors are grossly mistreating with radical body-altering surgeries and prescriptions of massive amounts of male hormones that can destroy the girls’ prospects for future fertility. The Economist magazine picked “Irreversible Damage” as one of its Books of the Year for 2020—and so the ABA included the book, now in paperback, along with promotional materials paid for by its conservative publisher, Regnery, in a July 2021 mailing to 750 independent bookstores.

Within days Casey Morrissey, a self-described “trans bookseller and book buyer” at Brooklyn’s Greenlights Bookstore, was complaining on Twitter that the book was “anti-trans”—because it failed to adhere to the transgender-activist dogma that a person’s self-described gender is a biological reality—and if that person’s body doesn’t conform, correction by whatever medical means necessary is appropriate, even if that person is a child. “Do better,” Morrissey tweeted on July 14, and was promptly joined by other booksellers tweeting similar sentiments. Transgender activists have already—although so far unsuccessfully—tried to pressure online retailers such as Amazon not to carry Shrier’s book.

The ABA’s apology on Twitter came within hours. “This is a serious, violent incident that goes against ABA’s ends policies, values, and everything we believe and support. It is inexcusable.” That wasn’t good enough for the activist booksellers, however (“[W]e’re extremely disappointed and angered to see the ABA promoting dangerous, widely discredited anti-trans propaganda,” the Harvard Book Store tweeted). So on Aug. 9, after consulting with the ABA’s “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” committee (yes, the ABA has one of those), the organization’s CEO, Allison Hill, issued a 1,400-word breast-beating statement that read like the product of a Maoist struggle session: “These were egregious acts.” In the future, Hill promised, all the organization’s promotional material would be screened to exclude books exhibiting “hate speech” under the U.N.’s definition: “pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are.”

Finally, there’s the American Library Association, the librarians’ trade organization whose watchword is “freedom to read.” The ALA’s “Banned Books Week” (this year from Sept. 26 to Oct. 2) focuses on controversial books that activist groups, typically on political and religious right, have tried to get removed from the shelves of public libraries.

But the ALA now has a book-banning problem of its own involving controversial books: six “Dr. Seuss” books for children written mostly during the 1950s by the beloved author and illustrator Theodor Geisl. Some of those books—“If I Ran the Zoo” and “And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street” have been childhood icons for generations of Americans, but Dr. Seuss Enterprises, which holds the copyrights to Geisl’s works, has decided that some of the illustrations are racially insensitive: “[T]hey portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong.” The company has withdrawn all six books from future publication. The ALA refuses to describe the company’s actions as  censorship.

Read the whole thing here.

Posted by Charlotte Allen

Making Dr. Rachel Levine a 4-star admiral was certainly a landmark LGBTQ+ event–but why did she send her twin brother to her swearing-in instead of going herself?

Dr Rachel Levine, the highest-ranking openly transgender official in the United States, is sworn in as a four-star admiral
Image: BBC

We’re all proud of Assistant Health Secretary Dr. Rachel Levine’s accomplishments–but you can’t tell me that hand belongs to a woman!

Here’s the story, from the BBC:

Dr Rachel Levine, 63, is now an admiral of the US Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.

Dr Levine, appointed by President Joe Biden, is already the highest-ranking openly transgender official in the US.

She described the occasion as “momentous” and “historic” during a swearing-in speech on Tuesday….

Dr Levine was confirmed as US assistant secretary for health in a 52-48 Senate vote in March.

So I can’t for the life of me figure out why on earth Dr. Levine didn’t show up for her swearing-in personally and instead sent her twin brother to take her place in the landmark ceremony. Everyone knows that Dr. Rachel Levine has long blonde curls trailing nearly to her bustline–but her twin bro, dentist Raitch Levine, sports sleekly combed gray hair and short sideburns, as the photo above clearly shows. Raitch seems to have tried to make himself look female by adding eyeliner and small earrings to his admiral’s ensemble, but the effort seems awfully lackluster.

So please, someone, explain this to me. I’m confused.

