I understand it’s easy to get entrenched in positions and not want to let go or admit to any reservations when those positions are challenged head on, but shortening the argument I made at Hot Air until it is completely unrecognizable while at the same time presuming to speak forcefully against it should, in a perfect world, count as a self-defeating piece of performative irony.
Part of the problem is, some people’s irony forest is evidently overrun with trees.
I feel so weary after reading the villanous piece. I think I’ll go sleep on it.
A cynical person would think the opposition to Jeff’s point might have more to do with Republican in fighting than the actual point, you know?
Rush, Rush what do you see?
I see a polar bear coming for me.
Patterico, Patterico what to you see?
I see a brown bear looking at me!
David Frum, David Frum what do you see?
I see a black bear looking at me!
Jeff G., Jeff G. what do you see?
Shut the fuck up. Can you see Goldilocks is blowing me?
That’s beautiful, man!
NO MORE PORRIDGE!!!
My God, all the effort I went to in order to illustrate the means of controlling history by controlling language has gone to waste. I’m going to have to just issue Outer Party cards and Victory Gin scrip to every fucking “conservative” tool in the blogosphere. Honestly… was the prescription at the end of the piece to “stick to GOP platform and policy?” If you have a prurient fondness for tar and feathers, I guess so.
It’s just so arcane, subtle and mysteriously Delphic to defend the statement that one wants Obastard to fail. Yet, when others were wishing misfortune, disaster and even assassination upon the previous occupant of the Oval Office, somehow that was preternaturally understood by all Cassandras to be the highest order of patriotism, dissent.
Someone here is missing the lesson of doublethink, and it is not the Left.
Never has the word “irony” been applied so well. This jerk froths at the mouth, making a case against Rush, while wondering what all the fuss is about?
You don’t want to listen to Rush? Then don’t listen to Rush. But he has as much right to speak about conservatism as any dickhead with a blog. If you think I’m going to concede to you that maybe Rush says things he shouldn’t, don’t hold your breath. Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter should be awarded Hero of the Conservative Movement for having the … stones … to stand against the smear machine the liberals have going 24/7.
(Not directing this at the fine folks here at PW)
I’d say your point got across Jeff, some people just want to argue about it. The “Stimulus Plan 2” mentioned below contains everything Republicans should be fighting for RIGHT NOW. All the arguing in the world isn’t going get these bums thrown out any faster. Only ideas.
George,
Yep. But politics within the parties is every bit as perverse as politics between the parties. What the Republicans have not realized is using the MSM to help them and theirs climb over the competitors within their own party is suicidal. In the Democratic party it is a matter of course. You’re not dealing so much with facist thinking so much as extreme stupidity and completely amoral ambition. At least that’s this one outsider’s view. I could be very wrong, I guess. But seeing what happened to Palin, I don’t think so.
The problem is that this crap is too viscerally disturbing for some of us to put up with anymore. It almost doesn’t matter whether or not there’s a political strategy in resisting the left’s assault on language. Unfortunately there seem to be too many brain-dead/tone deaf/defeatist/chickenshit/too unsure of their own beliefs/
(choose one or more) conservatives who think like public relations whores eager to survive the day at any cost in order to fight the next. And that’s fine if you’re getting paid for your troubles but as someone who is essentially a spectator the idea of doing this dance with the left every day, in perpetuity, makes me physically sick.
You know what makes me grin despite all this hoopla from creamy cons worried Rush is casting a pall on their moderate creds? It’s the fact neither Rush nor Ann will do anything differently than they’ve done before. Rush will continue to draw millions of listeners and Ann will sell lots of books and poke liberals in their middle eye for decades to come. The future of their detractors, on the right and the left, is not quite so bright.
Tired,
You could well be right. I usually ascribe to stupidity first, incompetence second, and venality third. On the other hand, we’ve seen much energy expended in excruciatingly parsing the words of the minority, and an equal or greater amount expended in elevating the prejudices of the majority into a law of nature not to be opposed. The Laws of Thermodynamics are inexorable, but the words of liberal fascists are not. I would welcome the spectacle of anti-collectivist (theoretically “conservative”) guests on TV and radio, arguing basic premises so forcefully that Ms. Terri Grossman-Shyster hosting the NPR feed cannot conduct an interview on the finer points of raping high income earners. I welcome the thought of people derailing the conventional “dialogue,” which is usually nothing more than a catechism of today’s talking points.
