If you want to make a simple concept more complex than it needs to be, leave if to the Left. This past week saw an example of this fall in our respective laps, and it involves a woman. Or, more specifically, what a woman is. Now, most people can figure it out, but that hasn’t stopped the Left from trying to cast doubt on the answer.
Whether it’s a NCAA woman’s swimming champion sporting a penis, proclamations about trans women getting pregnant in spite of lacking the necessary parts, or a Supreme Court nominee who seems to think you need a biologist to know what a woman is (while being a woman herself), the Left has made being a woman a lot more difficult.
woman
What the Left thinks it means – anybody who identifies as a woman
What it really means – an adult biological female
Now, the Left will tell us my definition doesn’t include trans women and, thus, I’m a transphobe. Of course, if they knew me, they would know a) I don’t hate trans people, b) I don’t fucking care what they call me because c) I trust week-old convenience store sushi more than the Left’s ability to accurately judge a situation. And, to put it mildly, they’ve completely misread the situation with women.
For decades, women flocked to the Left for various reasons, including their desire to kill unborn children at will. And that worked well…until the Left got invested in trans rights. Now, Leftists are showing how much they actually cared about women’s issues: not a hell of a lot.
The Left believe the ends justify the means. If that means they have to lie, cheat, and steal to achieve a goal, they’ll do it, and they’ve done it with women’s issues. They’ll throw out vague threats (Republicans are going to outlaw abortions if they get back into power), nice-sounding but ultimately meaningless slogans (childcare is infrastructure), and ideas with no basis in reality (the gender pay gap) to keep women voting for Leftists. Yet, in spite of promising to fight the patriarchy, nothing of substance gets done. Part of this is because Leftists are mostly incompetent, but the main reason is because they need problems to continue for them to keep votes coming in for Leftist candidates. Blather, rinse, repeat.
Then, trans women came into the scene. Although most are predisposed to vote for Leftists, the Left doesn’t want to take any chances. So, they played around with the language and came up with the idea to consider trans women as actual women. On the surface, it doesn’t seem to be that troubling, but then trans women started to get involved in women’s sports. And not just succeeding here and there, kids. Absolutely dominating them.
Congratulations, ladies. You lost the War of the Sexes to men, thanks to Leftists.
What’s worse is the Left doesn’t even want to consider the fact their overly gracious definition of women is wrong. They’re the smartest people in the room (just ask them). Well, there are a couple of key points these “smart” people have overlooked and to much hilarity.
First off is science. Now, the “party of science” doesn’t want you to consider basic biology to realize there really are two genders, male and female. While the Left pushes the bullshit idea that gender is a social construct put upon babies upon birth, the actual science says just the opposite. In order to be born female, a baby has to have two x chromosomes. Once that happens, nature takes its course and the girl develops as girls tend to do, no doctors designations needed.
Then, there is the numbers game. Right now women make up a little over half of the population. Meanwhile, 1.4 million adults identify as transgender. Out of a US population of 329.5 million people, that makes a whopping…0.004%. So, Leftists are gambling on pissing off over half of the population just to appease a group that was already inclined to vote with the Left in the first place.
So, how does that ass-fucking feel, ladies? It gets worse, though.
Thanks to the Left’s love of trans women, there are going to have to be new interpretations of existing rules, laws, and regulations. If you’re upset over Lia Thomas dominating NCAA women’s swimming, just consider the implications for Title IX. For those of you playing along at home, Title IX is designed to prevent sex discrimination at any educational institution that gets federal funding. That’s right, kids. Soon men will be allowed to get Title IX protection merely by identifying as women. They don’t even have to get their…well, hot dogs…removed.
If you’re sensing a pattern here, it’s because there is one. For all of the “progress” being made with trans women, it’s at the expense of women who were born women. Say, isn’t there a term the Left uses for power systems that favor men? Isn’t it called…the Patriarchy? Why, yes, yes it is! Am I saying the Left’s supporting the Patriarchy by going so overboard with the trans woman issue? Why, yes, yes I am!
Maybe it’s me, but sometimes the irony tastes like steak. This is one of those times.
To put it simply, trans women aren’t women. I don’t say this to be mean or hateful; I say it because it’s the truth. There is a lot more about being a woman than just slapping on a skirt and make-up. As conservative commentator and all around good egg Tammy Bruce explained it, women are the sum total of their unique experiences, experiences men don’t have and, thus, can’t shape their lives like these experiences do for women. Although, I do think of the day my mom got me my first bra…unschweiger. Yeah, that’s it!
