If you’re like me (and if you are, I’m sorry), you’re tired of watching Congressional hearings. Whether it’s a Presidential appointee or a witness addressing the ever-important question of who let the dogs out, the script never changes.
1. The Congresscritters who support what the person says/believes throws more softballs than at any given summer weekend.
2. The Congresscritters who reject what the person says/believes will come up with the most bizarre “gotcha” questions designed to make them look like they know what they’re talking about. (Spoiler Alert: if they’re in Congress, it’s usually a good bet they don’t.)
3. Both sides get to crow about how well their Congresscritters did.
4. Nobody changes their minds and votes usually fall along party lines.
5. Congresscritters get paid for doing next to nothing.
Clearly, this is not ideal by any stretch of the imagination, especially from an entertainment perspective. If there’s no mystery about the outcome, you run the risk of being predictable and the audience looking for something else to watch. The attention span of many adults is shorter than that of a ferret high on truck stop speed and with a pure espresso and cane sugar IV drip. So, we have to find a way to hook people early and keep them hooked. And since cocaine is neither free nor legal, that idea is out the window.
One tack to take is to turn every hearing into a reality show. Granted, there’s a good chance the boneheads in DC will find a way to screw this up, but there’s a reason shows like “Big Brother” and “Survivor” keep getting renewed: we get to see people at their best and worst. The human drama is the best drama we have and often we don’t need to do much to bring it out. In most cases, all it takes is for the barista to get your order wrong for it to come flowing out.
A Congressional hearing made like a reality show would be a way to get more eyes on the product and make it more exciting. But we can’t stop there! We will need a panel of judges to point out the high and low points of each person, both Congresscritter and witness/nominee. Plus, it will give Simon Cowell work for the rest of his life, so that’s a draw right there! Just get two or three more people and you have your panel.
And of course, there’s sex. Sex sells, so we have to find a way to add a bit of spice (Channel, that is) to the proceedings. Since people can and usually are dragged through the mud during their hearings, why not bring actual mud into the equation? That’s right, boys and girls, I’m talking about mud wrestling! Granted some of the matches we’d get would be like watching the ladies from “The View” in a burlesque revue, but there are some that would make it well worth the wait. It could also be used to settle squabbles between Congresscritters. Imagine if Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton had taken their disputes into a kiddie pool full of mud instead of dueling. History would be forever changed, and a lot more exciting!
Of course, this approach may remove the gravitas of the hearings, but I would argue it was already removed before I got involved. However, I do understand that concern and I have another solution, and we can all be a part of it. Every chair in the hearing room gets wired to a light, but noticeable electric shock. If the audience feels a Congresscritter or a witness/nominee isn’t telling the truth, is avoiding the question, or is acting the fool, we get to push a button and shock them! Not only will it increase audience participation, but there’s a chance it could work as negative reinforcement so they behave. Get shocked enough, and even the most offensive Congresscritter would get straight and fly right.
Elizabeth Warren and Adam Schiff, consider this your warning.
There’s one more alternative I can give that would remove the clowns from this Congressional three-ring circus The Constitution states the Senate has the right of “advice and consent” when it comes to federal nominees, but it doesn’t say how this advice and consent has to be given. With the advent of social media (and, yes, I guess that counts Bluesky), do we need to spend the time, money, and room space to hold a hearing? This can be done over Zoom, Teams, or any other teleconferencing service and the nominees won’t even need to get out of their pajamas if they choose. Imagine a candidate for the Secretary of Education being grilled while in a Spongebob onesy! Not only would it be cute and enjoyable, but it would elevate the perception of Congressional hearings.
Of course, the politicians would hate this idea because FaceTime wouldn’t give them the media facetime they need to feed their egos. All the more reason to do it!
Let me know if you have any other ideas on how to improve Congressional hearings!
Author: Thomas
I'm a writer and a ranger and a young boy bearing arms. And two out of the three don't count.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With the incoming Trump Administration, there are going to be a lot of confirmation hearings for his Cabinet. And without exception, Leftists are obsessed with qualifications. To hear them speak (and I’m not sure why you would want to), none of Trump’s appointees have the basic qualifications to tie their own shoes, let alone run a section of the American government.
Let’s just say the irony is not lost on your humble correspondent.
But what exactly do Leftists mean when they talk about qualifications? Good question, and I hope I have a good answer, or at least an answer entertaining enough that you won’t throw your computer in the dumpster.
qualifications
What the Left thinks it means – important characteristics that show someone is capable of doing the job
What it really means – qualities politicians have little room to talk about
First, a bit of a rabbit hole to set up the shitshow proper. Under the Constitution, the Senate has the responsibility of advice and consent. Under normal conditions, this can be a useful tool to determine whether a potential government official has the knowledge, background, and judgment necessary to fulfill the duties of the role. Under current conditions, it’s a way for know-nothing assholes to preen for the cameras and look for their “gotcha” moments. And that’s when the Senate is being less horrible than usual.
Through this advice and consent process, nominees get dragged in front of Senate committees and either given more ball gagging than on a gay porn set (not that I know anything about that, mind you) or a gauntlet of nonsensical, partisan bullshit questions that makes you wonder if the Senators asking them actually want to hear from the nominee.
In other words, any given Tuesday on Capitol Hill.
The reason qualifications is such a buzz word recently is because Democrats and Leftists want to make the public at large believe everyone Trump nominates is dumber than a bag of hammers, even if they have more experience than the assholes asking the questions. And when these assholes aren’t asking gotcha questions, they’re heading to their favorite media outlets to brag about what they did, and so they can get their balls sucked.
Yes, even the women, or for any Leftist reading this, birthing people.
Although we would like to get the best people for the job, there’s one significant hurdle: the best people for the job wouldn’t take it because it would be a downgrade. For most people, getting a cushy government job where you couldn’t get fired even if you tried would be a dream. But within that dream, there is the nightmare of being stagnant. Great ideas rarely get implemented, excellence is seen as a detriment, and good employees are pushed to be as mediocre as they can be. And qualifications? It’s more about connections or other factors unrelated to the job than it is about whether you can do it.
