I would never want to be a White House Press Secretary under any circumstances. First, you have to communicate with members of the press, which is like going to Chuck E Cheese during a big toddler birthday party on a good day (and working that same birthday on a bad day). Second, you might have to address a scandal that involves the President and his/her family.
And then, there’s the third reason: I’d have the same title as the current Press Secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, who makes Jen Psaki look good by comparison. Recently, Jean-Pierre responded to a question about the ongoing legal troubles of Hunter Biden, who I’m lead to believe is related in some way to President Puddin’ Head Joe but I’m waiting until the mainstream media confirms because I’m thorough like that. Apparently, I’m still having to wait since Karine Jean-Pierre referred to Hunter Biden as a “private citizen” and the press hasn’t asked a follow-up question about it.
While we wait on reporters to, you know, do their fucking jobs, let’s talk about private citizens for a bit. Maybe by the time this piece is done, we will be able to confirm the First Crackhead is related to Puddin’ Head Joe.
private citizen
What the Left thinks it means – people who should be kept out of the public spotlight to avoid unnecessary attention
What it really means – how Leftists describe one of their own when he/she/it royally fucks up
The concept of what constitutes a private citizen has been the subject of a lot of good natured debate within First Amendment scholarly circles. And, as is the case with such scholarly debates, nothing’s really come of it except more debate. Fortunately, the law gives us a bit more clarity:
The term “private person” means— (A) any individual who is a citizen or national of the United States; and (B) any corporation, partnership, association, or other legal entity organized or existing under the law of any State, whether for profit or not for profit.
And by “a bit” I mean none at all.
Generally, the rule of thumb is a person who is not well-known would be a private citizen. In short, anybody who still uses Mastodon as a Twitter alternative. Once that person gets a bit of fame or infamy, the protections afforded a private citizen get worn away. Still, even someone well-known in Monkey’s Ass, Wyoming, would not be as well-known in New York City, so venue matters.
Or it used to. Thanks 24/7 news and social media.
Then, there are celebrities. In exchange for fame, fortune, and the occasional appearance on talk shows, they give up expectations of privacy for as long as they’re in the public consciousness. Some, like Dustin “Screech” Diamond, never quite escape. Others, like Dustin “Screech” Diamond’s stunt double, reclaim their privacy by giving up their celebrity.
The thing about celebrity, though, is it can be extended to members of their families. The children of politicians fall into this category, especially if they fuck up in such a way it makes the news. Ask the Bush Twins about that after their underage drinking fiasco. That means, Hunter Biden, if he truly is the offspring of Puddin’ Head Joe, would not qualify as a private citizen.
Wait…nope. Still no mainstream media confirmation of that yet. But hope springs eternal.
So, why would Karine Jean-Pierre lie to us about Hunter Biden being a private citizen? I mean, aside from it’s her job to unconvincingly lie to the White House Press Lapdogs…I mean Corps. The short answer is because she can get away with it. The politically obvious reasons are, well, Hunter Biden is a crackhead embarrassment that makes his dad look even worse than he already does, thus handing Republicans an easier win than any woman against a Leftist man in an arm wrestling contest. The more people connect Hunter to Joe, the harder it is for Hunter to be considered a private citizen.
At its face, the idea is absurd. But these are Leftists we’re dealing with here, so it’s not surprising. The Left wants you to believe Hunter Biden, who has a well-documented history of being a shitty person, somehow isn’t famous enough to be covered as a news story, hence he’s a private citizen. Yet, his art that sells for $500,000 a flop…I mean pop gets people all over the world to buy it, so he logically can’t be a private citizen because he’s known worldwide.
This is why I don’t recommend trying to make sense of Leftist logic without hard liquor.
Now, it’s nice to know Leftists care about protecting private citizens from undue attention. If only they weren’t fucking hypocrites on the subject when it suits their needs. If you’re a Colorado baker who happens to be Christian and refused to bend over (figuratively and literally) to a same-sex couple, you get put on blast so everyone knows how much of an evil no-good right wing homophobe bigot Hitler wannabe you are. If you’re a member of ANTIFA who gets caught on video attacking someone with a bike chain, the Left will go out of their way to hide that information.
