Archive for Liberal Snots

PUMA’s Sharpening Their Claws

I have a pretty strong stomach, as made evident by my slumming through antisemitic backwaters of Arab media, my explorations of Mexican cartel violence, my happy journalistic jaunts into oppressive regimes like China, Venezuela, and other socialist paradises.

But the American Left? I won’t go near it. You think I’m crazy?

Poor Hillary. She just can’t seem to catch a break. Recall that in 2008, Hillary lost Iowa not only to a young, fresh, and charming Barack Obama. She also lost, albeit by one point, to the very smarmy John Edwards. This time around, when the stars were allegedly cast her way, a whopping 84 percent of Democratic voters under the age of 30 “Felt the Bern,” pulling for Sanders; Hillary, for her part, dominated the senior demographic.

This has led certain feminists to the verge of a nervous breakdown. Why, the chorus goes, is Bernie cast as the future, while Hillary gets painted as “the establishment”? Hillary Clinton is a woman, didn’t you notice? She is by her very nature oppressed; by definition, she cannot be the establishment. Never mind her questionable treatment of the many women who accused her husband of sexual assault; never mind her current classified e-mail quagmire, in which she may have put national security at risk. She is a woman, America. Everything else is chump change.

On Tuesday, Wendy Davis, another national “feminist icon,” sent out a completely crazed pro-Hillary/post-Iowa tweet. You might remember Davis as the Democratic media darling who got creamed in the last Texas gubernatorial race, and who now serves as a slightly unhinged full-time abortion enthusiast, because today’s feminists don’t seem to choose their icons very well. I won’t quote Davis’s tweet because it contains the f-bomb, but please know it was written in all capital letters, as most rational thoughts are. It also praises a now-viral feminist Internet rant, which includes the following quote:


Well. That seems reasonable.

I give Wendy Davis a pass because she’s attractive, as is only natural. But who are the rest of these gnomes?

Hillary’s critics, Traister argues, fall into “a very old, very well-worn gendered pattern,” where women are seen as “know-it-all bores” and “wet blankets.” Bernie, on the other hand, can get away with anything: “The bigger truth is that what Bernie does, to great acclaim, that Hillary Clinton could never do is make big promises of institutional overthrow, tug on our imaginative heartstrings by laying out a future that might not be grounded in reality, and urge a revolution,” she writes. “Here is a truth about America: No one likes a woman who yells loudly about revolution.”

It’s not the revolution that’s a problem, it’s the yelling loudly:

I get that feminists are out of their minds over the seeming unfairness of it all. Many are out of their minds to begin with—and I say that as someone (a man, I confess, if only anatomically) raised in the turgid broth of feminism. But it’s only seeming. What’s fair about a career politician’s career wife deserving to be the party’s nominee for president, let alone president herself? She has to win more votes than the other guy, be it Barack or Bernie. If she can’t persuade the American electorate, how is she going to persuade Sergei Lavrov to push her Reset button? It’s only unfair if she’s “owed” the office.

Everybody threatens to leave the country if an unpalatable politician wins the race (Trump most notably). My red line was a Bush-Clinton race in November. Looks like I can stay, on both counts!


Behind Enemy Lines

Mark Steyn has an entertaining but informal appraisal of the Trump phenomenon, based on The Donald’s recent appearance in Havana North (aka Burlington, VT).

But it was someone else’s take I wanted to address. Radio host Howie Carr spoke to Trump on air just before the rally, and asked callers to phone in if they could make it into the venue (a small regional theater, rather than the stadia Trump usually sells out). Yesterday, someone did.

A woman called to say they had just missed getting in, fire safety laws having been enforced. But it hardly mattered; the camaraderie among the people in line warmed up a very long and cold wait. At this point in the call, the woman’s husband piped up. He said speaking to all the fellow Trump supporters in the heart of BenandJerristan made him feel “for the first time in his adult life” like he was not in the French resistance.

