Another Gun Grab Attempt

Here we are again. Another debate on the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership.

I have stated this many times before and I will state it again and again. The 2nd Amendment was written to ensure that We the People could take up arms and defend ourselves against the 2 greatest evils in the world. Our fellowman and the government.

The 2nd Amendment wasn’t to ensure one could go hunting. The Founding Fathers just got back from fighting a war against their government. The weapons owned by the citizens were at least the same if not better than the weapons issued to soldiers.

Time and time again our government has enacted laws on all levels; local, state, and Federal that violate the Constitution of the United States when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

This right has been infringed on time after time. And more infringements will not stop any form of mass shootings. Criminals by definition break laws. Infringements only help criminals and take away the rights of law abiding people who want to protect themselves and their families from harm.

Some may ask if I think a citizen of the United States should be able to own a fully automatic machine gun, or a combat jet fighter, a cannon, a battleship, or even an intercontinental ballistic missile. The answer is yes. We the People, should be able to have exactly what the government has for weapons. If you can afford it. Have it.

In a previous post I broke down the 2nd Amendment for those ignorant of history and language. I’m not going to say it again here, but I will link it so you can read it again.

If we take a look at mass shootings. We will find several things to be true. In most cases they all take place in “gun free zones”. Were only a posted sign keeps out weapons. No one who is going to kill innocent people is ever going to obey that signage.

Also in almost every case, the shooter turns out to be some kind of radical Leftist nutjob. A shooter is never a Bible-believing Christian or Republican.

And oddly the number of mass shootings tends to increase whenever the Democratic Party is in the White House or has control of Congress. Almost a conspiracy to try to create emotions in the public to infringe more on the 2nd Amendment.

The recent mass shooting in Texas is a horrible tragedy and loss of life that could have been prevented. Not by enacting more infringement laws against gun owners. But by taking an active roll in protecting our children and our fellow citizens. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the survivors and their families.

Schools need to be gun active zones. Teachers and other staff need to be armed and trained to effectively use a firearm in the case of a shooter entering school grounds.

Police and other protective agencies need to be properly trained to deal with a mass shooter as well. In the Texas case, the police did NOTHING for 40 to 45 minutes. Instead of going in and removing the threat.

These two minor changes could have saved the lives that were lost. Only the gunman would have been killed. Again, any death is a tragic loss of life but it would have saved many more.

Recently there was a mass shooting in West Virginia too. A gunman opened fire at a birthday party. In this case, a woman had a firearm with her and was trained to use it. And she did. She shot and killed the gunman saving countless lives in the process.

This is the very thing that we need to do. We cannot wait for the police to decide to act 40-45 minutes. This happened at Sandy Hook as well. And children lost their lives.

We need to end gun free zones. Enact Constitutional Carry in all States, since the Constitution already allows it. Find teachers and other staff in schools who would like to receive training in arms. And then arm them.

Then when a deranged madman comes on the school grounds to harm children and others. They are met with deadly force. Children are safe and learn that guns are an important life saving tool in the right hands.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

With all of the heavy subjects this week, I decided to inject a bit of actual comedy into this week’s Lexicon. (Finally!) British comedian and now-infrequent awards show how Ricky Gervais has a new special on Netflix that has garnered a lot of attention from Leftists…for all the “wrong” reasons. Leftists attacked Gervais for making jokes about trans people and mentioned one of their favorite new defenses against comedy, “punching down.”

I watched the special because I was curious (and I think Gervais is genuinely funny) and I can confirm he didn’t punch any children or midgets. Then, I thought about it and realized Leftists mean something completely different. No less stupid, but different.

punching down

What the Left thinks it means – when a privileged person mocks or hurts a less-privileged person

What it really means – Leftists choosing which sacred cows aren’t to be made fun of

In a statement what will surprise no one, Leftists have an inflated sense of self-worth, especially in the area of comedy. In recent years, they’ve managed to change comedy from telling jokes to making social statements where jokes may or may not be used. And more often than not, they don’t (unless they steal jokes like Amy Schumer). With a good number of comedians aligning with the Left, Leftists think they are the only truly funny people out there.