That’s one of the reasons I chuckle when the Left starts talking about how unqualified Trump’s appointees are. Leftist hate achievement and want everybody to be equally…meh. Just check the right boxes and you, too, can be the Undersecretary of Beverage Acquisition for the Undersecretary of Waste Disposal under the Secretary of Environmental Justice, Transgender Division. In other words, you’re getting coffee for trash collectors under someone who got a shitty degree that couldn’t get you hired by a temp agency.
And it might give you a fast track to being in Congress or some President’s Cabinet if you play your cards right. Just ask Pete Buttigieg.
Which brings me to another reason I’m chuckling a lot at Leftists demanding Trump’s appointees be qualified: they’re responsible for confirming some of the Brick Tamland Administration’s worst picks, like Pete Buttigieg as Secretary of Transportation. Not to pick on Mayor Pete here, but what in the wide world of fuck were his qualifications? Fixing roads in South Bend, Indiana.
Let’s ask the people of East Palestine, Ohio, how they feel about his qualifications for Secretary of Transportation. That is if you can get them to drop their pitchforks and torches at the mention of his name.
The fact many of the same Senators who question the qualifications of Trump’s appointees thought nothing of the lack of qualifications of many appointees of the Brick Tamland Administration makes me want to tell them to take a seat, but that wouldn’t be any fun.
That comes when you ask these sanctimonious assholes obsessed with qualifications to pontificate on the California wildfires, where the people in charge aren’t qualified to run a free water outlet in the desert, let alone fighting a major fire. I would particularly like to hear from new Senator Adam Schiff, one of the ones who keeps warning us about the dangers of having incompetent people in positions of power. Or he could just look in the mirror to see an incompetent person in power.
Yeah, I went there. And I’ll continue to go there so much, I’ll get my mail forwarded there.
The whole kerfluffle over qualifications right now is based on partisanship, just like it has been with previous appointees from both sides. As much as I like Ted Cruz (which is slightly more than I like most politicians), his questioning of Ketanji Jackson Brown over issues like Critical Race Theory only feed into the problem. Which gives me an idea for an Extremist Makeover, but that’s a blog post for a different time.
In the meantime, it should be pointed out these hearings are like the plot of a horrible mystery novel: you know what’s going to happen before we get to the end because it’s so fucking obvious. Democrats are going to vote against the nominees, Republicans will vote for the nominees, both sides are going to claim victory, and the qualification kerfluffle gets tossed aside.
And we’ll get stuck with the results.
So, yay, I guess?
Unlocking the Keys
With all of the post-2024 Election analyses, there’s been a lot of talk about Allan Lichtman’s 13 Keys, the factors he’s used to predict 9 of the past 11 Presidential elections. A lot of talk, but not a lot of analysis, per se. Oh, you had your share of squawking heads on both pointing out how the 13 Keys failed this election, but not a lot of thought as to why.
Well, since I lack hobbies, I decided to do a bit of research and analysis of my own and what I found out might change a few minds.
Before we get into the boring stuff, we have to set our parameters, i.e. know what we’re talking about. After all, this isn’t MSNBC, so we can’t get away with spouting off without having facts.
Lichtman’s Keys are as follows:
Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the US House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
Under Lichtman’s model, a successful candidate has to win at least 8 of these Keys. And considering its track record, it would be hard to imagine a scenario where the Keys failed.
This is where things get a little tricky, and where most of the post-election analysis surrounding the Keys stopped. The consensus was the Keys were wrong, which negatively impacts Lichtman and the model itself. However, that’s far too simplistic and inaccurate an assessment. Based on my own analysis, the Keys still work and worked in the 2024 election.
Where the failure occurred is in the interpretation of the data. Whenever you do any kind of social research, there is always a chance one’s personal beliefs can find their way into the analysis of the findings. If you’re not careful, you go from letting the data drive your conclusions to rooting for a particular conclusion and retroactively figuring out how it came to pass.
To be fair, observation bias isn’t limited to the “soft sciences.” There are some prime examples of hard sciences being sucked into the wonderful world of bias. The difference is in the ability to reconstruct the experiment to test the hypothesis further. With hard science, the way to do that is clear, but with soft science, it’s unclear, if not impossible, to reproduce the outcomes. We can set up similar conditions, but the passage of time, the introduction of new information, or even just the possibility of a changed opinion limit the effectiveness and accuracy of the reproduction.
Setting all that aside (because it gets pretty close to migraine-inducing territory for me), the important takeaway is the data is the data. It’s how we interpret it that creates the opening for bias to affect the outcome.
I can’t say for certain Lichtman’s prediction that Vice President Kamala Harris would win 9 of the 13 keys was based on bias rather than a difference in interpreting the data. Prior to 2024, the only other time in recent history that the Keys didn’t accurately predict the outcome was in 2000 when he predicted Al Gore would defeat George W. Bush. His explanation for why the Keys didn’t predict the winner then? Bush stole the election.
That suggests to me he may have a bias issue when it comes to elections he feels strongly about, and he has made it clear he’s not a Trump supporter by any means. Having said that, I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt here and chalk the 2024 election prediction failure to just having an off night. More grace than he deserves? Maybe, but feel free to excoriate me in the comments.
Lichtman’s prediction for 2024 were as follows:
The following nine keys line up in favor of the incumbent Democrats.
Contest Key 2: The Democrats have united in near unanimity behind Harris.
Third-Party Key 4: In recognition of his fading support, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. suspended his campaign. His endorsement of Donald Trump does not impact this key.
Short-Term Economy Key 5: It is too late for a recession to take hold of the economy before the election. The National Bureau of Economic Research, which provides the most reliable assessment of recessions, typically takes a few months to establish that the economy has fallen into a recession (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2020).
Long-Term Economy Key 6: Real per-capita growth during the Biden term far exceeds the average of the previous two presidential terms.
Policy Change Key 7: Biden has fundamentally changed the policies of the Trump administration in areas such as the environment and climate change, infrastructure, immigration, taxes, and women’s and civil rights.
Social Unrest Key 8: Despite sporadic demonstrations, social unrest has not risen to the level needed to forfeit this key: massive, unresolved unrest that threatens the stability of society as in the 1960s and early 1970s.
Scandal Key 9: Republicans in Congress have tried and failed to pin a scandal on President Biden. His son Hunter’s crimes do not count as scandal, which to do so must implicate the president himself and generate bipartisan recognition of wrongdoing.