Bingo. How many of us know exactly that feeling, that we’re enemy agents operating underground, that if our true identities were revealed it would be curtains for us? But also that we’re fighting (however feebly) for something greater. We conservatives in liberal bastions are for more than lower taxes and fewer illegal immigrants—though God knows we are—but for a way of life that restores the balance of liberty between the individual and the state. What is disappointing and degrading is that our self-appointed enemies (again, they’re designation, not ours) are not the apparatchicks of the state bureaucracy…but our neighbors. Those liberal friends and acquaintances to whom I’ve “come out” and who still accept me are dearer to me for it; those who afterwards keep their distance can keep on keeping it. I won’t start a fight, but I won’t slink away from one either. Which, I think, is why Trump—crude, sloppy, intellectually lazy though he may appear—has so much appeal. We’re described and dismissed as “angry”, but read Steyn’s account of the evening. There’s more happiness and love expressed than at a Peter, Paul, and Mary concert.

Vive les États Unis!

PS: As I was saying…

Shut up, she explained.

PPS: Anti-Trump protesters peppered those waiting to see him with insults: “racist”, “xenophobe”—even “reptilian”. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Credit for novelty, but it’s dehumanizing (literally) to be dismissed as gila monster, not human.


Identity Politics

Clarence Thomas had his intelligence belittled and was labeled an “Uncle Tom”—by other black people.

Carly Fiorina was ridiculed and dismissed in a most sexist manner—by the women on The View.

Benjamin Netanyahu was excoriated, even accused of outright racism—by other Jews, both in Israel and America, for opposing Obama’s supine capitulation to the mullahs of Iran.

Ben Nighthorse Campbell switched from the Democrat to Republican party, and was branded an “apple” (red on the outside, white on the inside)—by other Indians.* (And don’t get me started on the pass Elizabeth Warren—who was, was not, was again, was not again, was yet again, etc. an Indian—has largely received from Native Americans for her casual appropriation of ethnic identity.)

Guy Benson, a conservative commenter, came out as gay, and was branded a “pink elephant” (or a memeber of the Velvet Mafia)—by gays.*

Alberto Gonzales was the nation’s first Attorney General (appointed by George W. Bush, who also appointed the first black Secretary of State, the first woman Secretary of State, and the first black woman Secretary of State). But when it came time for consideration as a Supreme Court justice, Gonzales was a papa calda (hot potato) among Latinos. I don’t know what derogatory term he was called, but I know no Democrat would have heard a peep.

There is only one identity in liberal politics: liberalism.

Which brings us to:

Liberal Hispanic groups have launched a campaign designed to turn Latino voters against the two Cuban American Republicans who have risen to the top tier of the GOP presidential field — assailing Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz as traitors to their own culture.

Radio and online ads, social media posts and public discussions with Hispanic leaders in swing states are accusing Cruz and Rubio, senators from Texas and Florida, respectively, of fighting against immigration reforms, a minimum wage increase and other changes that millions of Latinos support. Many of the ads equate the two candidates to GOP front-runner Donald Trump, whose sharp rhetoric on immigration has until now drawn most of the attention of Hispanic activists.

“It’s not comfortable for us to do this, to call out members of our own community who don’t reflect our community values, but we have no choice,” said Cristóbal Alex, president of the Democratic-backed Latino Victory Project.

“Not comfortable” mi culo. Only certain Latinos are worthy of victory. Which is fine: if you’re liberal, you’re liberal. But stop hiding behind the lie that is your name. Even the WaPo calls you out.

You all know I could have given dozens more examples. The moment one member of an “identity group” expresses his or her own identity, he or she is cast out, excommunicated. And not in a civil manner.

* I don’t have actual evidence of these two being called the slurs that I have discovered, but the slurs were real enough. And so was the derision they faced.

Comments (1)


Not that I care about the time slot (as I’m always asleep), but liberals can’t lose enough for my liking:

Number four with an anchor!

Stephen Colbert’s tenure got off to a hot start three months ago, but since then ratings have cooled off for CBS’s “The Late Show.”

The latest ratings released indicate Colbert has dropped to 4th place, behind NBC’s Jimmy Fallon, ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel, and even NBC’s Seth Meyers.

Shockingly, Meyers’s NBC show “Late Night” airs an hour later than Colbert in a less desirable time slot.

Since the former Comedy Central satirist took over for the retiring David Letterman, Colbert’s ratings have dropped almost 45 percent since his debut week.

There were stories a couple of weeks ago that his partisanship had driven away conservative viewers. Then he should be happy with the results. CBS maybe not so much, but you never can tell with the painful stream media.