This applies to “conservatives” as well. Cooperation with these people has done nothing but exacerbate the prospects against liberty. I wonder if “conservatives” even understand the word any longer.
Cult members, the lot of you. What do you eat for breakfast, a big bowl of Rush dicks?
Sorry. Was channeling my inner Frum there for a second. Woke up when I near bored myself to death.
“channeling my inner Frum”
Definition: Slang, early 21st Century English, esp. internet usage Simple masturbation; also used as synonym for a Messiah complex.
Example: David Brooks took a photograph of the President, some Astroglide, and went to the bathroom for twenty minutes, to “channel his inner Frum.”
Auntie Em can’t stop eatin’ ’em.
Becasue we can’t do this all day.
Great scott! And I thought only Lefties were were completely blind to irony.
Seems to me that the Conservatives who can’t see Jeff’s well reasoned argument, and subsequently tie themselves in knots trying to demonstrate why letting Leftists set the narrative and decide what any Conservative opposing them means (dishonestly I might add), need seeing irony dogs.
I mean, if they hate Rush, fine. BFD! But would it be too much to ask not to continue to throw liberty under the bus in the process? Or how about HATING THE LEFTISTS MORE?! You know, the one’s actually taking our liberties away.
From the VC link: “Apparently, some people seem to think the future of conservativism is inextricably bound up with defending the casual utterances of a radio talk show host.”
No, the future of LIBERTY is at stake! NOT LETTING LEFTISTS SET OUR NARRATIVE OR TWIST OUR MEANINGS is one of the things that all Conservatives/Classical Liberals must do if they value liberty.
Otherwise, “Conservatism” will only mean Lefty-lite where winning matters more than principles or liberty. Speaking for myself, no fucking way! It’s liberty or die tryin’! Period.
…yeah, shorter, if by shorter you mean with about three-fourths of the meaning ripped from it.
But I’m sure you intended well.
Went and read that mess, and what struck me was the assumption that the purpose of life for conservatives was to elect and defend Republicans politicians.
Cassandra seems to be more of a GOP operative than a conservative, NTTAWWT, so I can understand the impulse to dismiss voices on the right which are not in tune with the Republican Victory Hallelujah Choir.
But my days of being a lever-pulling automaton for the GOP are long gone, and I sense that the Republicans, even after the monumental ass-kicking they just received, still think it’s about the message and how it’s delivered, and not the shitbags, kleptocrats, and cowards that populate their Party.
And some spare parts thrown in for ease of rebuttal.
There’s lots of quotes in there. You’d think if you’re going to critique a piece of writing, you’d manage to quote it at least once. All those quotes, none of them from the piece. Which makes sense given that Jeff’s first line would derail Cassandra’s entire premise and send it careening into oncoming traffic.
American Conservatism is whatever Andrew Sullivan says it is.
American Conservatism is whatever Andrew Sullivan says it is.
Don’t forget Megan McCain. Like, totally.
Comment by Joe on 3/10 @ 11:52 pm #
Rush, Rush what do you see?
I see a polar bear coming for me.
I kinda wonder what Joe could do with “The Very Hungry Caterpillar”
Sorry, but controlling the terms of the debate means not allowing ourselves to be lured off message by defending intentionally controversial pundits – by defending any pundit at all. If we want to position ourselves as the party of serious ideas, Republicans need to focus on the party platform and refuse to comment on the utterances of anyone who isn’t an actual playe
And, we focus the party platform by … wishing really hard! I know, I’ll call up the RNC and give ’em some advice.
Rush is opinionated, but he – unlike our elected officials – tends to read and listen to what others SAY versus following the polls. He takes callers, emails, and reads blogs. Rush is a conduit for OUR ideas. He and other pundits that Cassandra would like us to throw under the bus.
I thought this was all about Goldilocks’s ass?
uuuuuuuuurmmmmmmm…OK, Gotta go.
Oh gee, Rush and Coulter they’re ruining everything for conservatives, aren’t they. Yes, let’s all step back and examine how bad they are for conservatism.
If we could just find the right message, the right way to present conservatism, the right combination of words. Words. Yes, that’s it, the right words.
I liked JG’s thing at Hot Air … got it right. But it appears that few have changed with the fiasco in Washington so far. Yes, MSM idiocy is steering the ship, but they can do that because the American mind has been taught to be closed.