Foreign/Military Success Key 11: President Biden and Biden alone forged the coalition of the West that kept Putin from conquering Ukraine and then undermining America’s national security by threatening its NATO allies. Biden’s initiatives will go down in history as an extraordinary presidential achievement.
Challenger Charisma Key 13: As explained, Trump does not fit the criteria of a once-in-a-generation, broadly appealing, transformational candidate like Franklin D. Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan.
Seems like a lock, right? Not quite.
I have no dog in this hunt since I didn’t vote for either Trump or Harris, so my analysis shook out a bit differently. Instead of focusing on just the 9 keys Lichtman thought Harris would win, I think a look at all 13 would be helpful.
Here’s what I came up with.
Party Mandate: Although the 2022 midterm elections didn’t quite swing as far right as the GOP would have wanted, the fact remains they regained control of the House of Representatives. On that, Lichtman and I concur. Advantage: Trump.
Contest: Lichtman gave this one to Harris, but the conditions under which she received the nomination makes this a bit harder for me to concede this Key to her. At the beginning of the election cycle, Ms. Harris was still considered to be Vice President, in spite of the thoughts at the time she might be a drag on the ticket. The unity behind her didn’t come together until after the nomination process was truncated and she was allowed to take over for Joe Biden. Trump, on the other hand, went through a primary process where he had challengers of varying degrees of ineptitude. Even with that being the case, the GOP by and large got behind Trump from the outset. Thus, I have to give this one to the GOP. Advantage: Trump.
Incumbancy: Once Joe Biden dropped out, this Key became a moot point. Neither Trump nor Harris could claim this, so neither one would get the advantage from it. No Advantage.
Third Party: There was no significant third party presence in the 2024 election. The closest we had was Robert Kennedy, Jr. No Advantage.
Short Term Economy: Now, we’re getting into the fun stuff! Lichtman was correct when he said there was not a recession in play here. However, that doesn’t automatically mean the economy is strong. We may not have had a recession, but we still had to deal with an economy voters felt was in decline because, well, it was. Even if you consider the drop in the inflation rate to be a step in the right direction, it didn’t resonate with voters. For that reason, I cannot give Harris the nod as Lichtman did. Advantage: Trump.
Long Term Economy: Second verse, same as the first. Advantage: Trump.
Policy Change: Again, Lichtman correctly stated the Biden Administration changed policies put in place by the Trump Administration, which were certainly big, but for the wrong reasons because they were historically bad changes. (Inflation Reduction Act, anyone?) When asked what she would do differently, Harris couldn’t come up with anything, which meant she knowingly or inadvertently signed off on the policy changes Biden made, which were ultimately unpopular. Staying the course when you’re about to hit the rocks isn’t smart in real life or in politics. Advantage: Trump.
Social Unrest: One of the candidates got shot at twice after years of being called a fascist, and the other was Kamala Harris. That tells me there’s social unrest. Advantage: Trump.
Scandal: Sorry, sir, but you think President Biden was devoid of scandal, I have swamp land in Death Valley I’d love to sell you. This was one of the biggest blunders Lichtman had with his 2024 Keys because it ignored one of the biggest stories of last year: Biden’s declining mental faculties. That in and of itself (as well as the media’s cover-up) was a big enough scandal to swing this Key to Trump. Advantage: Trump.
Foreign or Military Failure: That was Joe Biden’s M.O. even back in his Congressional days. As we saw with the mess that was the Afghanistan withdrawal, there was no way for Biden to escape blame for it. And Harris was pretty much either a ghost on the scene or nodded in approval at whatever harebrained idea Biden came up with at the time. Trump didn’t have that problem because, well, he wasn’t Commander In Chief. Advantage: Trump.
Foreign/Military Success: Unless you count making President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine super rich, I got nothing. Advantage: Trump.
Incumbent Charisma/Hero: Even if you count Harris as the incumbent, she was a popularity void, as evidenced by the number of people who walked out of her rallies after the musical performances by big-name stars concluded. And Trump wasn’t the incumbent. It’s a wash. No Advantage.
Challenger Charisma/Hero: Say what you will about the man, Donald Trump has charisma and he imposed his will on the Harris campaign. Lichtman got this one completely wrong. Advantage: Trump.
So the final score from my analysis is 10 Keys for Trump, 0 for Harris, and 3 for No Advantage. And considering Trump won the White House, I’d say the Keys worked pretty good once possible bias (and definite missed calls) were accounted for. It may not have been the result Lichtman wanted, but from where I sit, the Keys worked to perfection, even if he didn’t.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
This was another week where you couldn’t swing a dead cat without hitting a potential Lexicon entry. Although I’m not sure why you would want to swing a dead cat around, but I’m not here to kink shame. Let your freak flag fly, baby!
Out of all the potential subjects, one really stood out for me. In a move that shocked, well, not that many people, Mark Zuckerberg announced Meta and all the social media sites under it would be moving away from its “fact checking” model (which literally fact-checked obvious jokes, thus making the model itself a joke) and moving more towards a Community Notes standard like what is being used on the Social Media Site Formerly Known As Twitter. This got Leftists all atwitter (or would that be aX) at the notion. Journalists (0r whatever the fuck Brian Stelter is) and Leftist hacks were up in arms at Zuck’s decision.
Which obviously means it was the right decision.
And it makes it perfect for a Leftist Lexicon entry.
fact checking
What the Left thinks it means – a vital service that should only be done by professionals
What it really means – finding out the truth and calling out the lies
One of the hardest things about being informed today is knowing who you can trust. Modern journalism is a hodgepodge of shitty sources sucking up to even shittier people so they can get invited to dinner parties with yet even shittier people. The Fourth Estate has become Leftist stenographers more than the bulldogs that will relentlessly seek the truth. Anymore, any journalists are lucky to stumble into the truth, and even then there’s a better than average chance they’ll completely miss it.
On its face, the idea of fact checking is a good thing, especially given the modern journalism as described above. We want to be informed, or at the very least seem informed to impress others. To that end, we look for sources that break things down for us and teach us things we didn’t know. With the sheer deluge of information sources, it’s hard to find a way to control the output of the fire hose.
Enter the fact checkers, doing the research for you so you don’t have to! It’s so easy and cheap to do, it’s a wonder why people don’t do this more often!