Which brings us to the new rules they’ve adopted and expect all other comedians to follow. One of these rules is not to punch down, meaning not to joke about people less fortunate or powerful than you are. On the surface, it makes sense in a weird way. We don’t want to intentionally hurt people who may lack the ability to come back on equal footing because we’re at least trying to look like good people.

The problem is, as Steve Martin so eloquently put it on one of his albums, comedy is not pretty. A lot of comedy involves some element of pain, discomfort, or disruption. That’s why the Marquis de Sade was the hottest stand-up comedian of his day. (True story…I guess.) Even jokes that involve questioning the reason a chicken crosses a road require one party’s life to be interrupted to try to answer said question. And don’t get me started on the perverse nature of knock-knock jokes!

The Left’s demands to punch up instead of punch down shows how little they actually know about comedy. Comedy is the great equalizer because everyone can be the butt of a joke. Elon Musk, a homeless person, it doesn’t matter. To set up an arbitrary limit on who can be joked about is to remove that equality and limit the potential comedic targets. That limits the jokes that can be told. After a while, you will run out of jokes that pass Leftist muster, which leads to the jokes becoming stale and predictable like an episode of “Two and a Half Men.”

But then there’s the comedic conundrum that is “Will & Grace.” This is one of the Left’s favorite sitcoms because of its inclusion and representation of gay characters. I watched a couple of episodes back during its original run and came away wondering why it was such a beloved show on the Left. The comedy, such as it was, seemed obsessed with the gay lifestyle instead of, you know, being funny. And when one of the secondary foils of the show is an over-the-top exaggeration of a gay man and his humor revolves solely around him being gay, I guess I fail to see how this is positive and funny. But apparently it didn’t punch down, so yay, I guess?

On the flip side, there’s “Married With Children.” Throughout its run, the show offended everyone at some point (except for sick freaks like me, apparently) and kept punching up, down, sideways, and all around. Even as controversy raged, there were no fucks given and they continued to be equal opportunity offenders. The same can be said for “South Park,” “Beavis and Butthead,” and a handful of other successful shows. Why did these shows survive and flourish?

Because they understood what was funny and didn’t try to limit the jokes to avoid offending people without senses of humor.

The whole concept of punching up or punching down is absurd, and not in a humorous way. Comedy does have the ability to open minds and change opinions. If it weren’t for comedians like George Carlin and Dennis Miller, I wouldn’t be the man I am today, for better or worse. But the best lessons come from times when you learn without even knowing it because you were having too much fun. Granted, I wouldn’t want to try to learn nuclear physics by watching “Wheel of Fortune” but the point remains the same. We don’t need to be beat over the head with a message to get it.

That’s where Leftist comedy always fails. Well, that and the fact they’re rarely intentionally funny. For Leftists, the message is everything, so it becomes the focal point of any comedy at the expense of any actual comedy. It’s the difference between Dave Chappelle and Hannah Gadsby. Chappelle’s comedy has a message (one that Leftists love to distort for the purposes of getting outraged) while Gadsby’s comedy is only about the message Even when Chappelle bombs, he still has a process to either rework it into something better or dump the bit altogether. Gadsby doesn’t have that option. Plus, you wouldn’t know if she bombed because the sound of crickets in the audience drowns out any laughter.

The funny (strange, not haha) about the concept of not punching down is how fragile the Left thinks some groups are. Granted, these are the same morons who tell us “jokes are violence” and “words are violence,” but this is beyond even that level of what-the-actual-fuck-ism. If someone telling a joke at your expense or at the expense of your group identity causes you emotional or psychic damage, it may not be because the joke is mean-spirited; it may be because you have deeper issues than someone telling a joke, and you’re going to need someone more specialized than Patch Adams to address them.

Going a step further, Leftists feel that every minority group is oppressed and only they can speak for the oppressed. This is especially true of white Leftists, I’ve found. They have savior complexes that would put Superman to shame. But in doing so, they’ve stolen the groups’ voice and used it for their own selfish purposes: to make them look better. That’s a gut punch down, if you ask me!

Then, there’s the other major problem, that being not all members of the group may feel the same way or take offense. There have been a number of gay and trans people openly supporting Gervais’ special, saying it was funny and…non-offensive! How will Leftists respond? The way they always do: ignoring or belittling the people who disagree with them. Now, if words are violence and Leftists mock gay and trans people who liked the Gervais special, wouldn’t that be a hate crime? You make the call!