Hmmm…if only there were indicators of when the Left will flip-flop on what constitutes a private citizen…oh, wait, there is! They always flip-flop like John Kerry cooking at a beachfront IHOP working straight commission.
As unsurprising as the Left’s duplicity regarding private citizens is, the scary thing is it may be too late to protect private citizens, actual and hypothetical, due to the advent of social media. Any dick with a cell phone can film you doing something horrible (or at least make it look like you did something horrible), post it online, and make you famous before you can say “YouTube Shorts.” Then, you are known as Fat Guy Yells At Burger King Employee While His Shorts Fall Down forever and you have to delete your online presence and start blogging under the name of Thomas…
I’ve said too much.
Anyway, with privacy going the way of anyone not fawning over the Barbie movie, we need to get on the stick to address how this impacts private citizens. Unfortunately, we’re lightyears behind and no one else is thinking about this issue because there’s a Barbie movie, you guys! That, and the fact more people want to be seen on social media like TikTok, so they’re willing to trade their status as private citizens for fame, no matter how temporary it is.
Yep. We’re fucked.
Until such time as society decides to give up on being famous, it’s up to us to keep the idea of a private citizen alive. That means keeping your head down, being aware of your surroundings and the people in it, and not drawing attention to yourselves. Live your life as much off the grid as possible, or if that’s not possible, be smart with what you share. Yes, this will make you massively unhip to the rest of the world, but when you consider what is considered cool these days, it’s no big loss.
On a larger scale, we have to recognize what a private citizen is and why Hunter Biden isn’t one. No matter how the Left tries to spin it, this situation is like a Lindsey Lohan drug story, only with shittier art. And considering Lohan’s acting career, that’s saying a lot!
This just in! Still no mainstream media confirmation Hunter and Puddin’ Head Joe are related. Like the number of licks it takes to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop, the world may never know.
Month: July 2023
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
As a semi-kinda-sorta-famous blogger, people come up to me all the time and ask my opinions of the issues of the day. Most of the time, the questions are “Where are your pants, sir?” but lately another question has crept in there: What is your opinion of the Writers Guild of America and Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists strike going on right now?
I’m glad you asked, mainly because there are only so many times you can talk about trans issues, climate change, gun control, and other common Leftist squawking points before you get burnt out. This topic has some political elements to it, so we’re not completely out of my wheelhouse here.
So, by popular demand (and by “popular” I mean because 3 people asked me), here’s the hottest take I can give on the subject.
the WGA/SAG-AFTRA strike
What the Left thinks it means – writers and actors banding together to ensure writers get fair compensation for their work
What it really means – the result of a fucked up system that makes the powerless knuckle under to the powerful
Off the top, I have to say my opinion differs from most of my conservative compatriots, but I have reasons instead of disdain for the actors driving my opinion. But don’t worry, kids. I will show my disdain for the actors later!
I feel sympathy for the striking writers for the most part. As a writer myself, I understand the time and dedication it takes to produce even a remotely good story. Hell, anybody can churn out another Madea movie. Oh, and while we’re here…Tyler Perry, I’m thinking the only reasons you continue to put out the Madea movies is so you can dress in drag. It’s okay, buddy! Dressing in drag is some of the least creepy shit coming out of Hollywood these days!
Bob Iger aside, the writers’ enemies aren’t the studios themselves, but the Hollywood system itself. I’ve seen slasher movies less cutthroat than Hollywood, which is ironic on levels I can’t even begin to comprehend fully. Everybody involved in the entertainment industry there is competing for a spot in the big time, and that leads to a lot of backstabbing, undercutting, and fucking over. The big brains behind the big box office movies aren’t the directors, actors, producers, or even the studios.