And that’s the problem.
When you pawn off anything you should do yourself, you are subject to the outcomes the other party produce. It’s like when you hire a contractor who farms out the work to a subcontractor. The job may get done, but it may not up to the standards the contractor has. Then it becomes a matter of people pointing fingers at one another trying to figure out who’s responsible for the kitchen sink being put in the attic.
When it comes to information, it’s a lot harder to fix the fuckups, mainly because no one wants to take responsibility for your being misinformed. You don’t want to admit you were a dumbass for believing a fact checker. The fact checker doesn’t want to admit fault because a) it looks reaaaallllly bad when a fact checker can’t figure out the truth, and b) it hurts their widdle fee-fees. The entity that hired the fact checkers doesn’t want to take the hit for the reasons mentioned above and because it erodes the trust the entity has, which ultimately costs them money.
In other words, when you rely on fact checkers to do your research for you, more often than not, you’re their bitch.
Then, there’s the lovely little problem of bias. In the early days of Facebook fact checking, the people doing it leaned so far left they were parallel to the ground while standing up. Once that got called out, Zuck tried to balance out the fact checkers and the checking itself, but only made it worse because some of the fact checkers had bias issues. Not a good look, kids!
Regardless of which side of the political/ideological aisle you’re on, bias fucks up your ability to be truly informed because it limits your scope of information sources. Social media has turned us back into a tribalistic society where anyone who deviates from what you consider to be normal, just, and right is an infidel and, thus, not even worthy of even basic human decency. When you face information from one of those “unclean” sources that contradicts your mindset, you have two choices: adapt, or reject.
I bring this up to underscore the problem with biased fact checking. If you have the opinion information from one side or the other is untrue (regardless of whether it’s factual), you are going to more inclined to reject it. And if you have the power to shape what other people see on a social media website like…oh I don’t know…Facebook, you are going to be tempted to hide the “bad” information and go after those who want it to be known.
There’s an old saying that applies here…something about absolute power and corruption…I’m sure it will come to me.
Anyway, the Facebook fact checkers fell into this trap, which caused a lot of accounts to get warnings, suspensions, and even terminations. And in some cases, actual news stories shared online got slapped with misinformation tags (I’m looking at you, Hunter Biden) and were subsequently suppressed. Oh, and I forgot to mention Zuck said he got pressure from the Brick Tamland Administration to suppress the laptop story.
And who got punished for suppressing this legitimate news story? The entities who shared it. I mean, why would people who actively worked towards misinformation by absence see any punishment for making people misinformed? That’s just crazy talk, man!
But it also exposes the danger of trusting fact checkers without verifying whether what they’re saying is factual. Just because you tell me you’re honest doesn’t mean I’m not gonna test you. And you shouldn’t just trust and believe either. News stories that sound too good to be true should be the first ones that should make your Bullshit Meter light up like the…biological discharges…in an hourly rate hotel room when you scan it with a blacklight flashlight.
Not that I know anything about that, mind you…
This is going to be a bit of an ask, but it’s going to make more sense if you do it. Question all of your sources while reaching out for alternative sources from a wider array of ideologies. Then, let common sense be your guide. If something sounds factual and makes sense, be open to accepting it. If something sounds like more full of bullshit than the world’s largest cattle ranch, then don’t trust it. Consider it mental calisthenics that will make you stronger, faster, better. And without the need for bionics!
I would be remiss if I didn’t point out how the typical Leftist sources are so upset Mark Zuckerberg is going in a new direction with fact checking. The way it was set up initially, the Left had the power over what got considered factual. Now, thanks to the advent and popularity of Community Notes, they no longer control the flow of information and can be called out for pushing misinformation while pretending to guard against it. And if you’re a Leftist media shill, the worst thing you can do is strip them of the power and the prestige of being information brokers and letting the hoi polloi point and laugh when you fuck up.
If I may offer a suggestion, media folks, maybe stop parroting Leftist squawking points and start doing your fucking jobs. There’s a reason used car salesmen are considered more trustworthy than the media and their fact checkers these days, and I can draw a pretty clear conclusion as to why. But I’m sure if you really put your hivemind to it, you’ll figure it out by the end of January.
Of the year 3843.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With Donald Trump’s second Inauguration right around the corner, the Left has been acting mature and being deeply introspective about how Queen Kamala the Appointed lost, looking for a better way forward for 2028.
Just kidding! They’re still screaming like little bitches.
But this time around, their shrieking sounds…vaguely familiar. In fact, it was 4 years ago, if memory serves. It’s almost as if the Left…is denying the results of the 2024 election. After all, it’s impossible Trump won the popular vote against someone as beloved as Queen Kamala the Appointed, right?
Well, let’s just say everything old is hypocritical again. Back to the election denial well for another taste.
election denial
What the Left thinks it means – a valid expression of doubt over the results of the 2024 election
What it really means – hypocritical bullshit the Left uses to excuse losing so badly
There’s a popular idea in Leftist circles that Republicans can only win by cheating. That’s going to come as news to those of us who remember the 1984 election, where Ronald Reagan made Walter Mondale his bitch, but that’s not important right now. The point is Leftists have built up a belief they will always win elections unless there’s chicanery.
You know, like the Electoral College?
This time around, the excuses for Queen Kamala the Appointed’s loss are more frequent than my trips to the bathroom after eating Chipotle’s e-coli special. Elon Musk hacked the voting machines. There is evidence of election tampering, which is why the Harris campaign started collecting funds for what they call the “President’s Recount Account.” Trump had Russians call in fake bomb threats to polling places. There are 20 million missing votes. And, because these are Leftists we’re dealing with here, a ton of hashtags.
To be fair, there has been election denial from both the Left and the Right in recent years, but of the two sides, the Left has had the election denial thing on lockdown. But after the 202o election where the President Brick Tamland got more votes than Barack fucking Obama (something I’m still questioning because it makes zero sense), the Left turned their popular electoral pastime into…fostering an insurrection! Yep, if you even sounded like you were questioning the outcome of the most secure election in history (according to the same Leftists saying the 2024 election was stolen), you were on par with those evil, dastardly, no-good, utterly despicable insurrectionists who…let me read my notes here…were mostly peaceful (as opposed to the “mostly peaceful” protests in 2020 where shit got broken and set on fire), with only a handful of asshats who did more than just peaceably assemble.