Either way, it’s not worth the time to worry about whether a comedian is punching up or down because all it does is limit comedy to the point of banality. Laugh at what you want, don’t laugh at what you don’t, and remember to keep a healthy perspective. Even when a comedian hits a group you identify with, it’s not personal, and you have to admit even Republicans and conservatives do things worthy of being mocked openly. I do it, but when the Left keeps serving up mock-worthy topics like punching up, it’s hard to pass up!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Conspiracy theories abound these days. Although most of them hold as much water as the new Uggs thermos, some of them have a basis in truth.

Recently, the idea of replacement theory became a Leftist talking point, as some Republicans have shown at least passing support for the idea. The Left pounced on this, calling the idea a conspiracy theory believed only by right-wing nuts. Since I’m allergic to those kinds of nuts, I figured I’d delve further into the subject.

replacement theory

What the Left thinks it means – a racist right-wing conspiracy theory that states whites are slowly being phased out by non-whites

What it really means – what the Left actually wants to do with whites other than themselves

Leftists have a love-hate relationship with whites, namely they love to hate them. And based on their version of history, who wouldn’t? Whites were responsible for slavery in America, misogyny, homophobia, toxic masculinity, environmental catastrophes, and, worst of all, voting Republicans into the White House. Having that much guilt on a person’s soul makes one more amenable to the idea that whites shouldn’t be involved in things anymore.

Well, at least if they weren’t Leftists. Then, they’ll be there in the background to make things work great because…well, I’m still trying to figure that part out, but the sentiment is there. And really, isn’t that what really counts?

Anyway, it cannot be overstated how the Left originated the concept and worked to bring it into practice. The really scary thing is how easily it’s been incorporated into other Leftist policy points without us knowing it.

Replacement theory states whites are slowly being replaced by non-whites through a series of factors, including decreasing white birth rates and illegal immigration taking jobs whites could do. And what has the Left been advocating? Open immigration, women waiting to have children until after they’ve succeeded in business, easy access to abortion, prohibiting law enforcement from checking on papers from suspected illegal immigrants, demanding more minority hires, just to name a few.

But remember, replacement theory is just a right-wing conspiracy with no basis in fact.

And thanks to the recent shooting in Buffalo, replacement theory has been brought front and center. The shooter’s manifesto mentioned replacement theory, so that gave the Left all the opportunity they needed to paint him as a right wing fanatic and to dismiss replacement theory as right wing nonsense. Of course, the shooter was a self-professed eco-fascist national socialist who took advantage of New York’s strict gun control laws to pick a target that fit his racist agenda. Of course, Leftists don’t want us to focus on those little details, only that replacement theory was referenced and the Left says it’s right wing in nature.

Thus, Leftists use one of their favorite tactics to avoid responsibility for their actions, projection. And let’s just say the Left uses more projection than an IMAX theater here and in other areas. While the Left attacks Tucker Carlson, Donald Trump, and other favorite right wing whipping boys, the truth is far harder for them to swallow. So, instead of recognizing they’re wrong or that they had a hand in the problem, the Left blames others not even involved with the shooting for radicalizing the shooter. Mighty nice of them, don’t ya think?

Meanwhile, we still have to deal with the reality of replacement theory instead of passing it off as a partisan conspiracy theory. For that, we need to stand up to the racism of the Left, in large part due to the slings and arrows of outrageous Leftist name-calling. They will call you racist, white supremacist, Republican, MAGAt, or any number of disparaging names designed to minimize your effectiveness. Yes, they will sting emotionally and won’t match what you truly believe, but the best way to counteract that is to stand firm and remained unfazed by the Left’s attacks. It will confuse them and make them escalate to the point of insanity. Then, you win.

And that will hurt Leftists more than any arguments you can make against their accusations.

In the meantime, we need to curb the Left’s desire to marginalize whites, and one of the ways is simple: start fucking and having babies. Not just to reverse the declining white birth rates, but to freak out Leftists. Then, the next step is to become irreplaceable. I don’t mean sabotage others, but rather learn new skills that will apply to the modern workplace and society as a whole. And if the Left gives you pushback, tell them you identify as a minority and let them freak out even more!