It’s the writers. They’re the people with the ideas (albeit bad ideas sometimes), and they’re the ones who try to make sense of a story. And if you’re not high profile enough to print money for shit content, you’re not likely to see your project go from writer’s room to screen without a lot of interference from the Hollywood system. And the movers and shakers of the system know that, so they treat writers like most people treat used chewing gum.
And even if you get your vision on the screen, if it doesn’t make money or garner attention that can be translated into money, you’re not ever going to move up the food chain. You are stuck writing scripts for movies and TV shows that would get cancelled before the opening credits start. Meanwhile, those writers who find themselves within the Hollywood system are making bank for coming up with yet another “Scary Movie” sequel.
That’s where the Writers Guild of America comes in. Or, rather, should.
The WGA is a labor union with presence on both coasts who are supposed to represent the writers. And they do, but they’ve done a shitty job keeping up with the times when it comes to payment for new media. If you look at the Wikipedia link I provided (which, I grant you, is like trusting Hunter Biden to keep an eye on your cocaine while you go to the bathroom), you’ll noticed six strikes since 1960, and all six have dealt with residuals, i.e. getting paid for your work.
Maybe it’s me, but I would think a labor union that represents media writers would be able to, you know, keep up with the changing landscape of media and adjust accordingly.
Just because I’m a curious individual, I dug a bit deeper into who is running WGA West, the union that covers Hollywood. Guess what? The top three officers are part of the Hollywood machine. And if you look at the Board of Directors…same fucking thing! No wonder the rank and file of the WGA have to keep fighting and striking for their money in perpetuity; their union is helping the “enemy.”
This is where I have to part company with the writers out there. Yes, Hollywood is beholden to the labor union system because of their Leftist nature, but they aren’t the only game in Tinsel Town, just the easiest. And when you settle for easy, you don’t control the vertical nor the horizontal. You will get what the system will allow you.
Going off on your own is going to be tougher, but it can be done while retaining your artistic freedom. That’s why I respect people like Tommy Wiseau, Lloyd Kaufman, and Roger Corman. Sure, their work doesn’t match up to a big Hollywood production…with the exception of the “Transformers”… or later “The Fast and the Furious” movies…or recent Marvel movie and TV projects…or the bulk of the Disney “Star Wars” projects…
I take that back. Wiseau, Kaufman, and Corman are much better.
Anyway, the reason I respect these and other independent filmmakers as much as I can is because they prove it can be done outside of the Hollywood system. You might not get more than a credit at the end of the movie and maybe a hot dog out of the deal, but you’re still free of the system that makes it impossible for you to afford a hot dog in Hollyweird.
That brings us to the SAG-AFTRA members marching with the WGA. They’re doing their best to show their solidarity with the writers, as evidenced by their Twitter and Intagram posts. But, the operative word in that previous sentence is “show.” These people get paid to pretend, and right now they’re pretending to be strikers. They don’t go back to a one-room apartment so cramped the cockroaches have hunchbacks. They go back to the homes they purchased with money earned off the word processors of the writers. How many of them are opening their homes to writers? None that I’ve heard so far. Are any of them using their clout to force the machine pay writers better? Of course not! That would make them pariahs in the industry, and they need to keep up their lifestyles, so they’re ultimately on Team Machine.
Sucks to be a struggling WGA member, doesn’t it?
But, I have come with a solution, one I call the Sinatra Solution. Back in the 1950s, Las Vegas was segregated by race, including the talent. After Sammy Davis Jr. was denied a room at the Sands, the Chairman refused to perform there until Davis got a room. It was a huge risk at the time, considering how vital Frank Sinatra was to the elevation of the Las Vegas nightlife and image. But, it paid off because Sinatra was so vital to Las Vegas. He used the leverage he had to make things better for everyone.
If enough actors, producers, big-name writers, or studio heads had the balls to do it, they wouldn’t march on the picket lines and take selfies; they would pull a Sinatra and refuse to work until the writers got paid better. Hollywood would grind to a halt if the Avengers (the actors in the movie series, not the comic book characters) collectively told Disney to fuck themselves until every writer got paid well for their work.