Anyway, the important thing to keep in mind here is women are different than men. Always have been and always will be. And that’s a good thing! What isn’t so good is the notion women have to take a back seat to trans women in the name of equality, diversity, and tolerance. You ladies have worked far too hard for far too long to gain equal, and in some cases superior, footing in society just to let Leftists toss it all aside for the Lia Thomases of the world. Stand up for yourselves and let the Left know how you feel. Sure, you’ll get pushback and even some harsh rhetoric thrown your way, but it doesn’t matter because of one little detail the Left can’t refute.
You are smarter than a Supreme Court nominee because you don’t even need to be a biologist to know what a woman is!
Month: March 2022
Convention of States
There is a growing political movement out there to call for a Convention of States (CoS). This is also known as an Article V Convention or a Constitutional Convention. Just different names for the same thing.
Article V of our Constitution reads as follows:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the First Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
The supporters of this movement appeal to the emotions of their victims to gain additional support and momentum. A classic move of Leftists everywhere. And the Leaders of this political movement refuse to debate their opponents. This should be very telling exactly were this issue stands.
The beginning of the emotional appeal is stating that a CoS is needed to combat and stop federal government overreach and to limit federal power. Many Conservatives, Libertarians, and Republicans all recognize this as a growing problem in Washington DC.
We are all fed up with how the federal government is encroaching on our everyday lives and we all want to stop it from happening and getting worse. And just think for a moment about this issue. What are your feelings? Anger or even rage perhaps. This is an emotional response and if one says yes to the CoS. It is due to that emotional outrage instead of a logical, rational, or intellectual response. That is what the CoS leaders hope happens.
The two big pushes for a CoS are a balanced budget Amendment and a term limits Amendment. What isn’t widely known is that an Amendment to the Constitution isn’t needed for either of these things. Congress can simply balance the budget without it. That does of course take self control and Wise spending practices on the part of Congress. Additionally term limits were never originally part of the Constitution because the Founders thought the American people would be educated and politically active. Thus automatically preventing career politicians with their votes.
In the false tongues of the CoS movement, we are told that there is no reason to fear or be worried about such a Convention. There are rules. Each State gets one vote. 38 States have to Ratify any new Amendment created by the Convention. And the States calling for the Convention all have to agree on reasons for calling it. So nothing could possibly go wrong.
So yes it is completely safe. Except when you look at the facts of history.
No one can guarantee what will happen if a CoS is called. Write all the agendas you care to write. But just because it is written doesn’t mean it will happen that way.
A case in point for those that have never attended a political convention. One of the first orders of business by the duly elected or appointed delegates is to either approve the rules or change them. This includes changing how the votes are counted. Secondly, after the rules question comes the agenda. It is either approved or also changed. Again by a vote of the delegates present.
I have seen this happen in my own lifetime during my political journey. To say it wont happen at CoS is just pure ignorance and naivety. And to say it wouldn’t happen with something as large and important as the Constitution in the United States of America. That too is ignorance of history.
Once before, here in the United States of America, appointed or elected delegates met for a Convention. Called by a unanimous vote of all the several States, which was at the time the requirement. They met at Independence Hall at Philadelphia in 1787. Their stated purpose, the agenda, was to amend the then governing document of the nation, the Articles of Confederation.
They did not. No, instead those men changed the rules and the agenda at their Convention. They throw out the Articles of Confederation and created our current Constitution in its place. They even changed the ratification rules with this new document. Instead of all the several States needing to ratify it. Only three fourths needed to do so.
There are many political groups out there on both the Left and the Right, who have already written a new constitution for their version of what the United States of America should be in their eyes. None of these drafted documents are better than our current Constitution. And all it takes is those delegates at a CoS to vote on changing the rules and agenda to have one of these new constitutions or some other to become our new governing document.
The leaders of the CoS movement say that the above would never happen during their Convention. That such a scenario is a scare tactic by the opponents of the CoS movement.
Yes it is a scare tactic. And you should be scared to death of what a CoS could do if called into being. I am, which is why I’m writing this article to help educate the public and spread the word about the dangers that calling a CoS can do.
Look at history again. Even without a CoS we have created Amendments that completely replaced previous Amendments or changed whole clauses of various Articles under the Constitution.