Well, if that’s the case, better get me a buffalo hat.
Of course, it’s not, but the Left made the rules, so that means I get to call each and every one of them who denies the 2024 election insurrectionists and, thus, subject to jail time and other legal overreactions. I hear Gitmo is nice this time of year…
Seriously, though, we should not be afraid to call bullshit if there’s actual bullshit being presented as truth. To date, I have yet to see any convincing evidence of any of the Left’s election denial, but I have seen some questions about the 2020 election that make it hard to believe it was as legit as the Left wants us to believe. Regardless, the act of denying an election isn’t the second coming of the burning of the Reichstag building. In today’s society where lying is like breathing (especially to the political and media classes), I’m surprised there aren’t more protests over stolen elections. I think the reasons there aren’t are a) the Right all have jobs, and b) the Left are pussies.
More to the point, there are some serious election irregularities that both sides can’t seem to agree are problems. Like the possibility there are some places where there are more votes cast than citizens in those places. Combine these with people who may be voting twice because they have homes in two different states (i.e. snowbirds and college students), ineligible voters, the dead voting in elections, long lines at polling places, electioneering under the guise of handing out free water at polling places, the lack of updated technology, the over-reliance on said technology, the lack of voting machines in some districts, and a general apathy towards voting because of shady shit going on, and we have a powder keg just waiting to be set alight by someone with a Zippo and a bad attitude.
Yet, even with all of this (and the hypocrisy of the Left), it’s hard to point out many examples of actual election denial. We may not like the results, but that in and of itself is not election denial. As long as we aren’t breaking the law, negatively impacting someone else’s rights, or generally being an asshole about it, it’s kosher. And, Leftists, hurt fee-fees don’t count as generally being an asshole, unless we’re talking about you being said asshole.
And I would be remiss if I didn’t point out the sheer hypocrisy of election denial. It’s okay for Leftists to question election results, but not for anybody else? Bullshit! Either you let everybody in on your reindeer games or you can take all the seats. From where I stand, you can definitely take the seats and go over there. No, not there. Still too close. Keep going. I’ll let you know when you can stop.
Okay, now we have our chance. Let’s get out of here!
Leftist Lexicion Word of the Week
Yep, we’re back talking about the 2024 Election again.
Since Donald Trump became the 47th President, the Left has been trying to figure out what went wrong. I have a thought: don’t run Hillary Clinton with a tan on a shitty platform focused on abortion rather than the cost of groceries. And as simple as that is to understand, the Left are still trying to figure out a way to right the DNC Titanic.
One idea that caught on was finding left-wing versions of Joe Rogan and Elon Musk. Spoiler Alert: you had them. They were called Joe Rogan and Elon Musk. But instead of taking a step back and realize running on bat-shit insane policies, they’re trying to find a way to reach out to white men.
Enter Dean Withers, affectionately called “the Bro Whisperer.”
Hoo boy. This one’s gonna sting, kids.
the Bro Whisperer
What the Left thinks it means – a way for the Left to reach out to young men to persuade them to vote Democrat
What it really means – proof positive the Left still doesn’t know what the fuck they’re doing
Leftists have had a pretty significant footprint (carbon or otherwise) in the mainstream media. Most major newspapers, the three networks, PBS, and some online spaces such as Facebook and YouTube. Even the Social Media Network Formerly Known As Twitter had the loving and diverse jackboot of the Left on its throat for a long time.
But as anyone who is even vaguely familiar with the rise of talk radio can tell you, that only meant the Right had to create their own niche in the market. So, they did. Whether it was Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, or Truth Social, the Right found a way to take the good parts of what the Left shit on, clean them off, and make them work.
Unfortunately for the Left, they’re not so successful in reversing the political polarity and being successful. And this whole “Bro Whisperer” thing is bound to tank more than Michael Dukakis in a tank.
First off, the concept is utterly demeaning to anyone with an IQ above Kate Moss’s waist size. Which is why the Left thinks it’s a great idea, by the way. As much as the Left loves to push back against negative gender stereotypes when it comes to women (and, more recently, men who claim to be women but have a five o’clock shadow that would make Bigfoot look like Dr. Evil), they’re resorting to the characterization of potential young male voters as early 90s-era frat boys. Instead of doing some introspection and working on an actual message, turn them all into “bros.”
Fucking brilliant.
Of course, this runs counter to the way the Left has seen men in recent decades. Potential rapists, gun nuts, control freaks, hyper-macho gym bros, colonists, misogynists, homophobes, intellectually and emotionally stunted, and the hits keep coming. And those are the names they use if they like you!
Seriously, though, the Left has been pounding the drums that men suck for a while now. Even now, the big brains on the Left blame men for Queen Kamala the Appointed’s election loss, but this time it’s men of all colors, not just whites, who get the blame. Apparently, men are afraid of strong women leaders, but the Left hasn’t presented any to us aside from Tulsi Gabbard. Most of the time, the Left’s idea of a strong woman is weaker than the drinks at a fourth-rate strip club.
Not that I know anything about that, mind you…
Let me help you Leftists with an important concept that will come in handy sooner or later: not everything you think can be boiled down to sexism is actually sexism. Unless you’re taking the same drugs Joy Reid is, Harris ran a horrible campaign and wasted a shit-ton of money in the process. She didn’t really make much of an appeal to men, instead focusing on abortion (which Leftists keep telling us “no vagina, no say” so men would be further excluded from the conversation). And aside from doing a horrible fucking job on tasks President Brick Tamland gave her, she could list the number of successes she’s had on the one hand of the world’s unluckiest woodworker. It’s the lack of outreach on her campaign’s part that cost her the male vote.
Say what you will about Trump, he at least appealed to potential voters from all walks of life. That’s what drew in voters and political and social figures like the aforementioned Rogan and Musk. He didn’t talk down to them. He didn’t throw them out of the movement if they dared to consider the Right might not be the second coming of Hitler. Now that Queen Kamala the Appointed got stomped like a vat of grapes in an “I Love Lucy” episode, some on the Left are now willing to listen.
Hence, the “Bro Whisperer” bullshit.