And don’t think it would stop there. Hollywood right now is a house of cards (a house of playing cards, not the TV show of the same name), and one gust of wind from enough powerful people slamming the doors on the corrupt system would cause it to all fall down around them. And as long as the WGA/SAG-AFTRA folks are part of that system, they will be left to pick up what’s left.
Aside from the Sinatra Solution, let me also posit the idea that the WGA should be phased out in favor of a group that doesn’t suck Hollywood’s dick while pretending to be working for the writers. All it takes is enough people to tell the WGA to shove their efforts up their collective asses and there’s a chance they would get the hint.
You know, in a few years after it happened.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Before we begin, I feel obligated to warn you a lot of what I’ll be talking about this week isn’t pleasant and may stir strong emotions in people. If you feel you aren’t down for a serious (well, semi-serious because…me), this may not be the week to read the Lexicon, and I completely understand. I promise to return you to your regularly scheduled chucklefest next week.
This week, child sex trafficking came front and center from a couple of sectors, and the Left had an…interesting response to it. Not “gee that’s fascinating, tell me more” interesting. More of a “what in the Wide World of Fuck are you thinking” interesting.
It started with a new movie, “Sound of Freedom”, that came out on July 4th and has as of this writing a decent box office. The film is based on a true story about a man who went from government agent to warrior in the fight against child sex trafficking. Then, our good fiends…I mean friends in California had Democrat members of their Assembly Public Safety Committee block a proposal that would recriminalize child sex trafficking.
Oh, yeah. It’s about to get serious up in here.
child sex trafficking
What the Left thinks it means – a serious issue that must be dealt with
What it really means – an issue the Left won’t touch any time soon
To put it mildly, sex trafficking is a disturbing practice affecting millions of people worldwide, with a significant number being children. The fact it’s a global issue and yet one that doesn’t seem to get as much attention as climate change, starvation, or the latest Taylor Swift album makes the issue that much more painful to consider.
Yet, the Left are concerned about our children, right? I mean, they’re trying to create an inclusive environment where all races, gender identities, religions, etc. are respected, right? (Offer void with white straight Christian men.) They absolutely want the very best for future generations!
Not so much.
See, Leftists see children as tabula rasa in Garanimals, or if you’d prefer, toddlera rasa. For those of you playing along at home, a tabula rasa is a mental condition where no ideas have been formulated on a person’s mind based on his/her environment. Essentially, a brand new Etch A Sketch. Once this mind is exposed to incoming data from the senses, ideas and personalities form.
This is why Leftists have turned public education into indoctrination factories. As early as they can get them in the door, children’s minds and opinions form, even if they contradict what their parents believe. In other words, Leftists are attempting to create a child’s reality in their own twisted image.
“But Thomas, what does any of this have to do with child sex trafficking?” you might be asking. And if you are, I’m glad you are. If you aren’t, you might already know where I’m going with this, so don’t spoil the ending, okay?
At their cold black hearts, Leftists see children as a commodity, a purely transactional entity, an entry on a ledger. The value of a child is directly related to how closely he or she follows Leftist doctrine or can be used to advance it. Take Greta Thunberg (please). The Left gives zero fucks about her as a person, just as a figurehead they can use to advance their frequent (and even more frequently wrong) hysteria. Once Greta is no longer useful to the Left, she will get jettisoned out the closest air lock never to be catered to again.
By the way, Greta, check with Cindy Sheehan to get an idea of your future with the Left.
When you consider this angle, it makes the Left’s approach to child sex trafficking a little more understandable and a lot more creepy. And by approach, I mean either utter silence or claiming it’s a right wing fantasy.
And this brings us back to the Leftist Flow Chart of Dealing With An Issue.