And if that’s not enough to motivate you, nothing will!

My 2022 Commencement Address

Greetings, friends! Once again, no one has asked me to give a commencement address (probably because of all the f-bombs from last year’s address). However, that didn’t stop me from writing one for this year on the off chance no one with the power to schedule speakers decides to go back more than 1 year.

Members of the Class of 2022, you’re probably wondering why I called you all here today. Let me start by saying it’s an honor to speak to you, and I’m not just saying that because I’m the last person standing between you and walking across this stage getting your diplomas. I’m no math major, but I know there are more of you than there is of me. As I don’t want to be overrun by angry students, I’ll keep my comments brief.

The past couple of years has taught us the value of being flexible in the face of adversity, and let’s face it, we’re pretty much in a constant state of utter fuckery these days. Under the circumstances, we are hard-wired to look for possible solutions, which is admirable, but also might make things worse. That’s why it’s important to think before you act.

Granted, you’re at a time in your life when you think you know everything. As someone who felt that way when I was your age, let me tell you the truth. You don’t know shit. It’s only through life, knowledge, and the occasional alcoholic beverage (except White Claw, which is this generation’s version of Zima) that we figure out how much we don’t know. For example, I’ll bet most of you haven’t even heard of Zima, so you wouldn’t know how much is sucked, thus you wouldn’t know how much White Claw sucks. It was only through trial and error America was able to find out Zima was flat Sprite made alcoholic and it was eventually phased out of production…until recently.

There’s an old saying, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Originally, I thought my junior high history teacher made it up to advise us of what summer school would be like, but it’s actually a bit older than that. In short, it means we need to look back sometimes to avoid future mistakes, mainly because the mistakes we make today tend to have roots in the past. Every so often we’ll see something “new” come along that is merely a repackaging of an idea that sucked before.

For example, let’s look at democratic socialism. On the surface, it seems like a good idea, a fusion that allows for people to vote for what’s best for the rest of the country. Sounds great, doesn’t it? Well, here’s the catch: we’ve tried both democracy and socialism separately and they didn’t turn out so good. If we combine the two, it will be two dark fates that fail great together.

Even if you don’t want to go into history to find a reason to object to democratic socialism, a little critical thinking will do the trick. After all, if we’re allowed to vote in socialism under it, would we be allowed to vote it out again? I’ve asked that same question and haven’t gotten a response yet, but after a few years and a few more drinks, I think I’ve figured out why: it’s because answering it would expose its proponents’ commitment to more socialism than more democracy. Now, I could be wrong, and if I am, I’ll eat my hat. Then again, it might be the only thing I’ll have to eat, but I’m a man of my word.

After that last section, you may thing I’m some right wing curmudgeon pooh-poohing anything that would move this country forward. Nothing could be further from the truth. I’m far more libertarian than I look and sound. Basically, I want everyone to live their lives to their fullest and achieve what they want, so long as it doesn’t harm innocents or demands my sanction. In short, just leave me alone and don’t demand I foot the bill for what you want to do. I can be persuaded, but I don’t take kindly to being told I have to agree or else I’ll be subjected to horrible things like…being called names on the Internet.

Believe me, it’s not that big a deal. I’ve been called all sorts of names in my day and I’m still here. That’s because age also brings perspective. Does someone calling me a racist, homophobe, etc. really affect my life? Not really, because I know who I am. And that’s something that comes through life experiences, especially for all of you right now. Even a year on your own can change your minds. Be open to those changes and let them happen. Then, challenge them on regular bases to see whether those lessons still hold true and whether your beliefs match those lessons.

One other thing and then I’ll leave. In all of these changes you’ll experience, there is one belief to always hold dear to your hearts: don’t eat convenience store sushi, especially if it’s in the clearance area. But if that’s not inspiring enough, remember to be kind. It doesn’t take much, costs less, and means a lot.

Congratulations, Class of 2022!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

After last week’s Lexicon entry about abortion, I wanted to do something in a lighter vein.

So, we’re talking about the filibuster. I know! I’m as excited as you are!