But remember what I said earlier about the Left not exactly being successful in adopting ideas of the Right? Yeah, this is another one of them. On the bright side, though, it gives us an opportunity to remember the good old days of Air America. Yeah, that was an enjoyable three days (fewer if you take out all the commercials).
Now, typically I try to avoid making superficial comments about a Leftist’s looks or personality. Unfortunately, I’m going to have to break that rule this time because the “Bro Whisper” is the least Bro-ish Bro to ever Bro a Bro, Bro. But the Left are looking to him to help bridge the gap between themselves and the segment of the population they’ve shit on for decades. All I gotta say is good luck, kid. Maybe you’ll be Bro Rogan, but I’m gonna go out on a limb and say you won’t.
This on-again-off-again political romance with male voters shows the duplicity of the Left’s approach, as well as the cynicism behind it. The thing to remember is the Left thinks we’re dumber than a bag of hammers unless we say, think, and do exactly what they do. They see us as goldfish with a blackout drinking problem: short of memory and not terribly clear on the details. Anyone who backs the “Bro Whisperer” concept is perpetuating that idea. They think going from blaming male voters for not giving us Queen Kamala the Appointed to asking for their votes (and money, of course) is no big deal because we won’t remember how they called us fascists.
Even though it was literally a week or two before Election Day. I’m sure Queen Kamala’s positions have changed since then and she wants to make up for slamming men more than Nancy Pelosi slams shots at an open bar. She’s matured in that nearly 2 month period.
And if you believe that, I have some swamp land in the Sahara Desert I’d love to sell ya.
The best part of the “Bro Whisperer” (at least to me) is how confident the Left is it’s going to work. The Left has a serious ego problem (but that’s a blog post for another day) and it’s their sheer arrogance in their shitty ideas that will make the inevitable flop all the more enjoyable. In today’s political environment, the Left is Wile E. Coyote and we’re Acme.
I’m sure the “Bro Whisperer” is going to give it the old community college/votech try and the Left will marvel at the tens and tens of listeners he’s going to get, but it’s too late for the Left to mend fences. You’re going to have to be real going forward to regain the male vote.
On the bright side, you still have the men pretending to be women vote on lockdown!
Flipping the Script
Now, I’ll be the first one to admit I have some pretty oddball ideas, but I am committed (or should be) to expressing them on the off chance they’re not that far off from reality.
This one is one of those that once you see it, you can’t unsee it. And it has its origins waaaaaaay back in the era of big hair (on men and women), the Cola Wars, and 2 out of 3 of the good Star Wars movies, the 1980s. There was a group that went out of its way to inject itself into social issues, coming up with all sorts of statements about how the country was sliding into a moral abyss and demands for someone to do something to stop that slide from happening. Everything from games to popular culture got scrutinized and, if found wanting in their eyes, got run through the mud.
If you can’t remember them (or have put them out of your minds for your own mental health), they were known as the Moral Majority. They were loud, obnoxious, and most of all wrong about much of what they said was going to happen. For example, I’m still waiting to turn Wiccan or Satanic from playing Dungeons and Dragons. Maybe I got a bad batch…
Anyway, the Moral Majority reveled in taking the fun out of life and being Gladys Kravitz on pure Colombian marching powder (oddly enough, also really popular in the 80s). But as time went on, people took notice that they were full of shit and mocked them relentlessly until they faded into the background, a relic of a bygone era when whipping up a mob was a lot harder than going onto Instagram and posting a video. You actually had to do some work!
With that being said, can you think of anyone today who might be doing the same things the Moral Majority did? Anyone at all? Could it be…oh, I don’t know…SATAN?
Sorry. Wrong franchise.
When you really think about it (and I do because otherwise I wouldn’t have anything to write about), the Left seems to have taken up the mantle of the Moral Majority. Let’s follow our handy dandy checklist, shall we?
Sanctimonious assholes involved? Check.
An utter lack of understanding of the subject matter? Yep.
Loud? You bet!
Obnoxious? Oh, yeah.
Professed concern about the future? Sure!
Okay with government stepping in to regulate what they don’t like? Sho nuff!
Congratulations, Leftists. You’re the new Moral Majority, and that’s not a good thing. However, I’m good with you taking up the mantle because it allows me the option to either mock you, ignore you, or a little from column A and a little from column B. Regardless, the best part about it is you will be mostly forgotten in a few years, leaving the rest of us to enjoy life the way it was meant to be enjoyed: without nosy assholes telling us why we’re wrong for enjoying life.
Noses Up, Thumbs Down
As a recovering Leftist, I could go on for days about everything I see wrong with the current Left, mainly because they tend to be the same problems I saw when I was among their ranks. They’re not even original enough to recycle their problems!
The one common aspect that flows through all of these issues is arrogance. Regardless of the circumstances, Leftists always think they’re the smartest people in the room and aren’t afraid to let you know it. And they’re obviously better than you because they’re Leftists.
If that logic were any more circular it would give me motion sickness.
And that’s on top of the nausea I get when listening to Leftists expound upon their brilliance with takes worse than letting Lindsey Lohan be your AA sponsor. Just look back at any of the Leftists livestreaming the 2024 election. Down to the one, they all had the same take: Queen Kamala the Appointed was not only going to win, but ran a flawless campaign. Only the worst possible people could possibly vote for Donald Trump!
Yeah, about that.
Not only did Leftists double down on the “everyone else is stupid” rhetoric (which always brings people to the polls…to vote against them), but they also did what they did with climate change “research”: start with the answer and work backwards, ignoring anything that contradicts the desired results. In doing so, the Left has become the personification of the Principal Skinner “No, it’s the children who are wrong” meme.
To this day (see local listings for Leftist insanity in your area) the Left will do anything they can to avoid the one thing they need to do to move forward: admit they were wrong. And to their credit, some Leftists are starting to do just that, whether it be out of a crisis of conscience or a crisis of potential irrelevancy. Most of them, however, are confident it’s everyone else who is to blame for their own fuck-ups.
That’s the thing about egotists. They can never fail; they can only be failed. When they make a mistake, it’s always someone else’s or something else’s fault. And guess who is using this very tactic to explain away the 2024 election debacle and prepare for the 2028 election debacle?
You got it. The same people who gave us Queen Kamala the Appointed.
And it’s not just in politics where the Left claim to be smarter than everyone else. The Leftist smug reaches in to academia, especially science. Climate change predictions that never come true, COVID-19 guidelines based on utter bullshit, people who make Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson the de facto experts on all things science (even when the science is not in their respective backgrounds), the adoption of 72 genders (Spoiler Alert: still just 2), the acceptance that trans women are no different than biological women, and many more anti-science takes from the self-professed “Party of Science.” And if you dare speak out and present data that proves them wrong, you’re a heretic and must be dismissed, censored, maligned, called a conspiracy nut, and so on.
And if these Leftist science fans are proven wrong, that information gets memory-holed faster than Eric Roberts accepts a role. An example of this is evolution. Growing up, all the Leftists (myself included) said man evolved from apes. It was repeated so much that it became the common truth, in spite of the fact there wasn’t much science to back it up. Years later, I was in an AOL chat room (ah, those were the days) and mentioned this. A Leftist then told me no scientist actually believed that and that I was making it up. No matter what sources I used or firsthand direct experience I had to the contrary, it was never enough to satisfy the Leftist. Their orthodoxy had changed, or should I say…evolved.
I’ll see myself out.
But before I go, there is one more thing I have to point out. A lot of the Leftist bravado comes with little-to-no justification. They think they’re smart because they all believe the same things, but if what they believe is utterly stupid, it’s not a sign of brilliance. When you press them on any significant issue, most of the time they wind up looking like an idiot. Or worse yet, Cenk Uygur.
And yet they think this attitude is a real winner. Keep thinking that, kids. Just try to act surprised when this shit blows up in your face. Again.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With Christmas right around the corner (please check local listings for the time and location of Christmas), people are exchanging presents, cards, well-wishes, and other wonderful holiday items. But the Left? They’re exchanging insults over Elon Musk.
Again.
Considering this is an almost hourly occurrence, we shouldn’t be surprised, but this time the Left has gone and made Musk into…co-President! While the Left has their collectivist panties in a wad, I wanted to delve into this concept a bit further, mainly because it shows the Left has the attention span of a goldfish on crack.
co-President
What the Left thinks it means – Elon Musk, an unelected man who wields unprecedented power in the incoming Trump Administration
What it really means – a term that could cover anyone with sway over the President
The concept of a co-President is kinda amusing when you really think about it (and I have because I have a lot of downtime in my personal life), and the Left have made it even more amusing by really leaning into it. They see Musk as the man controlling Trump’s strings, while at the same time claiming Trump is the puppet master of his followers. Although anyone who has seen Trump give a speech can tell you he’s about as controllable as a Chihuahua/pit bull mix on a steady diet of truck stop speed, energy drinks, and, oh yeah, PCP.
So, the concept of Musk controlling Trump as his co-President is funny at its face because of how utterly detached from reality you have to be to believe it. Musk has Trump’s ear for sure, but that doesn’t mean he has control over the incoming Commander in Chief. Until such time as evidence comes out that Musk is secretly cloning Trump so he can get his way, I’m gonna stay over on the not-that-fucking-crazy side.
And the best part? We would have to go allllllll the way back to 1993 to find the first modern reference of someone being a co-President. Ah, 1993. America was still enthralled by grunge and club music. The uniform of the day was flannel and oversized pants. Boy bands were still a good 5 years away or so. And the genius who introduced us to the concept of a co-President?
Bill “The Commander In Briefs” Clinton.
On the campaign trail, ole Slick Willie talked about if he got elected, the country would get Hillary Clinton as a “two-for-one deal.” Although this might be a good deal for Bill at any of his favorite brothels, it wasn’t that good of a deal for the rest of us. Hillary was put in charge of healthcare reform, and promptly sucked at it. But don’t worry. She was young and hadn’t truly embraced her ability to fuck shit up yet.
Now, Billy Boy wasn’t the first President to take influence from someone other than his staff, and he certainly won’t be the last. The thing is there’s a vast difference between having influence and actually using it. Did Hillary influence Bill’s decision-making at times? Undoubtedly. Who do you think gave Bill the idea to make Madeleine Albright Secretary of State and send her to talks with Muslim countries?
Spoiler Alert: It was the dumbass who used a prop Reset button to signal a new positive relationship with Russia.
Then, we had George W. Bush, a man so hated by the Left he was accused of being a puppet to Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, the Koch Brothers, the 1992 Denver Broncos, and just about everyone else. Although I think I might have missed out on my turn because I have this great idea of what to do with the IRS. Oh, well. Maybe next time!
With Barack Obama, it’s harder to pin down whether Michelle Obama had any more power than previous First Ladies, but I get the feeling she wore the pants in the family. She would have to in order to keep her balls from falling out. (Kidding!)
Now, with the most recent President, it’s a lot easier to pin down who had the President’s ear. In fact, President Brick Tamland may have been the first co-de-President ever.
Hmmm…it seems like co-Presidents occur when…weak-ass Leftist “men” are in charge. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence, though. I mean, how likely would it be that Leftist man after Leftist man would be that incompetent, right?
And it makes perfect sense for the Left to project their issues onto Trump because they’re that fucking stupid. Oh, and it make them feel better about having complete wimps be their male standard bearers in politics. To them, weakness is strength, incompetence is competence, and an utter shitshow is normal.
I’m starting to think the Left is more influenced by George Orwell than George Soros these days.
Meanwhile, this attitude creates a paradox. If we were to follow the Left’s logic on this (and for God’s sake why would you), being a co-President is only bad when the Left is out of power, but it’s ho-hum when the Left is in power. This goes back to something the Left believes with all of their heart: anyone not like them is a fucking idiot and, thus, easily manipulated by bad players.
My irony meter broke after typing that, mainly because the Left doesn’t recognize they’re doing what they accuse the Right of doing. Oh, and they’re fucking idiots.
And we should keep this in mind when thinking about the entire co-President concept, especially that last part. The fact the Left is so concerned with unelected people having so much power, presumed or otherwise, shows how freaked out they get when they’re not the unelected people having the power. Say what you will about Elon Musk, but after the last 4 years of Leftists letting utterly unqualified people have more power than they can handle (I’m looking at you, Pete Buttigieg), he should be the least of our worries. He’s not a co-President any more than Melania Trump is and shouldn’t be considered as such.
Besides, if Leftists were concerned about unelected people with a lot of power, they would be against bureaucrats.
Not Down With the Sickness
It used to bother me when Leftists would use “It’s the current year and I can’t believe we have to talk about X” (X being their cause du jour, not the Social Media Site Formerly Known As Twitter), but I have to use it in this case.
It’s 2024, and I can’t believe we have to talk about how murder is wrong.
I’m referring to the recent shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. While some cooler heads have decided murder is wrong because, well, it’s fucking murder, other heads have tried to add nuance to the situation as a means to explain it in terms of a larger narrative, that being health insurance companies and American healthcare in general sucks ass. Such intellectual giants like Taylor Lorenz, Elizabeth Warren, and many online Leftists have said the killer (who I will not name because he doesn’t deserve to be named as far as I’m concerned) was justified in killing Thompson for the reason I mentioned earlier.
In other words, there are a lot of dumbasses making hay out of this with the end goal being health insurance and by extension healthcare gets better. Sort of the “you can’t make an omelet without breaking some CEOs” approach.
And on the surface, the Left seems to have a point. How many families have had to deal with deaths based on insurance denials? More than I care to count. That pain of loss can turn to anger very quickly, and that anger can spur people to act.
In this case, it spurred a young man to kill.
No matter how you try to spin it, justify it, kinda justify it, soften it, or add nuance to it, a man is dead because a young man felt justified to kill another person. And that is fucked up. What’s just as fucked up is the number of people who are still cheering the act or treating anyone who thinks murder is bad as weirdos.
We have reached the Upside Down, kids. And it only gets worse.
Here’s the thing Leftists cheering the murder don’t understand. Once you open the door to killing people for whatever reason you can invent, you might as well take off the hinges because you ain’t closing that door ever again. While you think it’s hunky dory to off a CEO of a health insurance company, it leaves you defenseless if some right wing asshole decides to off a Leftist CEO for whatever reason. And, Spoiler Alert, that never ends well for anyone.
See World Wars I and II for evidence.
What’s more disturbing to me is how this situation reveals not just how easy it is for people today to dehumanize people they don’t like, but in just how little the people doing the loudest cheering understand about the insurance industry. Without giving away too much, I’ve been in the insurance game for a shade under a decade, and I’ve been insured for far longer. And, yes, I have had claims I felt were valid denied for reasons I don’t agree with. But here’s the difference.
I didn’t take it out on those who denied the claim at any level.
On a deeper level, though, the denial process is a bit more complicated than what the Left thinks or feels it is. Sure, UnitedHealthcare was using AI to deny a lot of claims recently, but that doesn’t touch on the entire process by a long shot. Many insurance claims, regardless of the policy type, go through men and women called adjusters. It’s their jobs to research the validity of the claim, determine the risk as compared to the policy terms, and render a decision and, ideally, some form of payment in an attempt to make everyone whole.
With health insurance, that’s a little trickier. Not only do you have all the little things I just mentioned, but you also have to work with hospitals, medical facilities, and even your local mom-and-pop doctor’s office. With so many hands involved in the process, a lot of humanity gets lost in red tape. Some of that can be attributed to insurance companies, some to the medical providers, and a lot to the legal framework by which everyone involved but the patient is governed.
That’s right, kids. Government rears its ugly head yet again.
Any national insurance company has to deal with state insurance boards as a condition of being allowed to sell policies in said states. And they are as picky as the IRS when it comes to following regulations. The rules themselves will make you cross your eyes while you’re trying to cross your Ts.
And I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the clusterfuck that was Obamacare. While Leftists lament the alleged lack of qualifications of Donald Trump’s nominees for different federal positions, they were perfectly fine letting dumbasses with zero experience and even less understanding of health insurance made sweeping decisions that affected millions of people. And it only made the prices jump and the quality decline for many of them. So…yay?
What the Left fails to realize (among sooooooo many things) is how the actions they supported then lead to the situation that lead to a man being murdered. But they’re lining up to cheer the results without owning up to that little detail.
Furthermore, what they’re cheering now opens the door to another question: what will they do to the adjusters making the decisions on health insurance claims? Are they ever going to be the targets of Leftist assholes, or will it be limited to CEOs, who don’t have a direct line to the decisions the adjusters are making? Judging from the “wanted” posters going up, the Leftists are only gunning for the big wigs.
Fucking brilliant.
Of course, the Leftist line of “if it causes just a little bit of change, it’ll be worth it” comes out like penalty flags whenever Patrick Mahomes gets breathed on wrong this season. The thing is…not much will change. The insurance companies will have to hire more security, which will get passed along to the customers in the form of higher premiums and may make said insurance companies rethink whether they want to insure people in some states to avoid risk. Thus, leading to more denials and more people getting kicked off their health insurance policies, leading to more people being forced to pick up shitty Obamacare and potentially spend more than they were before.
If Leftists think this makes the case for single-payer government health insurance, they’re dumber than two bags of hammers, and they can suck a bag of dicks while they try to figure out why it doesn’t.
However, there is one way to really stick it to insurance companies, and it’s so simple even Leftists can understand it. It’s called “paying your own way.” If you don’t have to submit a claim to your health insurance company, they don’t have a say in whether your claim will be approved or denied. Plus, it saves doctors time having to deal with insurance companies and filling out endless amounts of paperwork, meaning they can spend more time working on your problems and the problems of anyone else who takes the same tack.
But won’t that make things more expensive? Not necessarily. With some treatments it will, but with others it might make them less expensive or at least give medical providers more incentive to work with you on payments. Why, it’s almost as if cutting out the middle man passes savings directly to you!
Of course, capitalists understood this concept centuries ago, but I’ll give the Left a little more time to grasp it. But I’m not holding my breath.
Meanwhile, there seems to be a disturbing trend. A recent poll showed that over 40% of younger voters aged 18 to 29 surveyed thought the shooting was justified. That number dropped to 23% with voters 30-39. Think about that for a moment. The people who might be taking care of us in the near future are okay offing someone. Hopefully time and maturity will fix that. If not, I get the feeling we’ll be heading down a very dark path in this country and Brian Thompson’s murder of will seem like a walk in the park.