1. Deny it’s happening.
2. Claim it’s made up by political opponents
3. Admit it’s happening, but it’s not as bad as it’s been made out to be
4. Admit it’s as bad as it’s been made out to be, but it’s not that bad
5. Admit it’s that bad, but it’s grossly misunderstood (i.e. anyone could make that mistake)
6. Paint those who were right all along as hateful bigots while painting the bad actors as victims
For a recent example to illustrate the point, the Hunter Biden cocaine story is heading into Stage 6. Right now, child sex trafficking is between Stage 1 or 2, depending on the outlet. Some outlets like CNN and Rolling Stone who are well into Stage 2, not taking issue with the subject matter “Sound of Freedom” so much as the people connected to it, namely Jim Caviezel. Now, if you haven’t been paying attention to his career, he’s one of those Hollywood actors who didn’t go woke and has been steadfastly conservative since making a name for himself.
Because a guy who played Jesus acting in a film trying to bring attention to child sex trafficking is clearly the bad guy.
Putting that biased and utterly stupid idea aside, we are left with an important question: why doesn’t the Left take child sex trafficking seriously? Granted, the “children as a commodity” perspective gives us a clue, but it’s not the whole answer. For being simple-minded, Leftists motivations to do or not do something tend to be more complex.
Enter our good friend Occam’s Razor. (I liked it so much, I bought the premise!) This idea boils down to simplifying an issue down to its simplest components to reach a conclusion. As faithful readers know, Leftists love money, power, and control, and if they take a position it’s because they think it’s going to work in their favor.
Now, I’m not saying Leftists have a child sex trafficking issue. I mean, it’s not like a big-name Hollywood producer or a famous financier had connections to high profile Leftists or anything, right?
By staying silent or attacking those trying to bring child sex trafficking to the forefront, Leftists keep the money flowing, which helps them maintain control and power. Even with former child stars like Corey Feldman, Elijah Wood, and others coming forward and exposing how Hollywood treats kids, you aren’t going to see too many Leftists coming forward to do anything about it.
Granted, many of the examples I’ve presented are tangentially-related to child sex trafficking, but I don’t think it’s too far of a leap to believe an industry that hides child sex allegations might also have an issue with how they get the children in the first place. Still, we must be fair and assume innocence until guilt can be established. Yet, we cannot rule it out as a possibility because, well, Hollywood is full of scumbags with enough power to make even the weirdest sexual deviancy go away.
Especially if they have friends in high places, like…oh I don’t know…Washington, DC?
Here’s the thing that confuses me, especially now. This issue is a slam dunk for Leftists if they really thought about it (Spoiler Alert: they didn’t). The electorate is hearing multiple news stories about children being groomed by Leftists, so they should be aware of the potential political bonanza they could see (as well as the ability to keep the “groomer” talk down for a while) by just coming out against it publicly. Plus, it would show the Left is willing to work with the Right on important issues regardless of political differences.
But they just can’t bring themselves to do it. After all, if they concede child sex trafficking is an issue, there’s a good chance it would open up further scrutiny and discussion about border security, sex trafficking in general, whether there is a culture of sex trafficking in Leftist strongholds and among Left-leaning groups, and a lot of other shitstorms the Left doesn’t need right now. After all, they’re too busy trying to cover up the daily shitstorms from the Biden Administration.
But, Leftists, staying silent, attacking a film about child sex trafficking, and blocking legislation that makes child sex trafficking illegal aren’t the way to win hearts and minds of the general population. The political losses you perceive pale in comparison to the sheer evil you’re allowing to young people who aren’t even old enough to vote for your shitty politics. You are politically shooting yourselves in the feet with a Gatling gun, all to protect people who might just be at the heart of the problem in the first place.
But look on the bright side. You got the sick pervert vote locked up!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
The US Supreme Court has been busy making Leftists cry lately. In addition to their recent decision regarding Affirmative Action (my coverage available here), they also ruled in a 6-3 decision in favor of a Colorado businesswoman who wanted to do wedding websites, but didn’t want to them for same-sex weddings. Seems it would violate her religious beliefs, so she challenged Colorado’s law and eventually won.
Which royally pissed off the Left!