Actually, we do have to go back to the abortion debate for a little while because it plays a role in the discussion, and we have Senator Elizabeth “Chief Running Mouth” Warren to thank for it. See, the Senate tried to make the abortion protections laid out in Roe v. Wade federal law last week in the form of The Women’s Health Protection Act, but it ran into a little snag: it didn’t have enough votes to bypass a potential filibuster (which is absurd as we’ll find out later). As a result, Chief Running Mouth took to the media to renew her call to eliminate the filibuster.

Hoo boy. We’re going to need Mayflower to help us unpack all of the wrong here.


What the Left thinks it means – an antiquated unconstitutional Senate rule that threatens democracy

What it really means – a Senate rule that Leftists will rue eliminating if they get their way

Time for a quick civics lesson. Although we tend to work on a majority rule model here in America, there are some exceptions designed to prevent the majority from totally steamrolling the minority. One such tool is the filibuster, which is when the minority can cobble together at least 60 votes to prevent a bill from going forward. Even the threat of a filibuster can be enough to change how a bill is written or presented.

In today’s hyper-partisan world, that happens less often than David Duke gets invited to the NAACP Spirit Awards.

Since Democrats hold a numerical majority thanks to Vice President Kamala Harris, they don’t necessarily feel they need to reach across the aisle to get things done, which puts their current opposition to the filibuster into perspective. It also puts their previous use of the filibuster into perspective, since they love to use it when they’re in the minority. If it wasn’t for double standards, Leftists would have no standards at all.

Leftists by their very nature are control freaks (in addition to being other kinds of freaks). They feel they have to rule completely because anything else gives opponents the ability to disagree with them. With enough naysayers, Leftists can’t get done what they want, which is a sin in their eyes akin to killing puppies, destroying the planet, and worst of all…not being a Leftist!

This desire for control has been at the core of a lot of defeats for Senate Democrats, including The Women’s Health Protection Act. Instead of reading the room and coming up with a bill that would get Republican votes, Leftists tried to ram through a bill banking on Republicans to surrender out of fear of public opinion. Wellll…that didn’t happen, and one Democrat Senator, Joe Manchin, sided with the Republicans to make the vote to move forward with the bill 51-49. And it shouldn’t be overlooked it was the Senate Democrats who forced the vote. Talk about a self-own! On the plus side for Leftists, Senator Kyrsten Sinema voted with the Democrats, so she might be able to get back on their Winter Solstice card lists.

But the failure wasn’t because Senate Democrats fucked up! It was that damn filibuster! And it’s about time to we got rid of that unconstitutional rule that prevents progress!

Not so much.

First, let’s deal with the constitutionality argument. Although it’s true the filibuster doesn’t appear in the Constitution, there is this passage from Article I Section 5 that would apply here:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings…

This has been interpreted to mean the House of Representatives and Senate can make their own rules, which means the filibuster is constitutional. You would think someone who taught law might be able to figure that out, but we’re dealing with Elizabeth Warren here. She’s as sharp as a Nerf ball, as anyone who understands her missives on economics an attest.

Or as anyone who understands what a majority is can attest, for that matter. The filibuster literally had very little to do with the failure because, and let me spell it out for the good Senator and any other Leftists who are reading this…the votes weren’t there. You had a threshold and failed to meet it. Those were the rules in place at the time, and you lost. Until you change the Senate rules or amend the Constitution to remove the filibuster as a means of ending debate or altering legislation, those are the rules you have to live by.

Of course, nothing can stop you from bitching about it, even if we didn’t have a First Amendment in place. But can you at least bitch about it intelligently? A tall order, I know, but could you do it for your Uncle Thomas? Please?

Although it’s fashionable to shit on the filibuster, it does serve an important role, even today. Just because one party or the other has a majority doesn’t mean that party is right. The fact the filibuster exists in the Senate is a feature, not a flaw, because the Founding Fathers established the Senate as a more deliberative body. If you want bills written up on the fickle whims of the public, you go to the House. If you want substantive discussions, you go to the Senate.

Well, nobody’s perfect, not even the Founding Fathers.

Even though the filibuster isn’t working well today, it still provides a necessary release valve for impulsive legislation not well thought out and poorly presented. You know, like The Women’s Health Protection Act? (On a side note, how does this bill protect women’s health when statistically the most babies aborted would be female? But I’m not a biologist, so there’s that.)