Within a CoS it becomes very easy to make changes or even create a new constitution. The danger of a CoS is too real to ignore despite anyone’s feelings that such events wont happen. It cannot be guaranteed.
If the CoS is called, will this nightmare scenario happen? Will they create a new constitution or propose changes other than what the original agenda was created to do? We wont know until it happens and then it is too late. It’s like passing a bill to find out what is in it.
The fact of the matter is that I don’t trust a single living soul to write new Amendments to the Constitution or even write a new constitution. Including myself in this. The majority of Amendments added to our Constitution since the beginning of the 20th Century have all been based on emotions and are poorly written and conceived.
Do not support the call for a Convention of States (CoS). Fight it with every opportunity you have. Your life, your children’s lives, and your prosperity depends on defeating this Pandora’s Box before it gets opened.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
To say America is polarized right now is like saying “The View” is a moronic TV show: technically accurate, but severely understated. Everything is a point of contention. Whether we should teach children about sexual identity. Who is to blame for gas prices so high Willie Nelson and Snoop Dogg look Mormon by comparison. The ongoing struggle between Joe Exotic and Carole Baskin.
And now, we have a war to contend with between Russia and Ukraine.
If you thought the Exotic/Baskin conflict was bad, hoo boy, don’t try to express even a nuanced, factual opinion like former Congresswoman and current sane Democrat Tulsi Gabbard did regarding biolabs in Ukraine that might cause a global threat if Russia wins the war. In response, current Senator and former kinda sane Republican Mitt Romney called Gabbard out, stating she was “parroting false Russian propaganda” and “Her treasonous lies may well cost lives.”
Ah, there’s the million dollar word: treason. It’s a word being thrown around like a football in Tom Brady’s hands, especially by Leftists looking to drum up support for Ukraine and shut down even the smallest debates about the war. And, as we’re about to find out, it’s a heavy term that shouldn’t be used lightly.
treason
What the Left thinks it means – actions that undermine American ideals
What it really means – actions that undermine Leftist ideals
In the interest of transparency, I am undecided on whether to support Russia (extremely unlikely) or Ukraine (more likely, but not without further introspection) in their geopolitical Wrestlemania with heavy artillery. Both sides have a vested interest in putting a positive spin on what they’re doing, so for someone like me, it’s hard to take what is being presented/reported at face value.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is treason according to the Left, and to Senator Romney. After all, there’s a war going on, right?
Welllll…yes and no. Yes, there is a war going on, but we’re not one of the particulars. Given our history over the past couple of decades, this is a nice change of pace, but the fact we’re not directly involved as a combatant undermines the accusations of treason and simultaneously shows how the Left’s use of the word in such a manner is idiotic at best.
To quote Hannibal Smith, I love it when a plan comes together.
The primary definition of treason according to Dictionary.com is “the offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its sovereign.” (More on that later.) Furthermore, Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 of our lovely and talented US Constitution addresses treason thus:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
And this is why we need to read the Constitution, kids. For as much as the Left love to try to muddy the waters, the Constitution is pretty clear most of the time, especially here. Maybe it’s just my wacky way of weeding out the bullshit and getting to the heart of the matter, but it seems to me nobody asking legitimate questions (or even illegitimate ones for that matter) is trying to help the enemy, whomever that is in the Russia-Ukraine battle because, well…how can I put this delicately…there is no fucking enemy!
Granted, a pretty good case can be made that Russia is the enemy here since they’re trying to get the former Soviet Union back together again and Vladimir Putin hates us like the Yankees hate the Red Sox. But right now no one here is waging war against us by asking questions about the motivations behind the war and our role in it.
Spoiler Alert: turns out we have a vested interest in seeing Ukraine win if only to hide some of the shady shit we’ve been doing there.
Like…oh I don’t know…funding biolabs in Ukraine.
Now, before you Leftists start trying to quibble over the facts, let me point out something you’ve missed in all of this treason talk. I mean, aside from the whole we’re not at war with Russia and/or Ukraine thing. As much as you want/need to discredit Mrs. Gabbard, she brought this little thing the kids call receipts. After her television appearance that got Romney’s magic underwear in a bunch, she dropped a lot of newspaper articles that not only backed up her claims, but made his “treasonous lies” claim seem pretty stupid (which they were).