While Leftists started in on their “expand the Supreme Court” and “extremist right wing Court” recycled rhetoric, others cheered the decision as a “victory for free speech.” So, why were Leftists (who proclaim themselves as free speech champions) upset?
I’m glad you…errr I asked.
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis
What the Left thinks it means – a Supreme Court decision that makes it legal to discriminate against people
What it really means – the mask slipping on the Left’s commitment to free speech
Our good friends at Twitchy give us a nice breakdown of the case and the stipulations the businesswoman was willing to make to comply with Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws. The Reader’s Digest Condensed Version is she was willing to work with anyone, but not to make websites that would go against her faith.
Wait. I seem to remember a similar situation with a baker in Colorado and the Left’s response being “Bake the cake, bigot.”
Both the baker and the businesswoman were subject to what might best be called coerced free speech. I take that back. The best term for this is bullshit, but you get the idea. The idea behind free speech is to allow everyone a chance to speak their minds up to the point it inspires violence (i.e. “fighting words“). Where the Left takes the, well, left turn off the freeway of free expression is when others say things they don’t like. Then, they will stop at nothing to prevent those evil mean nasty Nazi ideas from getting traction, including collaborating with Big Tech to silence them. Of course, they’ll use any excuse they can to justify it and if you disagree, you’re just dag nasty evil.
Or in the case of COVID-19 hysteria, most likely telling the truth.
This brings us back to the “bake the cake” mentality of the Left. There are segments of the Left (namely the LGBTQA+ABCDEFGOHWEOHWEOHGIRLIWANNAKNOWYOUKNOWYOU crowd) who will use the judicial system to force certain groups (namely Christians) to do what they want in some weird flex of their protected status. And until fairly recently, the courts have let them get away with it, stating a protected class’ “right” to services trumps the Christian’s right to religion.
When you’re coerced to speak under threat of judicial or regulatory reprisal, free speech is compromised to the point of being ineffectual. This is why the “bake the cake” argument is so fucked up in the first place. Although business do have the right to refuse service, it’s limited to situations where it’s not considered discriminatory. And thanks to the aforementioned Alphabet Soup Group, anything short of total subservience to their cause is discriminatory.
Not surprisingly, though, this runs smack-dab in the face of their attitudes about Twitter banning conservative users. Back then, it was okay to silence conservatives because “Twitter is a private business and can make decisions to deny someone a platform.”
Soooooo…I have a question. Why is it okay to silence conservatives because of Twitter’s status as a private business, but also okay to force private businesses to give Leftists a platform for their ideas? The short answer is it’s not because it’s hypocritical and counterintuitive to the idea of free speech. Regardless of how tasty the medium may be, you cannot force compliance one way without forcing it the other way and still be intellectually consistent.
And now, you can’t do it while being legally consistent.
Look, I get the idea behind Colorado’s anti-discrimination law. It’s how it’s being implemented that’s the issue. If you’re using it as a cudgel to attack people who don’t agree with you, it’s being used incorrectly. Laws like the anti-discrimination laws are meant to be more of a legal shield and a method to provide legal recourse should the laws be broken. Using it the way Colorado Leftists have, though, turns a law with good intentions into one with bad application, which puts it in proximity of “fighting words” in my semi-learned opinion.
Where the majority opinion in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis diverted expectations is that it was ruled on as a free speech rather than a freedom of religion issue. But the true brilliance comes when you consider the Left’s opinion of religion in general (save for Climate Change Cultists). In arguing against religion in the public square, the Left has taken one of two approaches: demanding an all-or-none approach (except when it comes to Muslims), or demanding freedom from religion. After all, you have to account for those who don’t want religion shoved down their throats, right?
Wellllll…let’s apply this to another idea, freedom of association. As this link shows, the Supreme Court has already ruled there is a freedom from association as well as a freedom of association. In other words, the High Court has already laid the groundwork for future challenges to Colorado’s law if some plucky attorney with time to kill and a client willing to test the law would put it in motion.