What else is to be done?
Camilla Paglia on the Rush dealo.
Darn you, Carin, darn you to heck!
Go read it folks, it’s amazing.
“…that chaotic pig rut of a stimulus package,…”
“Then it was the stunt of unnerving Wall Street by sending out a shrill duo of slick geeks (Timothy Geithner and Peter Orszag) as the administration’s weirdly adolescent spokesmen on economics.”
“Case in point: The orchestrated attack on radio host Rush Limbaugh, which has made the White House look like an oafish bunch of drunken frat boys.”
Gotta love a Philly girl!
Bingo line:
“If Rush’s presence looms too large for the political landscape, it’s because of the total vacuity of the Republican leadership, which seems to be in a dithering funk. Rush isn’t responsible for the feebleness of Republican voices or the thinness of Republican ideas. Only ignoramuses believe that Rush speaks for the Republican Party. On the contrary, Rush as a proponent of heartland conservatism has waged open warfare with the Washington party establishment for years.”
DING DING DING DING DING!
FTFY
I’m beginning to understand that Goldilocks would kick the rhetorical ass of many so called “Republicans” these days. What a bunch of jellyfish. “Oh, we mustn’t allow ourselves to be thought of as provocative or negative or post menopausal! For the elections!”
Here’s a thought for the jelly belly cooperative: Grow a set and defend your principles!” Democrat-Lite, Only Cheaper! (h/t ric locke)is not a winning solution. All that it does is convince more people that the opposition was largely right.
Screw that.
I think we have our marching orders from dear leader. Fight the rhetorical fight on principles and cede not one inch of ground, eschew apologizing for others parsing, whether deliberate or willful and press our certainty in the foundational doctrines that formed and grew this great country.
OUTLAW!
What you have written is seen as, and is in a certain way, divisive. To some one the Right this is a frightening thing. They see huge numbers of Moderates being turned into their political enemies by statements such as yours at Hot Air.
What you wrote is a scalpel. Apply it to a group, any group, and it cleaves them into those whose thought processes work in accordance with the ways of Progressive thought and those whose minds do not work in that manner.
Not to say that they are Progressives, only that they have a mindset that is amenable to the Progressive way of thought and life. A mind set that divides all humans into two groups. Those who should be the rulers, themselves, and those who are to be ruled because they are not capable of caring for themselves, the hoi polloi.
Your scalpel will however cleave more than just the Right and the Moderates. It will cleave the Left also. Their Progressive core is only a fraction of their total numbers.
Slicing off the those of true Progressive thought from Left, Right, and the Moderate middle is a good thing. It will clarify and make transparent the real positions on the only issue that in the end matters, liberty.
Knowing who is for freedom and who wishes to have control of others lives is important. It is a distinction that has been muddled by both Parties to the detriment of our political system.
It is time to divide those who would rule us all from those who would rule themselves. That is the fundamental division upon which this nation was founded.
Paglia’s piece is fund in a shadenfraudey way, but even in high dudgeon she can’t help but make excuses for Unicorn Man:
How in tarnation could anyone be “blindsided” by the demands of the presidency? What did he think the end result of — you know — running for president would be? A couple of morning conference calls followed by pick-up hoops at the Y and and a daily afternoon rub-and-tug? (Well, that last bit’s probably not far-fetched. Rahm Emanual does have a certain asian-mamasan-at-the-unmarked-joint-out-near-the-airport hysterical-though-businesslike shrieking-shrillness to him.)
Reading the content of that link to Villanious Company simply reaffirms my earlier decision to not read Villanious Company regularly.
I’ve a nose for this sort of thing.
That middle paragraph is a quote.
Oh, and Joe, nicely done!
PIMF. some on not some one.
Geithner is a slick geek? Slick is another word that evidently doesn’t mean what it used to mean. Or is there another Geithner besides the tax cheat?
Evidently there is a former Australian PM who thinks that there is another Geithner, MarkD, a Geithner who, while designing an IMF program to ease the Asian banking crisis misunderstood the cause and ended up with the wrong remedy, destroying Asian economies to such an extent that China’s reaction was to set out never to deal with the IMF again.