So, before you Leftists throw out the unborn baby with the bathwater, consider this. Senate Republicans have resisted calls to do away with the filibuster when they’ve been in the minority because they understand it still has value, even when the previous President believed otherwise.

That’s right, Leftists. You now are on the same side as Donald Trump.

As the meme says, congratulations. You just played yourself.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

As the Little Dutch Boy can attest, a leak can be a pretty troublesome thing. And that’s exactly what we got this past week thanks to a clerk at the US Supreme Court. Normally, this would be as exciting as watching Al Gore painting grass, but this time the leak involved a certain controversial Supreme Court decision that both the Left and the Right freak out over: Roe v. Wade. While President Pudding Cup tries to figure out the context where someone would row or wade, the rest of us know it as the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

Yeah. We’re going there.

Roe v. Wade

What the Left thinks it means – the linchpin of women’s rights, especially personal autonomy

What it really means – a bad ruling made worse by politicians

Before we dive back into the muck, I have to admit I don’t like writing about abortion for a number of reasons. First, it’s a messy moral and ideological issue where there are always going to be more gray areas than black and white ones. Second, it’s such a charged issue that even the slightest bit of nuance, justified or not, can get people pissed off and ready to attack. Finally, there’s not a lot of funny in the termination of a pregnancy. Just ask Michelle Wolf. Having said all of that, the fact Roe v. Wade is back in the headlines and on Leftists’ mind…s(?) overrules any misgivings I have on the subject.

I’ve discussed my feelings on Roe and abortion in general before, but for those of you just joining us, let me give you the Cliff’s Notes version. Roe v. Wade was a bad Supreme Court decision based on provable lies designed to get a certain outcome the dishonest lawyers (I know I’m repeating myself) wanted. For that reason (and the whole killing babies thing), I am pro-life, but I also know my opinion means jack shit in the larger context. As much as I hate the notion of a woman getting an abortion, I hate forcing any other human being to live by my moral code just as much. This may make me seem wishy-washy, but it’s where I stand. You don’t have to stand with me, and I won’t hate you for it.

Unless you’re a Cardi B fan. Then, we might have issues.

Just kidding!

To bring everything back to the current day, the aforementioned leak suggests the Supreme Court is about to overturn Roe v. Wade, which made Leftists scream more than that one protestor did at Donald Trump’s inauguration. Since the leak became public, Leftists have been going from depressed to angry to motivated to downright stupid. And that’s just Elizabeth Warren!

To put it mildly, the Left has been overreacting to the point of hyperventilation on Twitter and other social media. It’s going to be the end of abortion as we know it! It’s going to create a Handmaid’s Tale style theocracy where women are merely receptacles without any autonomy! “Hook-up” culture will die out (and I wish I were fucking kidding about this one, but someone actually posted this idea online)! Yet, with all of the sound and fury, there is one fact the Left isn’t talking about: abortion isn’t going away if Roe gets overturned. All that happens is the decision whether abortion is legal will be left to the states, where I feel it should have been left in the first place.

But isn’t abortion favored by a majority of people, according to Leftists? Welllll…that’s one of those murky areas of the abortion issue. Polling data swings back and forth like a pendulum at different points in time. Sometimes, more people favor allowing abortion. Sometimes, more people favor restrictions on abortions. This tells us two things: 1) we are a conflicted nation, and 2) polling data on the topic are absolute shit.

For the sake of argument, let’s say the Left is correct about public opinion on abortion. Why wouldn’t they want a 50-state referendum on legalizing abortion? Simple. It’s because they would lose money and power in the process. Surprise, surprise, surprise!

Roe is the key to both for Leftists. Since the original decision came down, the federal government has been the only body calling the shots on abortion. The problem is it violates the Constitution, specifically the Tenth Amendment. Basically, the Tenth Amendment limits the power of the federal government to what is specifically granted to it. Anything that falls outside of that specific limitation goes back to the states and/or the people. And guess what Supreme Court decision defies that?

Can you say Roe v. Wade, boys and girls? I knew you could.