Not that I’m hinting someone should do that, mind you…
Nevertheless, the 6-3 ruling (with guess who making up the minority) is going to stand for now, and the Left can’t handle it. Not only can’t they force people to do their bidding because reasons, but the arguments put forth in opposition to the ruling are…how can I put this delicately…fucking stupid. But remember, Leftists are smarter than us. Just ask them.
In this case (and, to be fair, in most cases for that matter), the Left got this one wrong, and instead of figuring out how they went wrong, they blamed the “right wing Supreme Court.” You know, like mature adults do? Yet, something tells me they aren’t going to understand the implications of their insistence people have to be forced to platform their ideas. I mean, if their ideas were so popular, wouldn’t people want to give them platforms?
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis is a victory for actual free speech and a blow to the coerced speech the Left want to make the norm. No matter how the Left tries to spin it or muddy the waters with absurd claims, this is an L for them, which is a given.
After all, you can’t spell “Leftist” without an L.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
When it comes to finding topics for this weekly excursion into Leftist insanity, patience can be a virtue. I can’t count the number of times I’ve had a topic in mind only to have another topic jumping to the head of the line. (Then again, it might have something to do with me not being able to count, but that’s neither here nor there.)
This week was one of those times. I intended to write about a potential Presidential candidate getting shafted more than a gay porn filmed in an elevator when our good friends at the Supreme Court handed down a 6-3 decision striking down race as a factor in determining college admissions via Affirmative Action..
Thank you, Jesus.
Of course, Leftists freaked out all over the place, which means not only does it give us the topic for this week, but gives us an opportunity to mock the Leftists into the Stone Age! Yay!
Affirmative Action
What the Left thinks it means – a necessary program to address racism in social, academic, and political arenas
What it really means – a program that fights racism by being racist
Affirmative Action began in 1961 due to Executive Order 10925 issued by President John F. Kennedy where he called for “affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” But before you could say ” color-blind society,” Leftists took the idea, twisted it, and turned it into a way to legally discriminate to address grievances, both real and imagined.
Then, it went from letting blacks have a chance to seize the American dream to letting them have all the chances. And it worked well for a while. Eventually, other races wanted in on the Affirmative Action gravy train, and Leftists being Leftists let them. And it worked even better.
Until Asian-Americans entered the equation. (For the purposes of this piece, I will be focusing on the educational aspects of Affirmative Action since that was the issue before the Supreme Court.) Seems when it came to college admissions with institutes of higher learning that adopted Affirmative Action in said admissions (like Harvard and the University of North Carolina, just to name two completely random universities), Asian-American students kept getting passed over for…you guessed it, blacks who didn’t exactly match their Asian-American counterparts, but did have the right skin color.
And guess how that turned out. Oh yeah, it got slapped down by a 6-3 majority like a narc at a biker rally.
Granted, the Asian-American community is understandably split on whether Affirmative Action is a good thing. A majority of those who have heard of it think it’s a good thing, but they don’t think race should be a factor in college admissions. So, they’re working at cross purposes, like your fingers in a Chinese finger trap.
And the Left won’t let that go for a second.
Of course, when they’re trying to explain the dichotomy/duality/hypocrisy, they resort to letting members of the Asian-American community do the whitesplaining for them. And, not surprisingly, they all seem to parrot the same squawking point: Affirmative Action good, Supreme Court decision bad.
But here’s the thing. Affirmative Action in education is racist by definition. Colleges and universities literally used race as a means to determine entry, thus favoring one race over another.
Literally racism. And I do mean literally, kids.
Affirmative Action as the Leftists practice it pulls an Animal Farm by suggesting some racism is more oppressive than others, so they put different weight to certain racial elements in order to rectify the racial injustices of the past. By being racist.
And people wonder why I’m so fucked in the head after being a Leftist.
Regardless, Leftists were pissed at the Supreme Court decision. Some, like Chief Running Mouth, lamented what is being presumed as a loss to black and Hispanic students. Others, like President Puddin’ Head Joe, told the truth without knowing it. Still others, like California Governor Gavin “Human Smarm” Newsom, tripped over his state’s own laws while blasting the decision.