Come on, MarkD! Geithner was the financial genius who was the only only one who could run the Treasury Dept. during these dangerous economic times. He was so important that his tax problems were a mere piffle, a sundry thing to be swatted away like an annoying gnat.
How’s that working out?
I really thought much meat was here:
For every “conservative” that is criticizing Rush, they are also – in effect- criticizing those who agree with him. That is not to say Rush has impunity to say anything w/o fear of recourse, but those who are so hell-bent to be unswayed on this instance need to take a step back, imho.
It is ok for everyone to say “I over reacted.” Go ahead. It will make you feel better. You’ve been played by Rahm and I’m sure that’s got to sting.
Has anyone noticed that Patterico found a quote of Limbaugh contending precisely the case that Pat has been claiming justified the left’s warping of Limbaugh’s meaning? Posted last night. Pat’s going to stick to his “it wasn’t an ugly” statement position for now, but he still believes the left is justified in taking RL to have meant to be “wishing and hoping for economic failure”. Limbaugh is clearly caught in apparent self-contradiction in the outtakes Pat has discovered and, in brief, that ain’t good. But I don’t think it’s fatal to Limbaugh’s contention either. Just more complex.
Does anyone here actually believe that the reactionary leftist plan for the American economy is actually going to work?
So what’s the brouhaha all about then?
Re: #42.
Since the Left always telegraphs what they will do by accusing their enemies of doing it first, and we have this current blowup over the 4 words, perhaps Geithner was chosen precisely for the things in that article. He knows how to use and enlarge a crisis. He knows how to fail.
N. O’Brain, I think it will work all right, pretty much just the way they’re intending it to work and toward the ends which they intend to achieve. That just doesn’t happen to mean favor growth and innovation in a free market over more central control of the economies of the world.
[…] to Protein Wisdom homepage « Life imitates the ShamWow: “I don’t know, it sells itself…” | Home | March 11, 2009 With Reference to What Jeff […]
Coulter is an embarassment who has gotten a little close to some racial or racialist loonies.
Rush is an entertainer with conservative political views who says some perceptive things, but also, some things that are pretty frigging stupid, net-net.
Jeff is a strong man who practices some arcane but deadly form of wrestling who also runs a blog with a set of political views I agree with readily.
Meghan McCain is the 20-something daughter of a career political insider.
Patterico is Patrick Frey, an LA DA who agrees with Jeff on some things, but not much on this Rush issue, and who has gotten pretty pissed off about this disagreement.
Dan Collins is a guy who went to Dartmouth and teaches college. He has also posted a video of an attractive woman pulling a hankerchief out of her ladyflower. Still, it worked.
The Rush issue is a series of interpretations about what the fat fuck actually said, and why the conservative movement should or should not take it lying down. Patterico says “Be careful in the future”; Jeff G. says, citing hermeneutics, “Blow me–the text and its meaning are as clear as day!”.
Andrew Sullivan is a jackass who has no bearing on this argument, but is still fun to insult because of some truly appalling conjecture he made about Sarah Palin’s daughter’s child. No really, he did it. A total dick move.
The White House is a large white house on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC whose occupants are laughing their asses off about how their political re-direction campaign has gotten the right into a circular firing squad. When they stop laughing, they will eventually realize they are not very good at whay they do for a living.
I’m a former investigative reporter who wishes that dan and Jeff would return to returning their rapier wits to skewering the left and chastising the right.
Yeah — except that Rush’s ratings do actually seem to be skyrocketing, and when more people listen to him, more people tend to agree with him.
I can’t really see how that’s something the Obamarrhoids are happy about.
Unless they’re, like, even stupider than I think they are. Or, heck, even stupider than Happyfeet thinks they are.
mcgruder, we HAVE BEEN chastising the right. But I don’t disagree with your characterizations. Especially the one of me.
Really? Did she spend 20 years of Sundays listening to them preach?
Some people are so married to the conventional wisdom of “go along, get along” they can’t realize that it’s constructive to have debates like this one. It’s not a “circular firing squad” unless people let their egos overwhelm their dedication to principles (cf Frum, David). I’d rather be part of a fractious party that hashes issues out rather than the of lefts’ Stepford Family, where no freak, no matter how extreme, is criticized.
I’ve been reading Villainous Company for many years, and I have always liked and respected Cassandra. What she doesn’t seem to get is that the left demonizes Rush Limbaugh not for the type of phrasing he uses, but because they DISAGREE with him.
Cassandra focused on what Rush said in his speech at the CPAC Convention. She pulled out a few words that “proved” (to her) how Rush doesn’t choose his words carefully enough. I watched Rush’s entire speech, and I found no problem with any of the words he used while speaking to AN AUDIENCE OF HIS PEERS. I happen to agree with him that a lot of liberals are “deranged.”
Then she pulled up something I said, and took a whole lot of time proving to me (and anyone else who doubted her) that Rush Limbaugh really isn’t liked, based on a bunch of polls, one of which characterized Limbaugh and Coulter and Hannity and Colmes as, “journalists.”
Why isn’t he liked? Is there anyone who hasn’t seen a liberal screeching about Limbaugh who doesn’t have a clue what Limbaugh is actually about? Limbaugh polls “negative,” and idealogy doesn’t matter when people are polled about “journalists.” Except that her USAToday/Gallup poll belies that about Rush Limbaugh. Those on the left view him much more negatively than those on the right.
And we must not consider a poll of ONLY people who listen to radio, because they might actually have a LEGITIMATE opinion of Limbaugh. We must include everyone who has ever read or heard something negative about Limbaugh from somebody else who has never listened to him. A poll of people who might actually have listened to Limbaugh would be “skewed.”
I’m glad that Cassandra is comforted that she found so many people who agree with her about Limbaugh, but she’s still dead wrong about letting the left set the standard for what “words” we can use in expressing our points of view.
JannyMae, I respect Cassandra, too, but I’m not glad she’s comforted.
mcgruder: Did you have a bad bowl of cornflakes this morning?
You know, proof that the left doesn’t really care about the intent behind folk’s words … did any liberal care about Charlie’s “Why don’t you mind your own business” remark? The meaning behind those eight words are the foulest I can imagine.
I dunno, Carin. Rangel’s got double-whammy protection as far as the left’s concerned, so I doubt they’re even aware of his words. For many of them, if they see a headline in re Rangel on a conservative site, they just mutter something about “racists” and MoveOn.
But, yeah, it’s a damned foul comment. I wish there were a couple of federal prosecutors with the stones to take on Congressional corruption.
A cynical person would think the opposition to Jeff’s point might have more to do with Republican in fighting than the actual point, you know?
It’s not necessarily cynical, nor is it restricted to the the issue of internecine struggles.
Notice how the left continues to focus this on the specific personalities, while giving wide berth to the other issues. Notice how some on the right are doing exactly the same thing. Am I saying they are closeted lefties? No, not at all, but I certainly am saying that controlling the narrative is very much one of the priorities in play.
Motives may differ, one simply may be a matter of not wanting to leave your comfort zone, and there probably are many more. But, ultimately they all represent efforts to keep all thought tethered to a well established pattern. One that clearly does not favor those with small megaphones.
“JannyMae, I respect Cassandra, too, but I’m not glad she’s comforted.” — Dan Collins
My statement was tongue-in-cheek.
Cassandra seems to have “needed” to prove how “unpopular” Rush is to justify her own dislike of him. I can’t help but be reminded me of the anti-Iraq war a-holes that used to cite public opinion polls as “proof” that the “American public disagreed with the war in Iraq.”
Cassandra constantly questioned the validity of those polls for good reason. Now she is buying into the “negatives” on Rush to support her own POV. For that reason, I’m not really glad that she is comforted either.
My point to her still is that Rush is seen negatively by people who don’t listen to him, because he is portrayed negatively by people who don’t listen to him, or by people who simply hate him because they hate his point of view.
When a guest on Chris Matthews show calls Limbaugh a “fat, pill-popping idiot” and Matthews laughs, that tells you all you need to know about the inability of the left to rebut Limbaugh’s arguments.
Limbaugh rebuts the left’s arguments for three hours everyday, with sound, reasoned commentary. No matter what words he chooses, he will be demonized by the left.
That’s twice today my irony meter has let me down.
Odd how every time Jeff’s name is even mentioned, timmah shows up in comments with teh lameness.
Who doesn’t like shortenin’?
The DOW is rising. An optimist would say the plan is working; Geithner’s the man. A pessimist would say that we need a few years to get back to where we were when this mob took over. A cynic would say that the DOW needs to double, because a dollar will soon be worth fifty cents and it’s not going to double for a long long time.
A super secret double cynic would say the plan is working – the plan is not what you think it is.
Rob, you know it’s funny (and anecdotal at this point) but many liberals on the internet are completely uninterested in talking politics right now.
That’s twice today my irony meter has let me down.
You’d better take it to the shop, Dan.
“What she doesn’t seem to get is that the left demonizes Rush Limbaugh not for the type of phrasing he uses, but because they DISAGREE with him.”
Exactly. Well said, JannyMae. Hate is what animates, unfortunately, far too many of the left.
I thought you were an investigative reporter person now, mcgruder. Are you just a regular old reporter person now or did something bad happen? I hope not.
Sign me up.
George,
No, they don’t. And they don’t want to. Liberty might threaten their power base.
Slarti – timmah is all sorts of creepy.
I haven’t read Patterico’s new piece, Sdferr, because as I keep saying, this isn’t about Limbaugh. But were I to make a snap response even without reading it, I’d ask why Patterico is willing to let the left privilege that particular iteration of Rush’s argument over certain others where he’s made proper clarification.
I tried reading it yesterday and I sorta felt like Limbaugh was saying that okay I’ll take it a step further and say blah blah blah, which to me sort of suggests that what he had said before was meant to be not the same. But Patterico says that what he says now means that what he said before actually meant what he says now.
Also, the statement is from a month later. Anybody who read my piece knows that we were dealing with the context of the original statement that media grabbed onto, and that I further argued that Rush would have time to refine his position. That he refined it toward a stronger position about hoping socialist policies fail even after they are enacted — so what?
As others have noted — and, given that it had no effect on my argument I didn’t much touch on — Rush wants to see America succeed, and America, being a free market liberal republic, cannot succeed if it becomes something else. At that point, what has succeeded is no longer America.
Clearly, Limbaugh wants socialist policy to fail. As, I think, do many of us. Inasmuch as Obama has plans to implement socialist policy, Limbaugh him — and those policies — to fail.
To anyone who believes in a republic built on classical liberal principles, there is really nothing shocking or even controversial in any of this.
Having said that, this is a DIFFERENT TEXT we’re dealing with. Again, we’re taking this text and freezing it. Has Limbaugh made any further pronouncements? Has he refined his position more? Did he refine his position thus in the context of having already been attacked anyway? — and he realized that adding fuel to the fire would likely increase the intensity of the conversation over the kinds of programs Obama had planned?
These are questions Patterico doesn’t consider. For whatever reason, he seems to want to foster the idea that the left, who jumped on those INITIAL remarks, was busy seriously contemplating all the interpretive nuance that the might eventually be able to tease out of such a statement — a position that gives them far more credit than they deserve, and one that flies in the face of their established modus operandi.
They cared not a whit about the context, and they framed the attacks based around a January 16th statement that did not lend itself to the interpretation that, from where I stand, doesn’t much change what Limbaugh originally meant. Can one wish socialism fail as a plan and then hope it succeeds as a policy? — particularly when the problem with socialist plans is that they undermine our system of government by their very enactment?
Anyway, these are ancillary questions. Because when you are dealing with an intentionalist argument, you are dealing with whose intent we wish to privilege. The media clearly privileged its own intent by taking the January 16th discussion and turning it into something it wasn’t. If Rush later decided to play along to up the rhetorical ante, that’s his business — and again, he can speak for himself.
Those who are “forced” to answer the media’s questions about what Limbaugh said are IN EFFECT conceding that Limbaugh is the head of the party. And why would they lend credence to that particular manufactured and dishonest assertion on the part of the White House and the media?
Again, that is falling into the trap being set by those looking to control the grounds for debate and to control meaning. And these GOP spokespeople who respond are accepting the premise — which, as I’ve been at pains to point out, is the real problem.
I fail to see how Pat’s new argument is helpful. I
Call now. Cause, ya know, Jeff can’t do this all day.
“That’s twice today my irony meter has let me down.” — Dan Collins
That’s okay. You don’t know me very well. Although I read here all the time, I seldom comment.
Now, I’m going to go read the latest thread…
I’d like to go on record as denouncing myself. Because I got distracted by Cassandra’s legs.
Duly noted. Hit Jeff’s tip jar.
I don’t know if that is really a likeness of Cassandra but your right Patrick; that pose is an eye catching distraction.