Normally, this wouldn’t be an issue for Leftists because they typically don’t give a shit about states rights, but with Roe…well, let’s just say it proves how little they care about states rights. Roe gives the Left the federal muscle to mandate abortion without having to actually make an argument in favor of the practice, as in the “settled law” approach. With the power to decide going back to the states, the Left will lose the one-size-fits-all-poorly approach and will have to make the argument to all 50 states. With some states like California, you could call it the “Yeah, We Want To Kill Babies In The Womb Bill” and Leftists would line up around the block to vote for it. With other states, like Texas, the argument would be a non-starter. The point is the Left would have to put actual effort into making abortion legal across the country, and given how they tend to be adverse to work…

Along with this, the Left would either have to raise and spend more money or budget existing funds to make the argument. Neither one of these is sustainable for very long because of the way most Leftists behave, but both would have to come to pass if Roe were overturned because Leftists would lose fiscal security that comes with not having to defend abortion to anyone but the faithful. No wonder Leftists are so up in arms…well, not really arms, per se, since they’re not fans of guns and the like, but that’s neither here nor there.

There is one factor the Left might have working in their favor even if Roe v. Wade goes the way of original stories on “The Simpsons.” Society has changed a lot since Roe was first argued and the fact it has repelled so many legal challenges over the years has made abortion more acceptable, or at least made people less likely to fight it. I’ll leave it up to you to decide whether it’s a good or a bad thing, but it is what it is. If you wear down people’s resistance enough, even the slightest push back will net the desired outcome.

This is what the Left is counting on as they try to codify abortion rights via legislation. Although I can’t say I’m a fan of the desired outcome, I can’t find fault with the process, aside from the aforementioned Tenth Amendment conflict. At least the issue will be brought up to a vote, which is a hell of a lot better than having 9 men and women in black robes that hide whether they’re wearing clothing underneath make the call. Instead, that decision will be made by hundreds of men and women who we will not wonder if they’re wearing clothes because very few of us would want to think of them naked.

Regardless of whether the Supreme Court upholds or overturns Roe v. Wade, we are still feeling the after-effects of the original decision and will continue to feel them for decades to come. Like eating at Chipotle, but with less vomiting. Where we go from here is anyone’s guess, but we shouldn’t automatically assume the worst on either side of the issue. Even with the most controversial issues, Americans have this amazing ability to adapt to and adopt societal changes given enough time. Hell, we turned polyester leisure suits from fashion statement to garage sale leftovers to popular Halloween costumes in my lifetime, so anything is possible!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Have you ever known someone who is completely oblivious about a topic one week, but then gets super-attentive to it the next because it’s become a major controversy? Really, that’s Twitter in a nutshell.

Funny I should mention Twitter because this week’s Lexicon entry is related to the recent purchase of the aforementioned social media platform by one Elon Musk. I won’t go into the details because a) they’re not really important to the subject matter at hand, and b) I don’t want to relive the trauma of hearing that many Leftists screech at once.

Instead, we’re going to look into a portion of the takeover that isn’t getting that much attention, but it’s become a cause celebre for Leftists. I’m speaking of Section 230, the sexiest title involving technology ever devised. Believe me, I’m talking 50 Shades of Gray hot!

Okay, it’s not, but it’s still an important aspect of internet culture as a whole that has gotten a lot of attention without a lot of explanation. Grab a big cup of coffee, kids. This is going to be a toughie.

Section 230

What the Left thinks it means – an important regulation that needs to remain in force and enforceable to ensure the future of the Internet

What it really means – a mixed bag of ideas in an obsolete regulation

If you want a solid and balanced analysis of Section 230, I can’t recommend Ballotpedia’s overview enough. For solid and unbalanced analysis, read on!

The short version of what Section 230 does is it protects online services from being held accountable for what members of those services say while using them. It also gives these networks leeway as it pertains to what communication they will allow, even if the communication could be considered protected speech under the US Constitution. In the early days of the Internet, these protections were enough. Then again, back in those days getting a 28.8k modem connection while signing onto America On Line was reason enough to declare a national holiday.

On a side note, if anyone wants one of the free disks AOL gave out like samples at a drug pusher convention, let me know. I have 5 or 6 storage units full of ’em!

Meanwhile, back at the main point, Section 230 worked well enough at the time, but as technology advanced, regulation didn’t. I’m sure there’s a government agency somewhere resisting the trend to upgrade to Windows 95. Given what I’ve seen of the various “upgrades” that may not be a bad thing, but the point is expecting government bureaucracy to move swiftly to an issue is like expecting Joe Biden not to screw up foreign policy: it ain’t gonna happen!