But the general consensus among Leftists is, well, melting down in racist ways, with an “expand the Supreme Court” twist for good measure. (By the way, Erica Marsh, you might want to call the office and let them know you’ve dug yourself a hole and need a really long ladder to get out. And you can’t blame MAGA Republicans for you being stupid.)
Never let a crisis, even one of their own creation, go to waste, amirite?
And believe me, this Supreme Court decision going against the Left is a crisis of their own creation by not really getting the whole “racism is bad” thing. Even if you think you have the best of intentions, racism will get its ass kicked by the law sooner or later. And when you consider how often Leftists have invoked the 14th Amendment as a means to try to punish politicians they say were part of the January 6 “insurrection,” you would think they would have read the first parts of it dealing with, oh I don’t know…equal protections under the law. You know, the very fucking thing the whole Amendment was about?
Nevertheless, this Supreme Court ruling is going to be a bitter pill for the Left to swallow because it’s the same thing that happened when Roe v Wade was sent back to the states. Leftists overplayed their hands and got away with it for decades because they made it socially unacceptable to oppose them. What they didn’t (and still don’t if I’m being honest) think about is when enough people say “fuck it” and stand up anyway. Then, we see how paper thin the Leftist tigers actually are. If the Left hadn’t twisted the original intent of Affirmative Action into a bean-counting system, they would have been fine and no Supreme Court case would have come forward because there wouldn’t have been grounds to do so.
Of course, this wouldn’t be an Affirmative Action ruling without Leftists singling out Justice Clarence Thomas because Leftists say he benefited from Affirmative Action practices to get into law school. Pretty big assumption, as Thomas has shown himself to be a keen legal and Constitutional mind (which might be one of the main reasons the Left hates him). It’s possible he got into law school through Affirmative Action, but it’s just as possible he got in on his merits. Only Thomas knows for sure.
Even if Thomas recused himself, the outcome would be the same, just with a 5-3 outcome. Nothing would have changed.
By the way, have you noticed how Thomas is the only one who’s questioned about whether he would have gotten into law school without Affirmative Action? Not Sonia “Wise Latina” Sotomayor. Not Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Just Clarence Thomas. Of course, Sotomayor and Brown Jackson vote the “right” way, so they obviously got into their respective law schools totally on their merits and not because of their skin colors.
Wait. Aren’t Leftists complaining about blacks and Hispanics not getting educational spots due to this ruling? Yes, but I’m sure it’s just an amazing coincidence…
Nevertheless, using Affirmative Action for educational purposes usually winds up the same way using it in the private and pubic sectors go: a small handful of diamonds in a metric shit ton of, well, shit. Of course there’s a simple way to grab more diamonds than shit in this case. Something about hiring the best people for the job regardless of race. But I’m sure that will never work. I mean, when has hiring competent people ever been successful? You know, aside from just about every time it’s done.
But the Left keeps expecting hiring incompetents for high profile positions will wind up elevating them into the roles. But it never works that way. The incompetents will get a false sense of achievement and the overinflated egos that come with it, and as long as Leftists keep letting them either advance or spin their wheels where they are (and vote/rule the way the Left wants, of course) these folks will be harder to remove than a Jehovah’s Witness tick with Super Glue on its jaws who moonlights as an IRS auditor.
This is made worse for college students who don’t have the luxury of a job to fall back on yet. For them, this is a do-or-die environment, one that is constantly being enabled by Leftists who want to feel good about “helping” minorities without actually doing anything. Once these students graduate, they are ill-prepared to handle a world where results matter. Skin color and misguided application of Affirmative Action can get your foot in the door, but if you can’t do the job, it’s going to cost money sooner or later.
But at least white Leftists feel good, right?
Say what you will about the Supreme Court, they got this decision right. Affirmative Action has no place in academia because it guarantees someone is going to get hurt by being coddled by a system that they will never allow to be applied to themselves.
Good luck with that, Leftists.