Unless, of course, you want to start accusing the Washington Post of being in Putin’s back pocket, Mittens…
Now, for the big picture part the Left always seems to miss in these situations as they madly try to defend their incompetence. These biolabs may or may not house biological weapons. That, in and of itself, should be enough justification to ask the questions Gabbard did, but there’s another element. If we are to believe the federal government’s view of what these labs do, they are a storehouse of infectious diseases and cures. In the wrong hands, these can be weaponized, figuratively and literally.
Now, let’s take this little thought experiment a step further. You know what country known for a certain infection disease that caused a global lockdown is chummy with Russia right now? Can you say “China”? I knew you could.
Even if you are hesitant to assign blame to China for COVID-19, the fact they also have biolabs that work on infectious diseases (and, oddly enough, have security measures so weak it makes Barney Fife look like Walker Texas Ranger) should be enough to throw up some major red flags.
Especially for those “follow the science” folks. Hmmm…wonder what happened to them and what they feel about the current situation in Ukraine. I’m sure they couldn’t be completely oblivious to the possible danger and simply be throwing around a term like treason willy-noooooooh, wait.
Regardless of what you think about Gabbard’s political positions and connections to Russia, she has been staunchly anti-war and unafraid to call out people on all sides when they’re being dumbasses. And that isn’t treason, kids.
But that won’t stop the Left from throwing around the term like parade candy. Take the 1/6 “insurrection” for example (Told you we’d get to it!) Leftists are quick to point out the “traitors” who stormed the Capitol were trying to overthrow the duly elected government and threatened to kill Congresscritters and Vice President Mike Pence. Although there were some asshats who went that far and should be considered traitors for doing so, most of the 1/6 participants didn’t. If we’re going to throw the treason charge at them via guilt by association, let me be clear in saying that is going to backfire in a big way when Leftists who backed Antifa and Black Lives Matter get a one way ticket to Fort Fuck-Around-And-Find-Out for the crimes some of the “mostly peaceful” protesters did. And let me just say I think prison orange would look horrible on Maxine Waters, not because it’s an ugly color, but because Auntie Maxine looks horrible in just about anything.
For me, accusing someone of treason is a serious charge that needs to be backed up with more than hurt feefees. To date, Senator Romney hasn’t backed up what he tweeted with any evidence, let alone evidence to the extent Gabbard provided. And any Leftist who is praising him needs to back up the accusation or get called out. Gabbard accepted Russian money. You know who else was willing to take it?
Matt Romney, as in Mitt’s son.
Wow. That’s going to be an awkward conversation at Thanksgiving dinner. Provided, of course, Senator Romney is consistent. Spoiler Alert: the only thing he’s consistent at is being inconsistent. Just like Leftists! Then again, using “Leftist” and “Mitt Romney” in the same sentence is repeating one’s self, but that’s neither here nor there.
The larger point here is we shouldn’t be calling anyone or any idea treasonous unless it actually is treasonous. A bold position, I know, but one that has to be made in today’s contentious ideological environment. Tulsi Gabbard’s concerns over biolabs in Ukraine simply doesn’t rise to the level of trying to overthrow the government or kill its leader. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar, an idiot, or both.
Or Mitt Romney, but I repeat myself.
State of the Onion Address 2022
There are many words that could be used to describe the state of media today, but I will only use two.
Hoo boy.
Since I need to fill out this blog post a bit more, I think I’d better use a few more words. To put it mildly, the lessons the media should have learned by now have gone the way of Whoopi Goldberg winning an award from the Simon Wiesenthal Center anytime soon. As a former journalism student myself, I am astounded people who get paid to tell us what to think…I mean the news can continually make mistakes that would get you kicked out of Journalism 101 at a junior college that also doubles as a tire repair shop.
And when you consider they’re acting as fact checkers as well as reporters, it’s a double whammy. If it were just an error every once in a while, it might be easy to forgive. Unfortunately for them, Kyle Rittenhouse entered the chat. After months of painting him (incorrectly) as a racist gun-nut who wanted to shoot black people for riot…I mean protesting, not only was he acquitted, but now he’s starting to go after some of the media types who smeared him before, during, and even after his day in court.
And you thought Nick Sandmann was pwning the media!
Then, there’s the current war in Ukraine, where we’re told only one side is telling the truth and anyone who says differently is a traitor. There is an old saying that applies here, “In war, truth is the first casualty.” As much as we want to root for those plucky Ukrainians, knowing how fucked up media coverage has been on domestic matters should cast some serious doubt on whether we can trust it on foreign affairs, which American media care next-to-nothing about to begin with. Good thing there’s a war going on or else we wouldn’t know where Ukraine is on a world map or know what flags to put on our social media profiles to show that, dammit, we care!