One of the effects of the speed of quiet of regulations is it opens up opportunities to evolve without having to worry about someone telling you no. And online culture took that ball and ran with it. I’ve been online in one form or another since the early 90s and I can attest online culture has gotten very weird. And I’m not just talking about the porn! It’s a completely different world these days with people willingly or unwillingly putting their entire lives online with all the privacy concerns therein.

But the one thing Section 230 couldn’t have seen coming was the politicization of online content. Sure, you can still see pictures of kittens or the occasional funny meme, but outside of that is a nuclear wasteland that makes Chernobyl look like Salt Lake City. And when there’s ideological conflict, there are going to be people who will do whatever they can do to win the argument.

Including twisting the rules of the online road.

Twitter, among other social media platforms, has been accused of silencing conservative voices, and you’d have to be a Leftist not to see it. What started out as subtle biased enforcement of the rules to blatant “we write the rules and you can just fuck right off if you don’t like it” enfarcement. I mean, the Taliban had an active Twitter account as of last year, and their accounts promote violence and hatred. But, try to say men and women are different and you’ll get silenced, temporarily or permanently based solely on who is handling the Ban Hammer.

And therein lies one of my problems with Section 230 as it stands right now. When biases affect who gets to say what on a social media platform, it ceases to be anything but a political tool, which the Left sees no problem with as long as they’re the ones controlling the tool. The kicker here? This actually goes against the spirit and the letter of Section 230.

Funny. I think we’ve just found the first regulation on the books the Left doesn’t deify.

This fact inspired former President Donald Trump and his supporters to push to repeal Section 230 altogether. Given how social media platforms lean so far Left they are parallel to the ground, this seems to have merit. Now that Elon Musk has bought Twitter, through, the idea is gaining more steam on the Left, which doesn’t have merit given how they were in favor of reforming it all the way back in…let me check my notes…two weeks ago.

Obviously, this change of opinion is politically motivated because, duh, Leftists, but it reveals a fundamental lack of understanding, not just of Musk’s stated goals, but of Section 230 itself. Section 230 opens with a Congressional acknowledgement that the Internet is a place for political discourse and should be kept open to diverse points of view. Haphazardly applying terms of service depending on how a poster votes doesn’t accomplish that in the least. If anything, it makes discourse, political or otherwise, nearly impossible. Reversing that trend is what is best for everyone involved. Sure, you are going to have to deal with assholes who will take things too far, but I’d rather know where those assholes are so I can avoid them than to play a perverse game of Three Card Monte where the cards are a white supremacist, a BLM member, and a grandmother in Wyoming who just wants to post funny videos.

Where I deviate from the folks who want Section 230 to go the way of CNN+ is the protection of platforms from the things their users say. If some dumbfuck uses Twitter to call for the extermination of redheads, I don’t want to see Twitter called into court to answer for what the dumbfuck says. They should be busy applying the terms of service equally, not lawyering up every time a Twit posts an ignorant screed. Their business isn’t, nor should it ever be, to be the whipping boy for people looking to get a fast buck because their fee-fees got hurt.

Unfortunately, Elon Musk taking over Twitter won’t fix the fundamental problem with Section 230: the out-of-touch Congresscritters who still ask their staffers to find stamps for their emails. The fact no one in Washington has put forward serious efforts to update Section 230 and create better enforcement tells you just how little they care about the problems its current form poses. Now, if they tied it to pork spending back home, every Congresscritter would be fighting each other to get to a microphone and camera to let his or her opinions be heard.

Or, you know, use Twitter. Or have one of their staffers use it for them.

I’m not usually a fan of keeping regulations on the books, but Section 230 has a lot of good things going for it that would get wiped away if we did away with it completed. Beef up the enforcement a bit to keep social media outlets honest (or at least more honest than they are now), add some actual penalties for non-compliance, and have everything overseen by tech-savvy people who can put their politics aside, and we might just be able to make social media great again.

Then we can tackle the real problems in the world, like figuring out if Mark Zuckerberg is a real person or a wimpier T-1000.