As I nod off between 10:30 and 11 tonight, I’ll be drifting into sweet dreams of Stephen Colbert hectoring an empty room. Not quite up ther with my Kate Upton volleyball dream, but nothing is.


Touching the Third Rail

Like many of you, I’m sure, I like to read obituaries. There are many details of human foibles and forgotten chapters of history unearthed in those few paragraphs that sum up a person’s life.

Rarely, however, does one piss me off:

Stephen Birmingham, an author whose frothy books of social history, such as ‘‘Our Crowd’’ and ‘‘The Rest of Us,’’ were best-selling sagas of American aristocracy, often viewed through the lens of ethnic minorities, died Nov. 15 at his home in New York City. He was 86.

The cause was lung cancer, said his longtime partner, Edward Lahniers.

No problem there. Thots’n’prayers and all that.

Mr. Birmingham began his literary career as a novelist, dissecting the manners of the prep-school class, before turning his attention to what he called New York’s ‘‘other society’’ — the German-Jewish dynasties that had dominated Manhattan’s banking and brokerage circles for a century.

‘‘Our Crowd: The Great Jewish Families of New York’’ became a No. 1 bestseller in 1967, was made into a musical, and launched a literary franchise for Mr. Birmingham as a chronicler of wealth and celebrity.

He wrote other nonfiction accounts of life among the upper echelons of Jewish, Irish, African-American, and old-line Anglo-Saxon society. He also published biographies of first lady Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and socialite Wallis Warfield Simpson, as well as several novels.

‘‘Our Crowd,’’ which focused on the little-known world of German Jewish families in New York, proved to be something a landmark and was hailed in Newsweek as a ‘‘sprightly, delightfully gossipy social history.’’

Mr. Birmingham, who was of Irish and British ancestry and was not Jewish, had attended the exclusive Hotchkiss prep school in Connecticut with descendants of several families who controlled financial empires established in the 19th century.

He became fascinated with the idea of exploring the social and commercial lives of the Lehmans, Warburgs, Guggenheims, Schiffs, and other families he called, correctly or not, ‘‘the closest thing to aristocracy that the city, and perhaps the country, had seen.’’

He followed the same breezy formula in ‘‘The Grandees: America’s Sephardic Elite’’ (1971) and ‘‘The Rest of Us: The Rise of America’s Eastern European Jews’’ (1984), which looked at the rise of such 20th-century figures as movie mogul Samuel Goldwyn and gangster Meyer Lansky.

Mr. Birmingham’s books flew off the shelves and made him something of a celebrity in his own right, with appearances on Johnny Carson’s and Merv Griffin’s talk shows.

That’s great. I haven’t read any of his books, but if a WASP (or whatever) wants to write about rich Jews, have at it. I’m glad people wanted to read it.

But then:

When he turned to other social groups in ‘‘Real Lace: America’s Irish Rich’’ (1973) and ‘‘Certain People: America’s Black Elite’’ (1977), Mr. Birmingham began to lose his footing.

‘‘Certain People,’’ in particular, met with hostile reviews as critics questioned Mr. Birmingham’s conclusions and the premise of a white man writing about the inner workings of black society.

’’ ‘Certain People’ is so flawed that it is hard to decide where to find fault first,’’ critic Le Anne Schreiber wrote in Time magazine in 1977, saying Mr. Birmingham ‘‘remains insensitive to the tragic involutions of identity that make the black elite very different from — and much more vulnerable than — its white counterpart.’’

Again, without having read the books it’s hard to comment, but he can write about Jews without being Jewish, about Irish without being all Irish, and about Jackie O and Wallis Simpson without being either one. But let him dare to put pen to paper to write about black people—successful black people—and the liberal literal elite—a race unto themselves—scream bloody murder. If that’s what “tragic involutions of identity” means; I haven’t a clue.

That’s pretty weird, even for liberals.

Curious, I went to the late Mr. Birmingham’s Amazon page to see if the book is even available and how it is has been received. A certain Dr. Kenneth Holden wrote:

Certain People is a classic study of the black upper class in America. Researched by one of the most impressive social historians of the day. Mr. Birmingham has produced works documenting the social history of almost every cultrue in this country and he has not fallen short with this study. I first read the book in 1978 and it opened up a whole world of information that I was unaware of even though I grew up in a black upper middle class environment.