And really that’s the point with media coverage anymore. It’s not to keep us informed as to what is happening or to flesh out details that would help us make informed decisions. It’s to make us feel something. President Joe Biden fucking up the economy worse than he fucked up the Afghanistan withdrawal? That’s not important, but what is important is that we feel he’s doing a good job.
That is one of the most abused powers of the media right now: the power to elicit emotions. A snide comment slipped into an allegedly straight news story, a carefully edited audio or video clip, or even a catchy phrase to summarize a piece of legislation can be enough to create an idea that may or may not be tethered to reality.
Just ask Florida Governor Ron Desantis and his press secretary Christina Pushaw. They’ve been dealing with media types and Leftists (but I repeat myself) maligning the “Don’t Say Gay” bill that Desantis is expected to sign into law once it hits his desk. You know how many times the word “gay” appears in the bill, including its title?
Zero. None. Zilch. Nada. The Big Goose Egg. The number of times Jen Psaki tells the truth.
But do you know what is in the bill? Prohibition of mentioning any discussion of gender identity or sexual orientation to children in lower grades. That’s it. And, oddly enough, that’s the part that Leftists hate the most! Let’s be clear, though, it doesn’t prohibit discussions of sexual orientation or gender identity with older children. Just kids who are not too old to eat their own boogers. Yet, to hear the Left and the media (again, I repeat myself) talk, the bill makes things horrible for all transgender or gay students. Why, we’re practically in a more fabulous version of “The Handmaid’s Tale” if we stand by and let this bill pass!
And Twitter idiots ate it all up and asked for seconds.
That’s the power of the media in one isolated incident. And I’ve lost count of the other times the media got it completely wrong over the past year. But that’s not the only problem the media have to deal with. They’re also getting into the history revision game. Whether it’s admitting those “conspiracy nutjobs” offering medical advice on how to combat COVID-19 were right all along or “just finding out” about the Hunter Biden laptop story that’s been covered for, oh, almost 2 years now, the media love to avoid taking responsibility for getting their facts wrong by pretending to be or actually being uninformed until it’s too late.
Let that roll around in your minds a bit. We have a group of influential individuals who shape public opinion with what they say and do telling us how to feel about issues while knowingly or unknowingly withholding information that may eventually be true. And that’s just Twitter! The media are far worse!
And until they learn their lesson, either through self-reflection, a massive movement within the media to clean up their acts, or enough defamation lawsuits to bankrupt them, the media will continue to suck ass. But there is a bright side.
I will still have plenty of material to write pieces like this!
Okay, so it’s a bright side for me, but I think you’ll enjoy it, too.
Comeback Kid
Its been a while since I posted anything here on my own blog. Many thanks to Thomas and his continued dedication in posting his weekly article on the Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week.
Time have changed. My life was shattered and I had to pick up the broken pieces and put it back together again. Reshape it into something new.
This would not have been possible without the love and support of my family and friends who assisted me along this journey. And also I am grateful for the support I received through my Faith in Jesus Christ. Without Him I would truly be lost.
Today I am indeed healed from my loss and moving forward with my new life. It is good.
And there will be more articles from me in the future.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With everything going on in the world today, it’s a good bet someone is going to get upset about something. And if that person is motivated enough, he or she may decide to whip up support by protesting that thing.
For Leftists, it happens on a day ending in, well, “day.”
Yet, for all of the protesting the Left does, they don’t always support protesting, as we’ll see in a bit. But first, a little housekeeping in the form of a definition.
protest
What the Left thinks it means – exercising a First Amendment right to express an opinion
What it really means – exercising a First Amendment right to express a Leftist-approved opinion
Among the myriad rights outlined in the aforementioned Amendment are freedom of speech and the right to redress grievances with the government. (Although, I’m not sure I want to know how the grievances got naked in the first place.) These combine like Zords into a Megazord we call protesting, and it’s a right many Americans exercise more than they exercise, literally.
Protesting is one of the rights the Left hold dear because otherwise they might have to get jobs and be productive. However, they have a two-tiered approach to it, and as the definition I provided shows, it’s based on ideology.
