Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

As much as I rail on Leftists, there are times when I have to facepalm because Republicans do something incredibly stupid. Republican Representative Lauren Boebert was caught on video relaying a story about a time when she shared an elevator with fellow Representative Ilhan Omar and suggested the latter was a terrorist. After a few calls for Boebert to be removed from committees because of “Islamophobia”, an apology call, and Omar hanging up on Boebert, the matter seems to be exactly where it was before we entered into this nightmare story.

With the Hatfields and McCoys looking on and saying, “Glad we weren’t this bad!”

Leftists love to call for accountability when someone outside of their bubble says or does something they feel is beyond the pale. And Republicans, being Republicans, often cave to the demands, while others point out the lack of accountability on the Left’s side. Does that mean there’s another definition of accountability the Left uses that differs from ours? Why, yes, yes it does.

accountability

What the Left thinks it means – holding people responsible when they are in the wrong

What it really means – holding some people accountable when they are in the wrong

The operative word in the definitions above is “some.” Leftists are great at demanding others be held accountable for everything from an egregious violation of social mores to getting the last McRib at the drive-thru. And to be fair, the McRibs are pretty tasty, but the point is the Left are selective in their accountability demands.

Let’s take a look at the aforementioned Representative Omar. Not that long ago, she got into a bit of hot water for making disparaging remarks about Israel. Something about Israel hypnotizing the world? Well, the Left went into defense mode (because, well, they hate Israel, too), but there was enough heat that the House of Representatives attempted to pass a resolution against Ilhan. Unfortunately, Democrats controlled the House and the resolution against Ilhan became a resolution…against Islamophobia. Not only was Ilhan spared from accountability, but the issue that prompted the resolution in the first place got lost in the shuffle.

Since then, Ilhan has made other statements just as hateful towards others without consequence, and no matter how many resolutions are introduced to condemn her, the Left still circles the wagons around her and portray her as a victim. Because…punching down or something. (Don’t look at me. I don’t get it either.)

As you might expect, this is by design. The Left’s accountability duplicity comes courtesy of our old friend, Saul Alinsky. One of his Rules for Radicals is “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” This bit of rhetorical judo allows the Left to attack Republicans and conservatives for being knuckleheads without having to hold their own knuckleheads to the same standards because their standards are different. Put another way, the Left’s double standards are their standards.

And when you point it out to them, they will either deny it, attack you for figuring it out, or divert the question. As someone who grew up with actual parents, none of these tactics actually work. All they do is make you look more guilty. Then, Leftists will try to find loopholes and technicalities to try to mitigate the damage.

Which brings us to another Leftist figure, Chris “Fredo” Cuomo of CNN. Recently, transcripts came bout showing Fredo was working with his brother Andrew Cuomo behind the scenes during a time when the latter was being accused of sexual misconduct/assault. I’ve already talked about it at length on a previous blog post, but the Reader’s Digest condensed version is Leftists don’t consider what Chris did to be that bad. Now, keep that in mind while you consider how the Left created a cottage industry around President Donald Trump’s comments about grabbing cats. (Though I’m not sure why grabbing cats would be that big a deal, unless cats is a euphemism for a part of the…ohhhhhhhh!) The Left is willing to overlook another Leftist helping a Leftist try to beat back actual sexual assault allegations, but they’ve created a cottage industry out of accusing the former President of sexual assault based on a comment?

See where I’m going with this? The Left doesn’t want accountability for anyone else but the people who work against them. As long as you’re Blue until you’re blue in the face, you can skip out of being held accountable for just about anything. Granted, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial might render that null and void, but we’ll have to wait and see on that.

But I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for Leftists to embrace actual accountability anytime soon. Their threshold of accountability ends when a Leftist says “I’m sorry.” Doesn’t matter if it’s running over a neighbor’s cat or making poor decisions that lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of elderly people. Good thing that latter one would never happen because you’d have to be a real moron to do that, right? The mere fact you regret your decisions is enough.

Except if you’re a Republican. Any mistake you make will haunt you as long as the Left has anything to say about it. I’ll bet there are parts of the Left who still distrust David Brock only because he used to be a Republican. His being an utter scumbag who lies as easily as he snorts coke, though? Not a problem!

Actually, big problem. When your standards are as fluid as the Left’s are, it may be hard to nail them down, but it’s frightfully easy to pick out when those standards are double. The fact they aren’t concerned about holding their own to a higher standard is the opening by which to weaken their arguments when they hold Republicans and conservatives to a higher standard. Having said that, we shouldn’t be willing to let conservatives and Republicans slide when they do stupid stuff because that would be playing the Left’s game. And let’s face it, they have decades of being disingenuous jaglegs, so they would beat us with experience.

Even if it hurts politically, we need to hold our own accountable. Scumbags are scumbags, regardless of whether they wear a red tie or a blue tie. Even if the Left won’t be accountable, we need to be if only to stand a little bit higher and add a bit more distance between the Left and the Right. After enough time, we’ll be far enough away that any slime trails don’t get on the carpet, and let me tell you baking soda and mineral water aren’t enough to get out those stains.

Not that I know about that, mind you.

Several Lies for Two Bothers

It’s no secret my opinion of the media is lower than the bottom of Mole Man’s socks, but it never fails to amaze me when they ask for more drilling equipment to go even lower. And when you’re talking about low, you can’t help but mention CNN, the third-rated cable news network today. Yep, the self-professed cable news leader is regularly getting beaten in the ratings by both news and non-news networks.

But that’s not the reason for this blog post. Instead, I’m going to focus on one of CNN’s puppets…I mean hosts, Chris Cuomo. As in the-brother-of-Anthony-Cuomo Chris Cuomo. As in the-the-former-Governor-of-New-York Andrew Cuomo. As in…just kidding.

Anyway, recent documents related to the “Luv Guv’s” sexual abuse allegations drew a pretty straight, solid, highlighted with every color of the neon rainbow line between the two brothers, with Chris giving Andrew advise and information about at least some of his accusers using some of his media connections. Although the media and Leftist politicians being in bed together isn’t anything new, the fact this was done so brazenly yet covertly has CNN looking for lighted mining helmets.

So far, the Left’s reaction has been a mixture of apathy, insinuations everyone would help a relative, and…attacking Fox News. But none of these address the central issue: a member of the news media used his connections and network’s reputation as straight news to help a politician who shares his ideological sympathies through a major personal and political scandal, all while doing it behind the scenes where the public wouldn’t know about it. It’s not illegal, but it is highly questionable ethically and professionally.

Which means CNN is in the clear since they have neither.

Seriously, though, the Cuomo Brothers, Fredo and…well, Other Fredo, aren’t helped by the fact they lied by omission and expected the “we’re family” excuse to work. Listen, I love my family as much as they do, but when they’re involved in criminal behavior, helping them hide it doesn’t make me a good family member; it makes me an accomplice. And if any family member would force or coerce me into a situation like that, well, let’s just say my Christmas card list just got shorter.

What the Left doesn’t want to acknowledge is how Chris’s actions compound an already crappy situation. Although the media (including Chris) did their best to sweep the fact Andrew’s leadership (or lack thereof) lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of elderly people under the biggest rug they could find, it’s a lot harder to treat multiple allegations of sexual misconduct in the same manner thanks in part to a little movement the media promoted called #MeToo. Granted, rich and powerful people getting away with crime is as common as Antifa protestors being unemployable by most of society, but #MeToo was supposed to put everyone on notice not to be a sexual predator. Many of the same people who are Fredo-shielding Chris have been railing against similar allegations levied against President Donald Trump and demanding he be held accountable, often with much less evidence than what Andrew is facing.

If that sounds like a whataboutism, it kinda is. It’s also factually accurate and speaks to the political matter at hand. No matter how much a Leftist politician sucks, the Left will protect him or her, but only as long as the politician a) continues to be an asset, b) takes actions they wish they could duplicate, and c) can be used to bludgeon conservatives or anyone else who thinks the politician’s actions are scummy as heck. With Andrew, you get the trifecta!

At least for now. The Law of Diminishing Returns is still in effect, even after criminal or civil law ceases to be. Andrew’s political career isn’t done yet, but the fat lady is warming up backstage as we speak. The same may be said about Chris’s media career. As of this writing, CNN has indefinitely suspended him “pending further investigation.” Meaning, until this all blows over. The fact CNN is doing this now as opposed to, oh, when his brother was in the news for sexual misconduct is like closing the barn door after the horses have gotten out, moved to a new ranch, and sent you their forwarding address. And it should not be lost on any of us that Chris isn’t fired. He’s merely sitting at home and most likely continuing to get paychecks for doing only slightly less than he does on air.

And if he comes down with the new COVID variant, guess who will get a shot back on CNN again.

That’s the part that irks me the most, but it’s not surprising given how lenient CNN was with Jeffrey “Don’t Ever Accept a Zoom Call From Me” Toobin. As bad as the allegations against Chris Cuomo are, CNN doesn’t seem to have a consistent standard when dealing with employees who cross lines as egregiously as he did. As others have so astutely pointed out, CNN fired three employees who refused to get a COVID shot, but keep Cuomo and Toobin on the payroll. But at least we know where the line is. You can slap the clown (and that isn’t a threat against Congresscritters) in front of coworkers or use your name and position to score details about sexual assault accusers, but being non-vaccinated is a bridge too far!

Granted, it’s CNN and they can do what they want regarding hiring and firing, but it would be nice to see them put more effort into trying to at least appear consistent with their discipline than they have been so far. Maybe CNN’s new owner, Nick Sandmann, can get them whipped into shape. Until then, we can either get mad that CNN can’t even hold its own people accountable consistently or we can do the one thing that CNN and its fanboys hate the most.

We can mock them.

And we will.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

As those who read my work on a regular basis know (and if you do read me regularly, I’m sorry), there are some politicians who are always good for a Leftist Lexicon topic. One such politician is Senator Elizabeth Warren. Now, I won’t call her Pocahontas or Fauxcahontas as others have because I want to respect her heritage while giving her all due respect. Hence, I call her Chief Running Mouth.

Anyway, Senator Warren took to Twitter to complain about gas prices rising in spite of President Joe Biden releasing 50 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve in an attempt to lower gas prices. Now, what did CRM blame for the rise? OPEC nations playing hardball? China and Russia conspiring? Donald Trump? Nope! She blamed…corporate greed.

When discussing economics, corporate greed is the Left’s favorite boogeyman, and it seems to catch on every time it gets used. To understand why, we have to take a closer look at the phrase and analyze the parts. That, and to help pad out this edition of the Leftist Lexicon.

corporate greed

What the Left thinks it means – one of the major road blocks to progress and economic justice

What it really means – proof the Left doesn’t understand basic economics

Economics can seem pretty complicated, but there are some core concepts that anyone who has been to a garage sale, like, ever can understand. Which means Leftists will struggle with said concepts, but I’ll try to keep it simple so they have a chance to catch up.

Contrary to popular Leftist belief, the reason for a company or corporation to exist isn’t to pay taxes, provide jobs, and ensure every employee gets paid a living wage with full benefits, maternity leave, and any other benefit. It’s…now brace yourselves…to make money. After all, if a corporation doesn’t make money, it’s either a scam, kept afloat with taxpayer funds, or defunct. Or in the case of green energy companies during the Obama Administration, all three. And without money, companies/corporations can’t provide the laundry list of what Leftists think employees should get since that money helps keep the doors open. So, it’s in a company’s best interests to be greedy.

Where the Left gets things twisted is in thinking (if you can call it that) that greed is bad. There are aspects of greed that inspire more positive aspects of the corporate world. And there’s one that Leftists are absolutely in love with that proves this point: COVID-19 vaccines. Now, Leftists will argue Johnson & Johnson, Pfiser, and Moderna went to great lengths to get the vaccines out to people who needed it out of pure altruism, but the truth is they did it so they could make money. And when Uncle Sam is willing to push your goods without you having to spend a penny to advertise it? You would have to be an idiot to decline an unlimited source of money, most of it being pure profit.

Or a certain Senator from Massachusetts, but I repeat myself.

While Leftists complain about corporate greed on Twitter using their iPhones, they are blissfully unaware of how the capitalist sausage is made and how they’ve already bought into it by virtue of the little decisions they make. Namely, what they buy. Granted, we’re subject to the same buying decisions, but remember we’re not the ones railing against corporate greed. We bought into it, while they’re selling out to it.

And here’s the kicker: Leftists really don’t oppose corporate greed when it furthers their personal goals. Take Chief Running Mouth, for example. While she attacks oil companies for allegedly gouging customers at the gas pumps and pushes for laws prohibiting Congresscritters from direct stock purchases, she and her husband have made a tidy sum on annuities, which according to the Boston Globe includes stocks and bonds. Even though they’re indirectly stockholders, they’re still stockholders, and their fortune, at least in part, is reliant upon the very corporate greed she says she opposes. Amazing how that works, isn’t it?

Oh, but it gets better! She also got campaign contributions from Apple, Google, and other big-name companies, including the ones she rails against for…wait for it…corporate greed.

And, as you might have guessed, this is by design. By creating a faceless beast in corporate America, the Left has ginned up fear and hatred of any big company who wants to make a profit. Granted, some companies abuse this notion (I’m looking right at you, Wells Fargo), but Leftists never come out and tell us how much they feel companies should be willing to give up to keep the doors open. I know they don’t have an exact figure, but I guarantee whatever it is they calculate, it will never be enough because Leftists think all money is finite. If someone gets rich off building a better mousetrap (personally, I prefer napalm, but that’s just me), they think that wealth comes at the expense of someone else, and they want people to feel they’re the ones getting screwed. Then, people like Chief Running Mouth come along and say they want to take on corporate greed and win one for the little guy.

As of this writing, that hasn’t happened yet, but the promises to do something keep mounting and getting louder. But they need to keep the con going, so they find new ways to lambast “greedy” corporations so you feel green with envy while they continue to feel green in their back pockets from all the donations they get from the companies they attack for being greedy.

So, what happens when you realize someone else getting rich doesn’t affect you? Aside from feeling a sense of relief, it ruins the Left’s con and helps you see the Left’s ignorance in economics. No, there isn’t a greedy corporation taking money that doesn’t belong to them so they can have golden toilets, but there are a ton of greedy politicians who love to be generous with your money to ensure they get golden parachutes, and Elizabeth Warren is no different. If/when she leaves the public sector, she will have done so being as bad, if not worse, than the corporate greed she rails against.

I take that back. She will definitely be worse. After all, greedy corporations at least understand how to make a buck.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

In case you’ve been living under a rock recently (and given housing prices these days, I wouldn’t blame you if you did), there was a little trial in Kenosha, Wisconsin, where Kyle Rittenhouse faced some serious charges and was ultimately acquitted. At the heart of the trial and the situation that came before it is the concept of self-defense. Others have hashed out the various details of the case itself, so I won’t go too far into it because a) they’ve done a better job than your humble correspondent could, and b) you’ve probably heard as much, if not more, about it than I have.

With the Rittenhouse case, people on all sides have been focusing on whether what he did constitutes self-defense from a legal standpoint, but not too many have looked into the political aspect of it. That’s where I come in!

self-defense

What the Left thinks it means – an antiquated and unnecessary idea used to drive gun sales to paranoid right-wingers and gun nuts

What it really means – a principle essential to personal freedom

To put it mildly, things have gotten a little weird out there in the past couple of decades. Between Leftists LARPing as World War II vets and Trump supporters acting like, well, Trump supporters, you’re likely to find yourself in the middle of a conflict that can go pear-shaped before you can say, “Hey, isn’t that a pear?” Throw in all sorts of racial, sexual, and sociological contexts and you have a melting pot on the verge of melting down.

Such was the case in Kenosha, where protestors decided to do what the Property Brothers do, just in reverse. As you might expect, property owners (some of whom could be brothers, I suppose) didn’t like the impromptu Burning Man/Woodstock 99/any weekend with Lindsey Lohan vibe in the city. And the Kenosha police? Well, they were trying to maintain order by letting the protestors run around unopposed. Put another way, Barney Fife was Rambo next to these clowns.

Enter 17 year old Kyle Rittenhouse, a young man who lived in Illinois, but worked in Kenosha. If the stories we’ve heard are true, he was asked to help protect a business in Kenosha, but he also wanted to tend to any wounded people there if needed. (Maybe it’s me, but that doesn’t sound like a bloodthirsty killer.) It wasn’t until he felt threatened by the riot…I mean protestors that he fired his rifle. And with one guy pointing a gun at him and another smacking him with a skateboard, it’s clear his life was in danger. Regardless of whether you feel he should have been there, the fact he was attacked and didn’t fire first shows he wasn’t there to get his jollies by killing people. He felt there was no other option than to shoot and he acted accordingly to protect himself in the absence of police.

And that’s why the Left lost their shit.

To the Left, anyone who isn’t one of them is a dullard and needs to have Leftists run his or her life. The minute you show even an iota of initiative to do something yourself is the minute you become dangerous to the Left. After all, if you don’t need government to do everything for you, you won’t need…them.

Thus, the Left has taken up the cause to make bureaucracy as expansive and essential as necessary so more and more of us become wards of the state. And they’ll make it happen by any means necessary, including convincing/coercing people to comply. Whether it’s an additional charge to make a payment with a credit card over the phone or demanding people jump through flaming hoops only to have the state reject a gun permit, the Left’s goal with all of that is to make sure they have their noses in our business for no legitimate reason. Just ask Glenn Beck about the hassles he endured just trying to put up a fence on his property in the Northeast.

So, when someone decides to cut out the middle-man and pass the savings directly on to, well, himself/herself, the Left loses money and power, which makes them more than a little cranky. You see, the Left believes in self-determination so long as you abide by whatever they deem appropriate. Kyle Rittenhouse didn’t, and as a result is being held up as what’s wrong with the Right, an enemy that needs no courtesy or even an obligation to get even basic facts right. He’s an “other” just as anyone else who defies the Left.

And, as a result, Rittenhouse may get Nick Sandmann rich soon. But that’s a blog post for another time.

Self-defense is the ultimate fuck-you to the Left. After all, the Left think only the police and military should have firearms. You know, the same police that are racist and the same military that is a tool of the elites? Mind-blowing hypocrisy aside, this is to a) make it harder for people to defend themselves, and b) creating a need that only government can fulfill. The only problem with that is time. Anyone who has spent any amount of time at the DMV knows the speed of government is usually inert. No matter how quickly your need is, the police will get there when they get there and not a second sooner.

Provided they come at all or aren’t hamstrung by politicians. Anyone want to turn your community into San Francisco East? I’m gonna go out on a limb and say you don’t, but it’s the way the Left wants us to live: where the law-abiding are always the victims of the lawless. If you take up arms to protect yourself from being a victim, the Left can’t take it.

And that’s why you should do it, if you want to.

Really, it’s not a good reason why, but it’s certainly attractive. The best reason is because you have a right to be secure in your person, and if the government or its agents can’t or won’t respect that right, you shouldn’t be shamed into submission. If we take nothing else from the Kyle Rittenhouse situation, it’s that the best way to not be a victim is to understand what power you have and to never let anyone take it from you.

Oh, and that Leftists suck at keeping track of the facts of a criminal case before spewing ignorance.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

To say the Left took the recent election results badly is an understatement of proportions so immense it makes Rosie O’Donnell look like Kate Moss on a meth binge. One of the more stunning results came from New Jersey, where Republican Edward Durr unseated Democrat state Senate President Steve Sweeney after running a primary campaign that cost around $150 and a total expenditure of around $2200. Talk about bang for the buck!

Well, the Left has decided Durr is unfit to serve in the public sector because of an answer he gave during an interview recently. When asked what he would do as Senate leader, he said he didn’t know. That got Leftist and self-professed expert Tom Nichols to lament about how the lack of experience in politics is a bad thing.

But what does the Left mean by experience? Good question, since I got nothing else for a Lexicon entry.

experience

What the Left thinks it means – the basic information necessary to speak intelligently on a topic

What it really means – the Left’s excuse for dumb people making poor decisions and to discredit smart people making astute observations

I know I’ve talked about appeals to authority before, but for the new people reading this, an appeal to authority is the rhetorical equivalent of “because an expert said so.” Although this does work with some subjects (i.e. talking to a cardiologist about heart issues), it doesn’t always bear good fruit (i.e. talking to a YouTube creator about, well, just about anything). Even people we think would have the credentials to give good advice can be wrong or deceiving. I’m looking right at you, Dr. Fauci. So, it’s important we show a reasonable amount of skepticism when we see someone appealing to authority.

Especially when that authority is derived from whether an expert has a college degree. The Left loves to deflect criticism of the Socialist Socialite’s dumb ideas about economics because she has an economics degree. I ran into this recently on Facebook when a Leftist posting on a thread by The Atlas Society mocked the Socialist Socialite’s lack of knowledge of economics. The meme they posted was of a tiny handbag with the caption “AOC carrying around everything she knows about economics.” Funny, yet accurate!

Ah, but a Leftist took exception to it by suggesting the Socialist Socialite was smarter than Ayn Rand on economics because the former had a degree in the subject and Rand didn’t. Never mind the fact Rand lived through what the Socialist Socialite thinks would make America great and realized it absolutely sucks, it was the degree that tipped the scale in the Leftist’s mind.

That’s when I dropped the metaphorical hammer and pointed out Ronald Reagan also had an economics degree.

The Left seem to be impressed with college degrees, mainly because they’re often the result of Leftist indoctrina…I mean teaching. But the degree itself is just a piece of paper signifying that the recipient has completed the necessary coursework to graduate and, thus, can start paying back the student loans they’ve amassed. Yes, nothing says you’re an adult like crippling debt! Between grade inflation and meaningless majors, the value of a college degree is quickly becoming as valuable as an expired K-Mart coupon without imparting the most important reason to go to college.

Partying.

Seriously, the most important reason to go to college is to develop the ability to process and apply knowledge. And that’s where the Left and to some extent the Right fail. If I have to sit through another video of clueless Congresscritters trying to get a representative from a social media executive to explain how Twitter works, I’m liable to send a tersely-worded email that some low level intern is going to have to respond to with a stock answer ensuring me my elected official “cares about your opinion.” And we don’t want that, do we?

Although there is some merit to the notion public officials should have experience in politics to hold office, sometimes it’s the experts who are the problem in the first place. But the Left never thinks Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, or Maxine Waters (who have all been in office for at least half of my life, by the way) are the problem. Instead, it’s people like Chuck Grassley, who has been in office for, well, most of my life, who are the real troublemakers. You see, the Left loves experience via age when it’s coming from a fellow Leftist. If it’s anyone else, it’s “Get out of the way of progress!” Yet, in my experience with the aforementioned politicians, I would take Grassley over Schumer, Pelosi, and Waters not because he’s one of my Senators. It’s because he knows what he’s doing most of the time, and he knows when he’s out of his depth.

That’s what real experience does for a person. It’s knowing what you know and what you don’t know. For all of the talk of Grassley being a “dumb farmer” (as a former Democrat Senate candidate said and later regretted after being stomped like a narc at a drug deal), he has a deeper understanding of issues that matter to people, not because he has a fancy degree on his resume, but because he actually does the legwork to talk to people. I swear he’s in Iowa more often than I am, and I live here!

However, a lack of experience isn’t a deal-breaker when it comes to politics. After working in Corporate America for a number of decades, sometimes the best ideas come from people who are just starting a job because their minds haven’t been infected with “the way we’ve always done it.” Either that or their souls haven’t been crushed…

Anyway, a new perspective may be what is needed to solve problems. By definition, a desire for change is liberal, but liberals aren’t the same as Leftists. Leftists call for change without actually meaning it. Remember Flint’s water problem? Still there, but Leftists aren’t. You’re more likely to find Bigfoot working on a screenplay at a Starbucks than find any of the Leftists who trumpeted how Flint’s water problems are because of Republicans (if you discount all the Democrats who were and are in charge, of course.) Here’s an idea, Flintites. Next time there’s an election, why not…you know…vote for someone other than the Leftists who screwed up the city in the first place? It’s not like Republicans are going to make the water any worse, right?

To Nichols’ point (aside from the one on his head), dismissing someone because of a lack of experience only serves to maintain the status quo, which by definition is what a conservative wants. He does have a good point that the Right doesn’t tend to support new left-leaning officials, but he botched the reasons why. First off, Leftists do the same thing with new right-leaning officials like Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene, albeit with more claims they’re insane. (In the spirit of bipartisanship, I’m willing to concede the point about MTG.) Second, it’s not a lack of experience the Right objects to with the Socialist Socialite; it’s the fact she’s an empty pant-suit, as demonstrated throughout her tenure as a Representative. I wouldn’t trust her to run my car though a car wash, let alone run any significant office in America. And if you’ve tried to run an office through a car wash, you know what I mean.

While Edward Durr may not have any real experience in governing, he’s admitted he’s willing to learn the ropes. That bit of refreshing honesty makes me a fan of his and I look forward to seeing what he’s able to do.

That, and the fact the only reason he ran for office is because of government bureaucracy and duplicity around New Jersey’s concealed carry permits. Thanks Leftists!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Although the Left loves to play with words, there are times when they’re played by words. Such is the case with the hot phrase making its way through the Right, “Let’s Go Brandon.” I haven’t seen Leftists this pissed off about three words since President Donald Trump.

I know I’m a little late to the party on this one, but seeing how the Left keeps getting their panties in a twist over it (and that’s not the only thing twisted here), I figured I might as well delve deeper into the phenomenon.

Let’s Go Brandon

What the Left thinks it means – a derogatory term to protest the Biden Administration

What it really means – a semi-organic phrase originating from an ill-advised attempt to protect the Biden Administration that has taken on a life of its own

In Leftist circles, Joe Biden is a popular President, and only a handful of misguided people think otherwise. In the real world, though, he’s only slightly more popular than sexually-transmitted diseases, a Hannah Gadsby stand-up special, and a nude pictorial by Rosie O’Donnell. And that’s even with a press slobbering over him more than the President does on himself.

While the Left struggles with why people aren’t worshiping the ground he walks on, it’s really not that hard to understand. For being in politics for most of my and his adult lives, it’s clear he hasn’t learned much about how to lead. Oh, he’s had leadership opportunities, but he hasn’t picked up on the simplest of basics.

Namely, don’t be a dumbass.

As a result of the President’s inability to master this, along with the ongoing allegations of voter fraud, people started to push back in small, but noticeable ways. Granted, these weren’t as extreme as knitting pussy hats or overtaking portions of Seattle and turning it into Beirut with Starbucks, but the effect was the same: it pissed people off.

And, hypocritically so, making Leftists clutch their metaphorical pearls because…there was vulgarity! The chant of “Fuck Joe Biden” became the go-to for people who didn’t like the President, and the same Leftists who got behind the “Fuck Trump” chants suddenly became Puritans. Or Im-Puritans as the case may be.

Either way, the point was made. Where the twisting of the phrase came into play was during a live interview with NASCAR driver Brandon Brown. Although it was clear the crowd was yelling “Fuck Joe Biden,” the reporter tried to pass it off as the crowd yelling “Let’s Go Brandon.” That one attempt to poorly explain away what was actually being said spread like wildfire on the Right. Everything from flags to hats to t-shirts, including face masks and a #1 song on iTunes, started popping up and spreading across the country.

Hmmm…apparently that small group of naysayers is a lot bigger than the Left believes.

Although there are a lot of reasons the Left hates “Let’s Go Brandon,” one of the less obvious ones is it didn’t come from the Left. The Left’s stock and trade is creating memorable phrases that resonate with potential voters and the party faithful. And let’s be honest, “Build Back Better” doesn’t exactly inspire passion in anyone but the hardcore Bidenites. To have something like “Let’s Go Brandon” catch on means the Left can’t control the narrative.

Which means they have to destroy it.

Recent articles by NPR, the Associated Press, and others attempt to peel the onion and mention the ill-fated turn of a phrase the Right co-opted, but fail to truly understand how and why it’s taken off. Instead, the Left tries to pass it off as vulgarity in lieu of political discourse. (Yeah, like “Fuck Trump” was the height of brilliant repartee.) And to be fair, that’s an accurate assessment, but it skims the surface without ever getting deeper than a mud puddle. So, let me fill in the blanks.

Joe Biden has made some horrible decisions as President that have negatively impacted people across the country. When this happens, people are going to get upset and look for ways to needle the powerful. That’s the way it’s been here since pre-Revolutionary War days, and it’s going to continue for many years to come.

The ultimate slap in the face, though, is the fact it’s protected speech, just like the Left’s tantrums over the past 5 years is. Even when we don’t like it. If the Left decides to go the legislative or regulatory route to stifle “Let’s Go Brandon,” it will only take until the next Republican President for it to backfire. Granted, no one said the Left was any good at long-term consistent thinking, but it’s still something to consider.

Speaking personally, I’m amused by the chant, if only because it pisses off the Left so much. It’s not something I would normally support because their brevity robs the ideas behind them of their power and intellectual heft, but I wholeheartedly support anyone who wants to use it because, well, I’m not a dick. Then again, sometimes the most impactful messages don’t need to be an intellectual masterpiece.

After all, they still sell Hot Pockets off the jingle alone.


Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

At long last, the details of one of the proposed infrastructure bills became public knowledge thanks to the New York Times. Although the details of the expenditures aren’t known yet, some of the details came out with a particular focus on fighting climate change. And a big focus on fighting climate change involves fossil fuels.

No matter where you go, the same people who keep telling us the planet is doomed tell us the way to prevent the inevitable is to do away with fossil fuels and convert to renewable energy. Although I haven’t seen any of the main proponents of renewable energy travel via solar vehicle, it’s worth exploring what the Left thinks of fossil fuels and why they’re so keen on making them as obsolete as the career of Yahoo Serious.

fossil fuels

What the Left thinks it means – sources of energy that are killing the planet with diminishing returns

What it really means – the only energy came in town for now, and possibly ever

The self-professed “Party of Science” has been after fossil fuels for a while now, but it wasn’t always the case. Back in the heady days of the 70s, some climate scientists suggested adding more pollution to the atmosphere to ward of global cooling. As we’ve since figured out, they were wrong, and as a result, the Left doesn’t take those dire predictions seriously or as valid. Instead, they have their own dire predictions to push, namely global warming/climate change/climate catastrophes/whatever they’re calling it this millisecond to generate fear.

And the scientists the Left are relying on for their proof? Turns out they’re wrong, too. Funny how that works out, isn’t it?

Undeterred by the lack of global catastrophes directly linked to fossil fuels, the Left has made it their aim to get us to move away from fossil fuels in the name of protecting the environment. And they’ll fly all over the world and drive in long lines of cars to go to events in large venues using more electricity than Las Vegas during Christmas telling us about the dangers that await us if we don’t stop using fossil fuels.

As you might have guessed, I have more faith in convenience store sushi than the Left’s commitment to fighting climate change.

Aside from the blatant hypocrisy even Ray Charles can see (and he’s dead), the “Party of Science” hasn’t figured out why fossil fuels are still in use today. Not surprisingly, it’s dirt simple: fossil fuels work. No matter how many solar panels you put up, no matter how many Priuses there are on the road, no matter how many windmills you erect, fossil fuels tend to work better than alternative fuels, at least for now. And I say that as someone who has driven through typical Iowa winter conditions with a gas-guzzling SUV passing hybrids stuck in the snow. To be fair, though, the hybrids were traveling up a 0.000000000001 degree incline, so they were really at a disadvantage.

Seriously, though, nobody has been able to figure out a viable alternative to oil, coal, and gas yet. What people have done is build upon the existing framework fossil fuels have built, in some cases literally. Even with these alternatives, fossil fuels are more effective and in some cases better for the environment. (See ethanol for an example of this.)

Put simply, we can’t do away with fossil fuels yet because so much of our economy still runs on it. I’m not just talking about fuel here, kids. Fossil fuels are used to generate electricity, because we kinda like to power our devices and, oh, not freeze ourselves to death in the winter or boil ourselves to death in the summer. Then, there are some of the byproducts of fossil fuels, namely plastics, that would be the metaphorical rochabeau to our economy if the Left gets their wish.

But no one ever accused the Left of knowing anything about economics.

There is one alternate fuel source out there that has shown to work well independent of fossil fuels, but the Left doesn’t like it, so it doesn’t get mentioned. And that alternate fuel is…nuclear power. Granted, the Left’s opinions on nuclear power haven’t changed since Three Mile Island, but it’s important to note two things. One, nuclear power is currently being used in some parts of the world without there being meltdowns on a regular basis. And, two, the main reason the Left doesn’t like nuclear power isn’t because of their commitment to safety, but rather their commitment to sowing fear and providing seemingly the only answers to “solve” the climate problem.

I call this the Oprah Effect. Back in her heyday, Oprah Winfrey seemed to thrive on the idea she could see all the problems we (i.e. suburban white women) face and come up with a ready-made solution that not-so-coincidentally helped her pocketbook and ego. The Left uses the Oprah Effect to great success on climate issues for the same reason Oprah was so successful in peddling her brand of problem-solving.

Most people are uninformed, gullible, and lazy. (But not you, faithful readers.)

Since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, people have sought ways to work smarter, not harder, and have utilized whatever means available to do so. The only problem with that approach is eventually we think we run out of ways to make things better, so we rest on our laurels, which America has done for, oh, seven decades or so. As a result, our interest in thinking has waned like the interest in people watching Hannah Gadsby do “comedy.” After all, thinking is hard, dammit! So why not leave it to the experts?

Five decades of wrong predictions on climate change should be a clue.

And to be honest, none of the people pushing for the elimination of fossil fuels are experts, either. I still think alternatives to fossil fuels are possible, but until they can become viable alternatives, they are just possibilities. We need to work with what we have, and the eeeeeevilllll fossil fuel companies are finding new ways to extend the life of the industry and minimize damage to the environment. You know what the anti-fossil fuel side has done?

Talked a lot.

Oh, and stoked a lot of fear of an ecological disaster coming in the near future without anything like they predict ever happening.

With this kind of uninformed resistance, I think fossil fuels will be around for a while longer.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

To put it mildly, things are bad. And I’m not talking your garden variety finger-cut-while-cutting-lemons kind of bad. I’m talking wiping-your-eyes-while-cutting-habanero-peppers-and-balancing-above-a- pit-of-razor-sharp-knives-during-a-live-Yoko-Ono-concert bad. And yet, we find the stupidest shit to bitch about.

Enter Dave Chappelle. His recent comedy special “The Closer” garnered both positive and negative reviews. Namely, the people who watched it with the understanding that comedy is supposed to be funny loved it, and the reviewers who read the Cliff’s Notes version of the special written by the Unfunny People Against Comedians Union and hated it.

Welcome to Stupid Stuff to Complain About-Ville. Population…too many.

Part of the controversy surrounds Chappelle’s observation there are two genders. And we’re still having this debate in 2021. Regardless, members of the trans community objected to the special, claiming it was transphobic. But, as you might expect, there’s a whole lot to unpack here.

transphobia

What the Left thinks it means – any irrational hatred or fear of transexuals

What it really means – an overused catch-all term for anything the Left doesn’t like when it comes to transexuals

To make sure I was speaking intelligently about the subject matter, I watched “The Closer” in its entirety. (The things I do for you readers…) I have to say it was enjoyable on several levels, not the least of which being its brutal honesty. Everything from COVID-19 to race to, yes, transexuals with no sacred cows spared, just like much of Chappelle’s body of work to date.

So, when trans people and their supporters started to complain about his comedy being transphobic, my first question was, “Have you watched any of his comedy before?” As I’ve confirmed by watching “The Closer” and comparing it to the criticisms, the answer is no. But when has a lack of knowledge prevented the Left from speaking?

Although there are plenty of jokes about the trans community, they aren’t what I would consider jokes at their expense. If anything, “The Closer” is about inclusion by making everyone a possible target for mockery. And for people who throw around the word “context” to excuse their stupid shit, it’s amazing how little Leftists actually understand and apply it appropriately.

And with “The Closer,” actual context matters. If you are looking solely at the targets of the jokes, you come away thinking Chappelle is a transphobe. This position is augmented by the Leftist notion that jokes can be hurtful, along with silence and speaking for that matter. In other words, anything you say or don’t say will be used against you in the court of Leftist popular opinion.

Which is one of the points Chappelle made in this special, and one the Leftists crying “transphobe” continue to miss.
A significant portion of “The Closer” is devoted to the trans community going after Chappelle based on what one inaccurate information source said about him. In encounter after encounter, trans people and their supporters didn’t bother to consider anything but that one source as gospel. If anyone would have a Paul Bunyon-sized axe to grind with the trans community afterwards, it would be Chappelle. However, he flipped the script on his critics by showing an amount of grace they lack.

This is exemplified in the final segment of the show. Chappelle tells the story about a white trans woman who wanted to be a comedian and the first time she opened for Chappelle. Let’s just say it didn’t go well, but in the process Chappelle made a personal connection with the woman and helped her hone her craft. After the first round of “Dave Chappelle is transphobic” comments, Chappelle’s friend took to social media and defended him. Six days later, she committed suicide due to the bullying she received.
From whom, you might ask? Well, it wasn’t MAGA hat wearing Trump supporters. It was…the trans community itself.

Didn’t see that coming, did you?

Actually, if you have paid attention to the trans community, it’s not that hard to believe. I’m reminded of an old saying, “Get off my lawn!” Then, after I’ve realized that saying isn’t applicable, I’m reminded of a different saying, “The personal is political.” Anything that affects us on a personal level can be, and often is, used for political ends. And in this case, trans issues have become political issues, mainly because the Left wants to make them so.

And that’s where I feel the trans community goes off the rails like Joseph Hazelwood working for Amtrak. As personal as the issue is to you, there is a lot of work to do to turn these issues from narrowly political to more universal. And you’re freaking out the natives with the way some members of the trans community act. Furthermore, you’re not helping bridge the tolerance gap by throwing around “transphobia” when it is more of a lack of understanding. Yes, there are some actual people who hate the transgendered, but they’re rarer than the way Dracula likes his meat. (I would have said steaks instead of meat, but we know how he feels about them.)

The point is a lot of the oppression the trans community feels right now is self-inflicted, but the Left doesn’t care about making trans people a welcome part of society. Just the opposite. Leftists need there to be constant strife so their own ends are met. And if you’re still fuzzy about it, here’s the short version: the Left is using the trans community and will continue to do so until it’s no longer beneficial to do so. You know who didn’t do that?

Dave Chappelle.

The worst he did was to poke fun at members of the trans community for acting like judgmental assholes because, well, they were acting like judgmental assholes. If you’re pissed about that, you need to get some perspective. Contrary to Leftist opinion, words are not violence and “The Closer” is some damn good comedy from a master in his craft. And because of the aforementioned judgmental assholes, Dave Chappelle won’t be doing comedy until they realize he’s on their side.

If Mr. Chappelle is reading this, if you wanted to wait this out, I would suggest investing in cryogenic equipment because the trans community attacking you don’t seem to be all that keen on self-awareness.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The past couple of weeks has been difficult for the Biden Administration. Aside from its usual level of tone-deaf incompetence, its signature infrastructure bill, Build Back Better, has been getting criticized more than Dave Chappelle’s recent Netflix special. But unlike the aforementioned special, the Build Back Better agenda isn’t intentionally funny.

The more that comes out about Build Back Better, the less it seems to get people’s support. Of course, it doesn’t help matters any that information about it comes out in dribs and drabs, all while being promoted as costing nothing. As you might expect, I’m a little skeptical.

And by a little, I mean a lot.

This week, let’s look at the agenda and try to piece together what it is.

Build Back Better

What the Left thinks it means – an important approach to rebuilding our infrastructure, create jobs, and achieve more energy independence

What it really means – a laundry list of programs and expenditures that will do little-to-nothing towards infrastructure

Back in my youth, I loved this time of year because that meant all the national chain department stores would send out their Christmas-themed catalogs. There you could see all sorts of cool toys and gadgets to make children’s Christmas lists a lot easier to make, but more expensive to fulfill. These days, the best we can hope for is a list of things we’re going to be paying for on the federal credit card. With Build Back Better, we are hoping in one hand and shitting in the other and seeing which hand fills up first.

Let’s just say you might want to hold off giving high fives for a while.

Build Back Better is shrouded in mystery, mainly because the Left doesn’t want us to know what’s in it to avoid having to answer questions. Don’t get me wrong, there is some infrastructure in Build Back Better, but so far not a lot of what we know about it would qualify. Instead, much of it is recycled Leftist ideas that didn’t go over well the first time, including what I would call a soft reboot of the Green New Deal (complete with money going to the Socialist Socialite because reasons). And, surprise surprise, there are people out there who want more details before we spend $3.5 trillion.

Like Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema.

Well, the Left hasn’t taken this too well, considering they’re all-in on harassing the Senators and calling for them to be recalled, removed, or otherwise defeated in the next primary. To date, neither Manchin nor Sinema has changed their minds and it’s unclear whether pinning the Left’s failure to make an argument in favor of Build Back Better on them is going to work. I’m gonna go out on a limb and say…it’s not.

In a rare moment of self-awareness, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi admitted Democrats haven’t done a good job in selling the benefits of Build Back Better. Granted, there may not be much there to sell, but I have to give the Speaker credit for acknowledging the lack of persuasion. And for staying sober long enough to do it. Combine this with the “ram it through at all costs” approach used on Sens. Manchin and Sinema, and you have an image problem worse that Jon Gruden right now.

This begs the question of why there’s a problem getting people to support Build Back Better outside of the party faithful. A lot of it goes back a few months to the Left’s “X is infrastructure” approach. Child care, health care, living wages, and so on were thrown into the same bucket and people started to wonder why, including your humble correspondent. It created a lot of jokes outside of the Leftist hivemind, but the fact anything under the sun could be considered infrastructure if you wanted it to be undercut the validity of any infrastructure proposal by cheapening the idea of infrastructure. (And that is how you fit one word into a sentence multiple times without looking like you’re just trying to pad out a weekly blog post about words the Left uses…okay, let’s move on.)

Let’s not overlook the lack of transparency in this situation. Yes, it’s called Build Back Better, but what does that consist of and how is better being determined? Even the Biden Administration can’t come up with concrete answers, and it’s their fucking plan! When the people who came up with the thing can’t tell you what it’s about, you know it’s either horrible or they’re incompetent.

Insert “Why Not Both?” meme here.

Seriously, though, Build Back Better proponents can’t seem to get out of their own ways and level with us. Instead, we’re hearing how it will cost nothing (which it won’t, but try telling Leftists that offsets of costs don’t mean there weren’t any costs in the first place) and how it will make the wealthy pay their fair share (except the top 1% pays around 40% of the federal tax burden as of this missive). These are red-meat issues for Leftists, but they don’t play that well on Main Street. Most people today care about paying their own bills and ignore politics because it’s pointless. Except for a select few of us, that is, who pay attention to the minute details of every soundbite, campaign promise, or proposed spending.

Geez, we desperately need hobbies!

As long as Build Back Better is more high concept and less brass tacks (and more high tax), it’s going to be a hard pass from me. However, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I’ve come up with a new name for it, and the Biden Administration won’t even have to change the abbreviation. I call it Biden’s Big Boondoggle. Catchy, isn’t it?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

While President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better bill languishes in Congress, Leftists are trying to shame people into supporting it, including members of “The Squad.” For those unfamiliar with them, The Squad is the political equivalent of “The View”: a bunch of uninformed harpies whose voices create more cringe than YouTube. A member of The Squad, Rep. Ilhan Omar, recently tweeted America has a problem with greed.

By the way, this is one reason I don’t have a Twitter account: too many twits.

The Left loves to attack greed, but do they understand what it entails? Let’s just assume not and head right into this week’s Leftist Lexicon.

greed

What the Left thinks it means – unnecessarily hording money so others can’t use it to better society

What it really means – the lust for money, especially money that doesn’t belong to you

Greed is a human emotion everyone has, but the Left has found a way to weaponize it. To the Left, there is a direct line from greed to dag-nasty evil once you connect the dots. The problem is the dots don’t connect nearly as neatly as the Left will have you believe.

Take Amazon founder and executive Jeff Bezos, for example. In spite of his near-perfect record of supporting Leftist causes, he’s still in the crosshairs of the Left because of the money he’s made due to COVID-19. Gee, I wonder how Bezos could have made so much money delivering packages to people stuck inside due to a global pandemic…it’s a mystery!

Granted, the way Amazon treats warehouse workers makes China look good by comparison, which is a valid criticism of the Bezos way, but that’s usually not what the Left talks about first. It’s his money and what he’s done with it, namely going up into space. Shortly after Bezos and fellow rich Leftist Richard Branson took their money and built rockets that took them into space, Leftists went berserk…er. They said the money they (and non-Leftist Elon Musk) spent on what they termed joyrides could have been used for better purposes, such as education and the environment. Heck, they were so serious they made it into a meme! A MEME, PEOPLE!

Here’s the funny thing. Bezos, Branson, and Musk do contribute to society. Bezos alone gave $10 billion to fight climate change. Wait…isn’t climate change something the Left says they care about? Why, yes! Yes, it is! Combine that with the $2 billion and the millions of dollars Branson and Musk have given to numerous charities, respectively. And that’s not even getting into the Warren Buffets and Bill Gateses of the world. And what has the Left contributed?

A meme trying to get us to believe billionaires were bad people because they were greedy for wanting to go into space.

That’s a concept the Left can’t seem to get their heads around: it’s not their money in the first place. It shouldn’t be any of our business how people spend their money so long as it doesn’t infringe on other people’s rights, and I’m going to say taking a craft into space isn’t hurting anybody but NASA and the Left. Not that I advocate either, mind you. It’s a matter of keeping things in perspective, i.e. staying in your lane.

The Left doesn’t recognize that, though, because to them everything is or should be under their control, and I do mean control. If they can figure out a way to create federal control of anything, they will make it happen. Just look at their attempt to federalize fact-checking on Facebook, as helped by a “whistleblower” who just happens to give money to the Socialist Socialite. But I’m sure that was totally a coincidence, though!

The end goal for bringing up greed is to get the Left in control of as much money as possible. Instead of working to, you know, earn it, they try to guilt it into their wallets, and it usually works. That’s why a lot of wealthy people lean Left. Either that, or they’re trying to keep the Left off their backs for a little while. Either way, the Left isn’t satisfied with the money they get from wealthy Leftists. They need to have it all, and will use any means necessary to get it.

Which, oddly yet appropriately enough, is the very definition of greed.

No matter how righteous the Left thinks they are in trying to make things equal…ly bad, the fact remains they epitomize the very thing they claim to be fighting. Aside from the delicious irony and pure comedic gold this brings, there is no up-side to making people feel worse because they have more money than others. Personally, I don’t care if you made your money working in a factory or making TikTok videos because it’s not my purpose to tell you how to make money. If you want my sanction, you’ll have to talk to someone else. (It was part of my wedding vows.)

Besides, what exactly is wrong with being wealthy? The fact someone has more doesn’t mean the world has less. Money isn’t pizza, folks. There’s enough for everyone. Of course, if you made your money  harming others, then I have a problem with it. Fortunately, most wealthy people I know (because I hobnob with the elites on weekends) don’t do that. Even the worst among them have done something to earn their fortune, even if it is just being born into a wealthy family. The point is greed is neither good nor evil, per se, because it’s how we use it that makes the difference. If we use greed as a motivator to become the best in an industry, that’s positive. If we use greed to malign others because we’re too busy playing scratch-off tickets to work, that’s negative.

Let’s just say the Left has scratch-off crumbs on them.

Ultimately, though, we shouldn’t let knuckleheads from The Squad use greed as a weapon to support a $3.5 trillion dollar boondoggle. The only thing greater than the Left’s greed is their lack of self-awareness about it.