Thank goodness for this book and others like [several titles named].

This book has introduced me to a vast world of research that dates back to the middle of the 19th century. In his introduction Mr. Birmingham explains how the book came about and the numerous persons that contributed to the success of his work.

He does an excellent job of tracing the origins of such affluent organiztions as the Links, Boule, Jack & Jill, and other prominent fraternal and social oranizations that the black upper class hold membership.

Certain People is one of the finest examples of black social history, the kind of work that makes a difference in the study of Black America.

Dr. Holden’s identity sounds anything but tragically involuted. I think he liked it.

It must be said, however, that this review was more typical:

This cultural climate has much to do with the appearance of Certain People, Stephen Birmingham’s poorly conceived and clumsily presented attempt to describe America’s black elite. The book has already received much unfavorable notice. Perhaps we should have seen it coming: The Right People, The Right Places, “Our Crowd“—Birmingham’s previous titles suggest a lamentable hobby. Recently, Vogue carried a Birmingham article on black fashion queens, and its giddy approval of highly refined brown sugar governs most of Certain People. Militancy as a style among visible blacks has subsided, creating for writers like Birmingham a new kind of accessibility and coverage. The niceness of the race is redeemed. Andy goes on the red clay Georgia trail; Andy goes to Washington; Andy goes for the heads of Her Majesty’s diplomats. This is the year of the Bionic Black, and porkchop nationalists have lost prestige.

That’s worse than “tragic involutions of identity”, but at least this reviewer was black. As unintelligible as that is, it reveals two truths. One, that Birmingham’s “lamentable hobby” of writing about socio-ethnicity raised hackles only when he turned his attention (favorably) to black people. Two, the Bionic Black sounds like the progenitor of the Magic Negro, some thirty years before Barack Obama was declared one.

Even a blind squirrel…


Talking Turkey

When the stuffing gets political, the politics gets stuffed:


The holiday season is filled with food, traveling, and lively discussions with Republican relatives about politics sometimes laced with statements that are just not true. Here are the most common myths spouted by your family members who spend too much time listening to Rush Limbaugh and the perfect response to each of them.

Isn’t it nice of the Democratic National Committee to spark conversation among loving families? Screw the Red Sox’s starting rotation, let’s talk John Kasich:

Kasich seems like a moderate guy.

When it comes to taxes, John Kasich might as well be Donald Trump — he signed massive tax cuts for the wealthy in Ohio, and he’s released a plan to do the same thing as president. And when it comes to women’s health, Kasich might as well be Ted Cruz — his restrictions on women’s health have cut the number of abortion clinics in half across the state of Ohio. On issue after issue, there’s no difference between Kasich and the most conservative members of his party.

Oh. Oh, I see. How ’bout them Bruins?

Did you say Rubio?

Marco Rubio is young and seems like a new kind of Republican.

Well, that’s half right. I’ll concede that Marco Rubio is young. But we’re talking about a guy who keeps recycling the same old GOP policies of the past that hurt middle-class families. He opposes raising the federal minimum wage, he wants to cut taxes for the wealthy and corporations, and on foreign policy, he might as well be Dick Cheney.

Really. Wow. I didn’t know.

Here’s what else you don’t know:

Letting Syrian refugees into the United States is like hanging a “welcome, terrorists” banner on the front door.

The United States has one of the strictest refugee screening processes in the world—we can help families whose lives have been destroyed by ISIS without jeopardizing our security. But when our leaders embrace Islamophobia, that makes it harder for us to fight terrorism abroad. And not for nothing, screening refugees based on their religion goes against everything our country stands for.

God bless America! And Tom Brady! Just don’t mention ObamaCare.


Black Lives Natter

Remember “Hands up, don’t shoot”? Never happened.

Remember “I can’t breathe”? He could if he said it.

Then there’s “We offer our heartfelt condolences to the people of Paris, and are remembering them in our prayers.”

Yeah, that never happened either:

“Racist white people kill me, you want everyone to have sympathy for YOUR tragedy, but you have none for ours,” wrote user Melanin Monroe under the Twitter handle @NeonElectricity in a post that has since been removed.

Others, like user “dog enthusiast,” under the handle @bmahimaaa, equated the slaughter in Paris with the racial tensions in Missouri — calling both “terrorism.”