I’m going to call this next section “A Tale of Two Protests.” And hopefully the estate of Charles Dickens doesn’t sue me into oblivion. Our first protest is one that has made the rounds in conservative media circles because of its sheer intensity and literal volume. Jeff Younger is running for the Texas State House in large part because of the way the courts treated him. You see, Younger is the father of a young boy who has been convinced by his mother he’s a girl. After a lengthy court battle, he won a small victory by a judge’s decision barring his now ex-wife from giving his son drugs that would restrict puberty and essentially transition him from male to female.
Well, Younger appeared on the campus of the University of North Texas and the Left showed up in droves to disrupt his speech because…transphobe? Actually, I can’t quite make out the logical arguments they made because a) I don’t speak Shrill Leftist Harpy, and b) they didn’t make any. They were simply there to cause chaos, go viral, and take a stand against trans hate. As a fan of the First Amendment, I can’t begrudge their protest, no matter how asinine it was, and the Left agreed. The students protesting were in the right.
Now, we move on to a different protest, the American version of the Freedom Convoy. If it’s anything like the Canadian version, be prepared for the utter chaos of…honking horns, music, and a sense of community. A worse hellscape than anything Clive Barker could come up with, I assure you.
Seriously, though, the Freedom Convoy by and large was and is a peaceful event with generally good fellowship mixed with a good helping of traffic disruption. Sure, there were some asshats who went overboard, but you’ll get that and they were the exception instead of the rule. And as you might expect, the Left has gone out of their way to denigrate this protest, insinuating it’s backed by Russians, white supremacists, neo-Nazis, conservative media, the Koch Brothers, and a few other groups. As of this writing, I’m not sure if the Freemasons (or even the Reasonably Priced Masons) have been invoked, but it’s still early in the year. And now that the impending war over Ukraine is looming like Michael Moore’s shadow over an all-you-can-eat buffet, Leftists are dismissing the Freedom Convoy protest because “there’s more important things to worry about right now.”
Like…allowing young boys to transition to young girls, apparently?
The thing to remember is both the UNT students and the Freedom Convoy should be allowed to protest, even if we don’t agree with them. The thing the Left doesn’t get about the First Amendment is it goes both ways, not just the way they want it to go. Kinda like Dennis Rodman, but with better fashion sense in wedding dresses. If the Left values the right to protest, they have to allow for the right to protest against them, but they don’t. Otherwise, I would have to be boring you with a different Lexicon topic.
The reason for the Left’s two-faced approach to protesting involves their desire to control the narrative. Once you control how events are presented, you control how they’re perceived and what the audience sees, hears, and feels. That’s creepy enough as it is, but it gets worse when an event is 180 degrees out of phase from reality. Then, the outcome gets messy and even expensive if legal recourse is initiated.
Just ask CNN or its new owner, Nick Sandmann.
Controlling the narrative is essential in protesting as well as in the media/court of public opinion. The chaos and destruction left by Black Lives Matter and ANTIFA protests is hard to ignore, but surprisingly many people only focus on the narrative presented by those groups. Instead of garnering scorn for trying to turn city streets into Beirut on a good day, they garnered sympathy because of the cause. But here’s the thing: no matter how righteous your cause, it loses its righteousness when the resulting protest turns destructive. Blocking the street with a march protesting police brutality and the unnecessary killing of citizens is inconvenient, but doesn’t cross that line. When the protest includes destruction of public property, assault, and arson…well, let’s just say you’ve missed your turn and are zooming down the highway to the Destruction Zone.
The right to protest can be a tightrope walk because of the implications of letting different sides speak their minds. If you allow, say, a Nazi rally in your town, does that mean the town is totally pro-Nazi? Not at all, but with the advent of incredibly fast social media posting and incredibly slow thinkers using them, it can become one faster than you can type OMG. That’s where we need to be a lot more libertarian in our approach to protests, meaning we support what we support and ignore what we don’t. Trust me, it makes life a lot simpler and stops you from having to continually apologize to people who wouldn’t accept your apology under any circumstances.
As with the right to free speech, the right to protest comes with some responsibilities. Just because you can carry a rifle in public doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to do so while voicing displeasure over a public official’s actions. If you feel the need to protest, put your best foot forward (and not to trip someone else, by the way). Be willing to discuss your position in a calm, rational manner. Even if those protesting your protest are screaming like banshees listening to a Yoko Ono CD on repeat, you’ll come off better by keeping cool. Plus, it drives Leftists nuts when they can’t rile you into emotional outbursts, so there’s that.