Posted by Charlotte Allen

Pete Buttigieg, Dad of the Year

port of Los Angeles
Photo: Mario Tama/Getty Images

From Politico:

While U.S. ports faced anchor-to-anchor traffic and Congress nearly melted down over the president’s infrastructure bill in recent weeks, the usually omnipresent Transportation secretary was lying low.

One of the White House’s go-to communicators didn’t appear on TV. He was absent on Capitol Hill during the negotiations over the bill he had been previously helping sell to different members of Congress. Conservative critics tried (unsuccessfully) to get #WheresPete to trend and Fox News ran a story on October 4 with the headline: “Buttigieg quiet on growing port congestion as shipping concerns build ahead of holidays.”

They didn’t previously announce it, but Buttigieg’s office told West Wing Playbook that the secretary has actually been on paid leave since mid-August to spend time with his husband, Chasten, and their two newborn babies.

“For the first four weeks, he was mostly offline except for major agency decisions and matters that could not be delegated,” said a spokesperson for the Department of Transportation. “He has been ramping up activities since then.” As he does that, Buttigieg will “continue to take some time over the coming weeks to support his husband and take care of his new children,” the spokesperson added.

Posted by Charlotte Allen

Me for the Epoch Times: California destroys single-family suburban housing…except, of course, for its wealthy, mostly Dem-voting elites

Apartments in Santa Ana, Calif., on Feb. 10, 2021. (John Fredricks/The Epoch Times)
Photo: John Fredricks / Epoch Times

From my latest for the Epoch Times:

The new state law permits the owner of a parcel of land zoned for a single detached residence to split the parcel in two and build a duplex on each of the new half-size plots. That would mean four units of housing on land originally zoned for just one. That number could go up to as many as six units, because a 2017 California law already permits owners to add a “granny flat’’—a backyard guesthouse–to any piece of residential property. SB 9’s only proviso is that each of the new parcels must be a minimum of 1,200 square feet in size, which works out to a tiny 600-square-foot footprint for each half of a duplex. As for parking, SB 9 allows localities to require only one parking space per unit—or none at all if the site is close to public transportation or a shared-vehicle location. And thanks to convoluted language about fireproofing in the new law, the new, higher-density provisions seem to apply even in vulnerable burn zones such as the rural towns wiped out in recent California wildfires where escape roads are few.

The new law is wildly unpopular. A poll taken by David Binder Research in late July, while SB 9 was pending in the California legislature, found that 63 percent of registered voters opposed it, and 67 percent opposed a companion bill, SB 10, also signed into law by Newsom on Sept. 16, that allows cities to streamline their zoning processes to allow the construction of apartment houses of up to 10 units on single-family lots near public transit. Nearly 250 California municipalities joined a statement opposing both bills. Opponents included affluent Silicon Valley suburbs such as Palo Alto, and the City Council of Los Angeles, whose San Fernando Valley, with 1.9 million inhabitants, nearly half the city’s total population, is about 43 percent Latino, many of them occupying modest 1950s-era tract houses on leafy streets. That kind of opposition killed similar bills in 2019.

But eliminating single-family residential zoning is a top goal of progressive policy elites across America….

Just for starters, SB 9 exempts houses that are historic landmarks or are in designated historic districts. That means the charming Victorians and Queen Annes and Craftsmans that are already in the multi-million-dollar range. The rich won’t suffer from seeing their neighborhoods destroyed and their property values diminished by teardowns, cheesy multifamily construction blighting their blocks, trees and other landscaping chopped to the ground, and impossible parking for any household where more than one member needs a car to get to work. Indeed the value of single-family homes in prime neighborhoods is likely to soar as they become more rare. They will soar out of sight for middle-class people who had hoped that a house of their own, with a yard where they could grill and their children could play, would be a part of their future. [Urban scholars Joel] Kotkin and [Wendell] Cox call “the aspiration of people to own homes…arguably the greatest achievement of American democracy.” Count with that the ability through local zoning to create and maintain the kinds of communities where they want to live.

Read the whole thing here.

Posted by Charlotte Allen