“Paris attacks were terrorism,” the user wrote. “black students getting death threats on their college campuses (A SUPPOSED SAFE SPACE!!) is also TERRORISM.”

All these imbeciles may be black, but we would have you understand that not all blacks are imbeciles. “That’s not American. That’s not who we are.”

PS: Her name is Melanin? Seriously?

PPS: From Occupy Wall Street to Black Lives Matter, these so-called spontaneous protest movements share one thing, which is a nullity. There’s nothing there.


More Casualties in the War on Women

Oh, the humanity!

The View hosts attacked Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina‘s appearance during their post-debate analysis, saying she looked like a demented Halloween mask when she smiled.

“You know what Carly said which really made me laugh?” Michelle Collins asked. “She kicked off her thing saying, ‘You know, people tell me that I didn’t smile enough during the last debate.’”

Collins imitated Fiorina’s smile. “She looked demented!” she continued. “Her mouth did not downturn one time.”

“I wish it was a Halloween mask,” Joy Behar said. “I’d love that.”

“’Smiling Fiorina’? Can you imagine? It’d give me nightmares,” Collins said.

It’s not Fiorina I feel sorry for. But these dingbats represent all women. You poor, poor things. Treason is a hanging offense.

Comments (1)

They Are Not Amused

Three days ago, we shared with you C.J. Pearson’s viral video calling out President Obama for falling for Ahmed’s bogus clock.

Harry Reid infamously called Obama a “light-skinned” African American with a “negro dialect” when he wanted one.

Add thin-skinned:

The Georgia teenager whose vocal criticism of President Obama and the White House has made national news, now finds himself on the outside looking in when it comes to Twitter.

Thirteen-year-old C.J. Pearson, who last week blasted the president’s response to the Texas Muslim teen suspended from school because a teacher thought his homemade clock was a bomb, said Wednesday afternoon that he had found himself blocked from President Obama’s official Twitter account.

Doesn’t it just figure? Except, wait: they deny it.

A short time later, White House assistant press secretary Frank Benenati tweeted from his own account a statement claiming that no one had ever been blocked from the @POTUS Twitter account, a statement that was quickly challenged by a number of individuals responding to the post.

Frank Benenati
Public Service Announcement: Nobody is or has ever been blocked from the @POTUS twitter account

Pearson’s response is not yet on his YouTube channel, but here’s a link to his public Facebook page (until Mark Zuckerberg takes it down). He’s got a screenshot to prove it, and tweets from others who’ve been blocked. Benenati has not commented further, but he’s not been idle:

Frank Benenati retweeted
Pope Francis meets Bo and Sunny.


I know Pete Souza is the royal court photographer, but he’s got “the Vicar of Christ” and two beautiful dogs in the picture—does Obama have to dominate? Especially when he looks so disinterested?

The emperor is naked, C.J. Don’t let anyone tell you different.


Dispatch From the Frontlines of the War on Women

CAUTION: Graphic visual.

On “Conan” last week, host Conan O’Brien took a shot at “Happening Now” co-anchor Jenna Lee.

In a segment called “Coffee Table Book That Didn’t Sell,” Conan revealed a made-up book called “Fox News Anchor or Porn Star,” featuring Lee’s image.

Ha-ha, just kidding. Left on right crime isn’t crime, it’s pith. Satire. Humor, comedy, insight, wit. Fox News is right-of-center, so its hosts—it’s attractive female hosts—are sluts. Hos. And, with a little imagination, porn stars. Anything but regular human beings:

She responded in a Facebook post, writing, “As a wife, and a new mom, this trashy comment is not only inappropriate, it’s clearly ridiculous … In fact, Conan brings up a sad truth. Some women feel they need to dress and look like porn stars to make it on TV. I wonder where they get that idea? Could it be that the more provocative and sexy their social media photos are, the more followers they get? … My theory is my body should never be more important than my body of work – and I’m not done building the latter.”

On “Media Buzz,” Lee explained to Howard Kurtz that she understands the necessity of knowing how to take a joke – especially when you’re in the public eye – she believes that at some point, silence makes one complicit.

“This was the moment that I felt like I couldn’t be silent about it,” she explained.

Why should Conan apologize? He probably got a raise.