In the end, though, it cannot be overstated how the right to protest has lead to positive change in this country. It’s one I wholeheartedly endorse and support because of that fact. Even if the Left puts ideological conditions on its valid usage, we don’t need to follow their lead. We just need to allow them to march along to the beat of their own drummers so they can enjoy the fruits of their labor.
And we can enjoy mocking them. Thanks, First Amendment!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
If you’ve been to the grocery store or gas station, you’ve noticed things costs a bit more than they used to. And by a bit, I mean you might need a second mortgage to fill up your tank, and that’s if you’re driving a sub-compact hybrid. Good thing there’s not a war involving a major oil producer going on riiiiii…oh wait.
As you might expect, the Left is using the current clusterfuck to promote clean energy alternatives to oil and coal. (At least they believe in recycling, even if it’s limited to talking points.) They make it sound so simple. All we need to do is switch to solar, wind, and other green energy sources and everything will be great! The skies will be cleaner! Global warming will go the way of New Coke! Nickelback will break up!
But is it really as simple as the Left wants us to believe it is? Let’s just say the self-designated “Party of Science” doesn’t quite understand science well enough to give us an accurate picture.
clean energy
What the Left thinks it means – alternate green energy sources that will protect the environment and be a viable replacement for oil and coal
What it really means – all talk, no power
Before we get into the political aspects of clean energy, we need to take a short trip into Science World. The idea of clean energy is based a bit of deception. No matter what fuel source we use, we will have to deal with the byproducts of the inefficiency our technology has built into it, and at no additional cost! With the internal combustion engine, we have exhaust. With coal-burning factories, we have smoke. With hybrid vehicles, we have smug assholes who think they’re better than everyone else. So, not a pretty picture all the way around.
Where the deception comes into play is in describing the byproducts of clean energy sources. Leftists will have us believe there are none, but that’s not strictly true. Solar, wind, and other allegedly clean energy sources have their own issues, namely the environmental impacts required to make them somewhat viable. Wind power requires building giant blades that, surprise surprise, aren’t biodegradable. Manufacturing solar panels require mining for certain minerals that damages the environment. And even before you can generate one Watt of electricity, you may need to figure out how to store it once it’s generated.
Guess what storage batteries are made of, kids.
At best, the clean energy sources are cleaner, but not clean per se. Leftists will argue this is merely semantics, but it’s really not. When you use such a definitive term without modifiers, it makes a concrete impression, complete with all the implications of said impression. When you use a different variation of the same word by adding -er or -est, it changes the impression and, thus, the implication. This works both ways, depending on the context and what is being compared.
Now, we’re getting into English grammar. A few more rabbit trails and we might just be able to recreate your elementary school course load!
With clean energy, the comparison being made is to energy from more traditional sources (i.e. oil and coal) which are considered dirty. The Left wants us to think there is no middle ground, which there is. Even “dirty” energy is getting cleaner. Whether it’s as clean as “clean” energy is a matter of opinion, but the fact the Left wants to leave out this context in favor of the clean/dirty dichotomy should give even the most ardent Greenpeace member with an understanding of grammar reason to second-guess the Left’s honesty.
It won’t, of course.
But it wouldn’t be a Leftist narrative without there being another level of dishonesty. Seems the clean energy advocates don’t like all clean energy sources. I’m referring to nuclear energy. Granted, disposing of nuclear waste is a concern as well as the source of a lot of bad 80s sci-fi/horror films, but it’s still a part of the clean energy family. Then, there are geothermal and hydroelectric which are just as clean, but surprisingly don’t get the love wind and solar do. Ditto with bio-diesel, which brings recycling and environmentalism to whole new levels. So, why are Leftists being so picky when it comes to clean energy?
Money.
Over the past few years, Leftists have put our money where their mouths are in the form of federal subsidies, which translates into…political contributions for Leftists. And that doesn’t even take into consideration any private investments into clean energy companies, which can turn into…more money for Leftists so they can continue to live high on the clean energy hog. After all, it takes a lot of money to buy private jets and stretch limos to attend climate change conferences. Just ask Al Gore. And if you do, bring a lot of energy drinks because he tends to drone on.
If you don’t, and I can’t say as I blame you for not wanting to hang out with ManBearPig, keep in mind the Left’s commitment to clean energy is so full of holes the Swiss Cheese Federation is suing for copyright infringement. And as Vladimir Putin found out recently, when you get the Swiss to eschew neutrality, you done fucked up.