Mein Klimat

In the good old days, “global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers” (Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe).

Today, global warming is the Holocaust:

Though no American would deny that tanks work in the desert, some Americans do deny that deserts are growing larger. Though no American would deny ballistics, some Americans do deny climate science. Hitler denied that science could solve the basic problem of nutrition, but assumed that technology could win territory [Lebensraum]. It seemed to follow that waiting for research was pointless and that immediate military action was necessary. In the case of climate change, the denial of science likewise legitimates military action rather than investment in technology. If people do not take responsibility for the climate themselves, they will shift responsibility for the associated calamities to other people. Insofar as climate denial hinders technical progress, it might hasten real disasters, which in their turn can make catastrophic thinking still more credible. A vicious circle can begin in which politics collapses into ecological panic. The direct consequences of climate change will reach America long after Africa, the Near East and China have been transformed. By then, it will be too late to act.

It took him for-freaking-ever to get to his point—this was his 29th paragraph, all of about this length, with even more to follow. It took some digging on my part even to find this. Your welcome.

But he couldn’t quite hide it. He tried hinting, he tried false parallels, but only here does he come out and say it: not only are global warming deniers like Holocaust deniers, global warming is the new Holocaust. But all those paragraphs, all those words, appealing to our sense of dread at the Holocaust—he doesn’t quite bring it off. How does “the denial of science likewise legitimate military action” (and who uses “legitimate” as a verb?)? How does “climate denial hinder technical progress”? Who “denies climate”, anyway? Why can’t ballistics be sound science and global warming a bunch of hooey?

There’s too much to argue with to argue at all. Just know that in your GMC Denali, you’re no different from some SS stormtrooper marching Jews off to the camps, only this time it’s Africans, Near Easters, and Chinese. Shame on you.

PS: I couldn’t think of what he meant by Near East, by the way. I get the Far East and the Middle East, but what’s nearer than (i.e. west of) the Middle East? Except Eastern Europe? Turns out Near East is a quaint old term for the Middle East. But I like quaint old terms, so I may pick it up myself. Purely for the affectation, you understand.


A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Detonate

As Aggie posted yesterday, nothing makes the heart grow fonder than watching the heads of Obamabots explo—lookout!

There goes another one:

JOY ANN REID, MSNBC: I’d like to see a venn diagram between the tea party, the [Sarah] Palinites and Trump supporters. I bet there’d be a lot fo [sic] overlap.

Remember, Tea Party supporters claim they weren’t far right, they weren’t really Republicans, they were just “average Americans who wanted the truth.” And so I think what you have with Trump and what I see as his base, is not just the far right, but the right, and it’s a lot of Republicans who are disgruntled with the Republican party.

It’s white Republicans. It’s mostly white male Republicans and it’s basically white Americans who feel left out of Obama’s America, who are peeved with the fact that their preferred party can’t seem to beat Obama and who want to hear a guy be able to stand up and be as politically incorrect as they can’t be.

With typical MSNBC perspicacity, Ms. Reid (there’s no joy to her at all) divines that a Republican candidate appeals to Republican voters. Wow.

Actually, given the pathetic state of Republican politicians these days, it is noteworthy when one of them doesn’t get the rotten tomato treatment from Republican voters. But that’s because Trump is not a poitician. He’s Trump, warts and…whatever isn’t warts.

Oh no!

There goes another one!

MSNBC host Chris Matthews speaks with NBC reporter Katy Tur, who is following Trump at a campaign rally in Mobile, Alabama where 30,000 people are expected to turn out to see The Donald. Matthews described the scene at Ladd-Peebles Stadium in Mobile, Alabama as a “redneck riviera.”

Matthews asked the network correspondent, who was live on scene, if “any black people were there.”

“I have not seen any today that have come out for Donald Trump,” Tur responded.

“[They are] normal looking people, who have normal looking opinions on things,” the intrepid Tur observed.

I spoke — I spoke with a lot of people at lunch today — and they were all, to be blunt, caucasian white people who expressed support. The others did not.

Spoke to one caucasian white people, spoke to ’em all.

But if you’d like to speak to some African American black people, Chris, allow me to introduce you:

PS: “Redneck Riviera” is a good line, though. Credit where it’s due.

Comments (1)

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »