Thomas – Something About Everything

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

I cover a lot of topics for the Lexicon, but there are some that I shy away from most of the time. One of these topics is abortion. My reasons are simple: 1) it’s such an emotional issue that it’s impossible to discuss without someone getting pissed off, and 2) much like a Hannah Gadsby comedy special, there’s not much funny there. Even some of the periphery topics can get people mad.

Well, this is your warning that some of you reading beyond this point are gonna get pissed because we’re going into abortion.

In their post-Roe Handmaids Tale pseudo reality, Leftists are pushing an idea that women now will be required to take babies to term. In a double doozy of dumbassery, former Secretary of Labor and current member of the Lollipop Guild Robert Reich tweeted the following:

Forced birth in a country that refuses to protect its people from being shot down in a mass shooting.

That’s right, kids. Forced birth is apparently a thing, at least according to Leftists, which means it’s a subject that’s right in the Lexicon wheelhouse.

Damn you, Leftists.

forced birth

What the Left thinks it means – a condition created by Republicans where women are legally required to give birth under any and all circumstances

What it really means – a scary-sounding phrase without any connection to reality

For almost as long as I’ve been alive, Roe v Wade was the law of the land, making abortion a legal activity, as well as a coin of the Leftist realm. When the US Supreme Court handed down its decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization last year, Leftists not only lost their shit, but started to make up new shit to replace it. Enter “forced birth.” All the usual culprits weighed in on the subject (using the same terminology and scare tactics, I might add). Planned Parenthood, the Washington Post, The Guardian, and even the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee weighed in, offering the most tepid of hot takes. Let me give you the short version.

Abortion good. Limits to abortion bad. Oh, and limits to abortion equals forced birth.

As with most terms used in the abortion debate, forced birth is a charged term, and it’s designed to be. Leftists love to combine words that don’t necessary go together, like climate justice or House Intelligence Committee member Adam Schiff. This is done to evoke emotions in line with what Leftists want us to feel or think (or feel instead of think).

In this case, they start with a word that is intended to make us feel bad, “forced.” This shocks us because people like freedom. If we’re forced to do something, our natural instinct is to resist.

Then, we come across “birth.” (Or at least the father did at conception.) Regardless of where you stand on the abortion issue, life is a pretty important subject. We understand it on a fundamental level and revere it to one extent or another. Even the most strident pro-choicer gets the importance of life; they just don’t feel bad at killing a baby in the womb because…reasons.

So, did the Dobbs decision force women to give birth? Nope! It affirmed there is no Constitutional right to an abortion, and it left the decision to either the states or Congress. While the decision didn’t outright ban abortion, Leftists made it sound like it did, if only to continue its Handmaids Tale cosplay.

Although I’m not a lawyer since I have morals and a soul, the Dobbs decision made a lot of sense to me because it was based on simple logic and attention to details. Even though the word “abortion” doesn’t appear in the Constitution, the Left argued it was an extension of the 14th Amendment, as Justice Samuel Alito referenced in his majority opinion:

The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”

The right to abortion does not fall within this category…. Roe’s defenders characterize the abortion right as similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged, because it destroys what those decisions called “fetal life” and what the law now before us describes as an “unborn human being.”

The TL:DL (Too Long: Didn’t Litigate) version: abortion isn’t a right at all, and the two major decisions related to it (Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey for those of you playing along at home) weren’t consistent with the Constitution as written. Hence, states can set whatever limits they want on abortion thanks to a little thing the hip kids like to call the Tenth Amendment.

But that takes away the Left’s best weapon in favor of abortion: judicial fiat. Since that’s not on the table anymore, Leftists resort to their fallback plan, that being openly lying to people to get them outraged at the Supreme Court and Republicans deciding a baby’s life is worth as much as the mother’s. Those bastards!

But out of chaos came some ingenuity, which is shocking for Leftists considering they’re usually dimmer than a burnt out light bulb in a goth kid’s bedroom. Leftists started volunteering to take women to states where abortions are legal if they live in a state where it isn’t. Oh, and to donate money towards that end because, let’s face it, schlepping caramel macchiatos at Starbucks doesn’t pay well enough to fund it themselves.

Now imagine if these same Leftists understood economics in the same way they understand interstate travel to kill a baby. But that’s a blog post for another time…

Meanwhile back at the main point, the truth is no one is forced to give birth in this country. Some states make it more difficult to get one, but that’s not the same thing as making women give birth. What it does do is create an incentive to plan a pregnancy and take steps to prevent it before doing the horizontal mambo under the sheets if you’re not ready to be a parent. Of course, this is beyond the pale for Leftists, who treat abortion like it’s Pez. After all, showing any amount of foresight, planning, and dare I say it responsibility might…make you become a Republican!

Regardless of your position on abortion, it’s clear that Robert Reich and anyone else who is pushing the forced birth bullshit aren’t helping the matter any. If we’re going to come to a functional, albeit tenuous, agreement on the topic, we need to be honest with each other. Both sides have legitimate concerns that can only be addressed with dialogue instead of diatribes. Granted, that seems less likely than Michael Bay making a good movie, but I can hope.

And to Mr. Reich, I’m sorry your attempt to push the forced birth lie came up a little short.

I’ll see myself out…

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Leftists can find a way to be outraged by just about anything, even sources that are outside of their usual frames of reference. This past week, we saw Leftists get their panties in a bunch over…get this…the death of a professional wrestler, or more specifically how some of the wrestler’s colleagues chose to honor his memory.

Jamin Pugh wrestled under the name Jay Briscoe for many years and recently died in a car crash. He was beloved by his peers, with some offering condolences using the phrase Rest In Power.

It was these three little words that made Leftists shit themselves in outrage. Of course, if they were in San Francisco, you wouldn’t notice a difference, but the use of those three words became a personal affront to them because…get this…Jamin Pugh was…a white man! And Rest In Power? That’s a black phrase.

Better sit down for this one. The stupid is going to fly!

Rest In Power

What the Left thinks it means – a phrase to honor deceased blacks that should never be used by white people

What it really means – a phrase to honor a human being that doesn’t belong to anyone

To dig further into this situation, I went to where all self-respecting scholars go, Urban Dictionary. They define the phrase thus:

Phrase meaning that a deceased cannot rest in peace until society changes due to the circumstances of a death.

Well, that explains the boom in zombie movies and TV shows…

Dictionary.com provides this definition:

A variation on rest in peace, rest in power is used, especially in Black and LGBTQ communities, to commemorate a person whose death is considered unjust or wrongful. In this way, rest in power is a call to continue the struggle for social justice and as a show of solidarity.

Rest in power is also used to pay respect to a person, especially a person of color, who made a difference in the lives of minority communities. It is sometimes used to note the death of a person felt to have died too soon or senselessly, or a person who was influential or meaningful to people more generally.

At the core of both of these definitions is Leftist ideology. Victims of an unjust system are saluted with a Rest In Power, but the presumed oppressors can’t even utter the words because…well, they’re still trying to figure that part out. And they’re not the only ones.

Seriously, though, the phrase is believed to have originated as a way to honor a street artist, but was popularized in the black community as a way to memorialize people killed by violence. Oh, and rappers. With the death of Michael Brown and the suicide of a teenaged trans girl, Leelah Alcorn, Rest In Power got put behind rhetorical red velvet ropes complete with a bouncer to make sure only the “right” people got to use it.

Then, it got co-opted by white people and everything went to hell. Ain’t that always the case?

Although I can respect the origins of the phrase, I have to call bullshit on its presumed limits on usage. Once a phrase enters the cultural lexicon, the ownership transfers to society at large. Take the word “cool” for example. It started off with black jazz musicians, but evolved to the point of being universal. Now, there are grandmas walking at the mall who say something is “cool.” I don’t know if they can scat to a jazz riff, but that’s not the point.

Language is one of the most fluid things we have as human beings that isn’t actual fluid. As such, there is a lot of cultural cross-pollenization through diverse sources from music to fashion to cartoons. It doesn’t always work (see the drop-off in the use of “wack” in the past 20 years), but when it works, it works well.

So, why is Rest In Power exempt? Because…reasons?

The real reason is because Leftists need to control the language, even within communities already sympathetic to Leftist causes. By limiting who can use it, the Left acts as gatekeepers in the spirit of elevating the oppressed. Not that doing this actually elevates anyone, mind you…

What good does limiting who can say “Rest In Power” do when it comes to the Left’s stated goal of dismantling the current power structure and making it more equitable? It’s a SBD fart in a hurricane. The needle doesn’t move at all, nor will it ever. But it makes Leftist voting blocs feel good, so…yay, I guess?

Within this strategy is another Leftist concept, equity. Note, equity is not the same as equality, even though they share many of the same letters. Equality means everyone gets the same treatment across the board, no matter what. Equity allows for a bit more leeway in treatment because it allows for different circumstances to affect the outcome. And guess who currently pulls the levers on equitable treatment.

Leftists. Either that or an amusement park ride operator.

Setting standards on who can use “Rest In Power” is the Left’s commitment to equity writ large. But the entire concept falls apart like a balsa wood love seat at Michael Moore’s house when you consider the Left’s adoption of Rachel Dolezal and Shaun King. Two white people who are considered black because they identify as black in spite of being as white as an Edgar Winter concert in the middle of a blizzard after a typing correction fluid explosion.

I take that back. The aforementioned concert would have far too much rhythm to be truly white. My bad.

And guess what? That’s a joke comedians of all colors have been telling for decades, and yet no one has tried to limit who can tell it. Sure, the wording will be different, but the concept remains the same, and it has no one trying to gatekeep.

I never thought I’d be putting “cool” and “whites have no rhythm” on the same level, but here I am killing it!

And let me also point out the limits Leftists put on “Rest In Power” are completely arbitrary and, thus, rooted in logic shakier than the Biden White House’s response to why classified documents were found within 500 feet of Hunter. After all, whites make up the largest section of the LGBTQWTFFUBARLMFAO community. So, that means whites can use “Rest In Power” but only if they’re gay, lesbian, bi, trans, queer, etc.

How’s that dicking feel, straight white Leftists?

It’s these kinds of rules that make Calvinball look like Candyland. Yet, it’s the insanity of these rules that makes the best argument against this rhetorical version of Affirmative Action. If no one knows the rules, they are impossible to enforce, and even when you try to enforce them, they can easily be circumvented. Why, it’s almost better not to have any rules on who can say “Rest In Power” in the first place!

Yes. Yes it is.

And that’s the point. People should feel free to use whatever wording they want in honor of a fallen friend, a late family member, or even a respected figure in the community. Yes, there are still going to be consequences if somebody takes it the wrong way, but that’s the risk you run when you say anything. You could post on Twitter that you like chocolate, and some asshat with a checkmark will take it that you hate vanilla and try to troll you back to the Stone Age. (In computer terms, that’s 1980.) But does that mean you can’t or shouldn’t say you like chocolate? Not at all!

There is a reason we have free speech in America, and it’s because even loudmouth assholes should be able to speak their minds, if only to make it easier for us to figure out who to stay away from in the future. Limiting speech, especially as innocuous as “Rest In Power,” doesn’t help anyone, literally and, well, literally. Oh, I almost forgot. Some of the people posting “Rest In Power” to the late Jay Briscoe happen to be members of the groups Leftists say get to use the phrase in the first place.

Checkmate, motherfuckers.

What a Bunch of Gasholes!

As jaded as I’ve become in my later years, there are still some things that make me shake my head in a “Are you fucking kidding me” way. Usually, this comes from the federal government, online culture warriors, or media types, but recently, we had the perfect storm of fuckery, thanks to a federal agency.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission announced it was considering banning natural gas stoves, citing health concerns because of course. Recent peer-reviewed research published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health found an alleged link between the use of gas stoves and childhood asthma, a danger further underscored by co-author Brady Seals of the Rocky Mountain Institute. More on this later.

Once this news became public knowledge, online culture warriors went to work to amplify the CPSC suggestion, which promptly made the media go into “Republicans Pounce” mode. At first, the CPSC tried to deny what the commissioner, Richard Trumka Jr., clearly said, which as we all know makes everything instantly better! Then, Trumka, who made the initial statement “Products that can’t be made safe can be banned,” issued a tweet “clarifying” his statement, saying they weren’t coming after gas stoves after all, and any new regulations would only apply to new products.

It got so bad that CPSC chair Alexander Hoehn-Saric had to issue further clarification, and stated the organization was evaluating the health risks in light of the aforementioned research. Furthermore, Hoehn-Saric said no new regulations were on the table right now.

Meaning, they’re still on the table, but they’re being hidden behind the boiled radishes that nobody wants to eat until they can be reintroduced as though nothing had happened.

And believe me they will.

This is because the Left and its government stooges (but I repeat myself) love to have as much power over us as possible. Controlling how we cook our food, as meaningless as it is in the grand scheme of things, is exactly the kind of shit they’d do if given the chance…or if they take the chance.

But then they fucked up by not only giving away the plot, but by assuming the opponents wouldn’t have receipts. Oh, but they did. Lots of receipts. They even got the Socialist Socialite to defend her use of gas stoves while simultaneously doubling down on the science.

And just what was the science, you ask? Remember the peer-reviewed study I referenced earlier co-authored by Brady Seals? Well, turns out she might have a vested interest in the outcome, given her association with the Rocky Mountain Institute. If you look at the Board of Trustees, you’ll notice a few different themes and some familiar names in Leftist circles. Of course, none of this is ever discussed in the news pieces citing the paper Seals co-authored. After all, why let a little thing like complete transparency get in the way of a good scare piece?

But before you damn me for guilt by association, let me also point out one other tiny problem with the paper: it’s fundamentally flawed. What’s more, the problems raised in Seals’ paper and in the subsequent media stories can be addressed somewhat by using a range hood. So, banning or even adding new regulations for the use of gas stoves isn’t even necessary.

But it is necessary if you’re trying to persuade people to adopt an alternative to what we currently used.

Surely, electric stoves are better for the environment, right? Oooooh, sor-ray. Turns out it takes more energy for an electric stove to do what a gas stove does. And since most of our energy production comes from fossil fuels, that means to use the allegedly safer technology, we have to create more pollution. Brilliant!

Oh, and the best part? Natural gas is cleaner than fossil fuels. Even Leftist eco-nuts (again, I repeat myself) admit that, but they always love to throw in the “but X” to explain why natural gas isn’t the good deal it’s made out to be.

“But the study was peer-reviewed!” some might say. My response is that peer review is only as good as the intellectual rigor used by the peer reviewing it. As we’ve seen, peer review has its flaws and scandals that have tarnished its reputation for being, well, reputable. And the fact it keeps happening year after year after year doesn’t help make the case why a peer reviewed paper is more valid and truthful than a paper a puppy pees on.

But the Left needs people to ignore the problems and “trust the science” because it plays into one of their favorite logical fallacies, appeal to authority. If you are impressed by the credentials and don’t look into the facts, you can be persuaded to adopt an idea as true basely solely on who says it. But titles in and of themselves don’t necessarily mean the person with them should be listened to on a given subject. Remember, Neil deGrasse Tyson says some stupid shit.

But the Left count on people being ignorant enough to listen and believe and not listen and mock mercilessly. However, the online culture warriors unwittingly give the Left ammunition (which is ironic given how the Left hates guns) to dismiss all criticism. Although the critics were mostly right factually, the way they presented the facts made it sound like a crazy conspiracy theory. And remember the media love to do the “Republicans Pounce” thing to cover the Republicans’ response to a Leftist scandal instead of the scandal itself. This rhetorical slight-of-hand takes attention away from the actual story to get people to pay attention to the distraction.

Even so, the culture warriors don’t seem to get this. Oh, they’ll mock/complain about the “Republicans Pounce” tactic, but their passion turns into the distraction the Left needs to escape responsibility for being utter fuck-ups.

Almost.

Once you see the bait and switch the media pull (see the recent scandal related to Puddin’ Head Joe and classified documents for evidence), you can’t unsee it. Like a Micheal Moore porn video. But unlike “Fahrenheit 9-11 Inches” or “Balling for Columbine” you don’t need brain bleach, therapy, and a Men In Black memory wipe to function after witnessing it.

The moral of this story is to be skeptical of a gut reaction given amplification by people with a Paul Bunyon-sized axe to grind, even if you agree with them. A little information can go a long way towards finding the truth, often found in between the extremes. But there are still some pretty good rules of thumb that are easy to follow.

Whenever the Socialist Socialite talks about anything other than, well, herself, believe the exact opposite because she’s a fucking idiot.

Hmmmm…maybe there’s something to the science saying gas stoves affect cognitive ability after all…

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

One of the things I’ve grown to hate about politics in recent years has been the tribalism of both the Left and the Right. It seems if someone from one side does something horrible, like killing a bunch of elderly nuns trying to cross the street, the two extremes can’t come together and say “You know, that’s fucked up.” Invariably, one side will say it was wrong and demand justice, and the other side will decry the criticism and claim it was partisan and/or fake news.

The recent revelations about Puddin’ Head Joe and his penchant for leaving classified documents where they shouldn’t be has brought out the worst of this. People on the Right (including your humble correspondent in this case) think this is a criminal offense and should be prosecuted. Leftists, on the other hand, keep trying to defend Puddin’ Head Joe while trying to make distinctions between the current fuckup and the raid on Mar-a-Lago, which is the previous fuckup.

Throughout the online debates on the topic, I see the word “whataboutism” tossed around like a football at a Philadelphia Eagles game. That means it’s time we take a turn at trying to understand it, and hopefully have fun doing it.

whataboutism

What the Left thinks it means – a tactic used by the Right to equate events that are substantively different as a means to excuse right wing criminality

What it really means – a tactic that proves both major parties suck ass

Our good friends at Merriam Webster define whataboutism thus:

the act or practice of responding to an accusation of wrongdoing by claiming that an offense committed by another is similar or worse

Basically, whataboutism involves diversion and deflection. Instead of taking up the accusation directly, those who engage in it try to bring in something unrelated to the original accusation to get the person levying it to either get defensive or shut down completely.

Unfortunately, both the Left and the Right engage in whataboutism on a regular basis, which makes civil debate on social media next to impossible. Then again, it may be because these debates are being done on social media, where civility is as alien as E.T., or at the very least correct spelling. It is possible, mind you, but you’d have better luck surviving while having credible information that would implicate Hillary Clinton in criminal activity than you would be to actually converse with someone on a political issue.

For the record, I do not have any information on Hillary Clinton, so if you could take that red laser point dot off my forehead, I’d greatly appreciate it. Whew! Now that’s out of the way, back to the topic at hand.

The Left has been doing its usual bang-up job trying to create distance between Puddin’ Head Joe and Donald Trump’s handling of documents. This strategy has a two-fold benefit. First, it excuses Biden while leaving Trump open to criticism. Second, it enables the “whataboutism card” for the Left. If Leftists create enough of a difference in the minds of people who don’t follow current events that closely (i.e. 95% of Twitter users), they can downplay the potential criminality while redefining legitimate criticism as sour grapes.

The problem is these two separate incidents are similar enough to warrant equal scrutiny. Both are former government officials who had confidential documents in locations where they shouldn’t have been in the first place. Spin it any way you want, but the core issue is still the same. Where things get a bit cloudy is in what each official is allowed to declassify and how it was done. That’s a debate for another time (and possibly another blog post).

When you strip away all the partisan bullshit, you can’t call the Right’s outrage over Puddin’ Head Joe’s actions whataboutism because it’s literally the same thing Trump is being accused of. And, to be fair, the Right’s criticisms have more meat with regards to how the President is being treated right now because of the way Trump was treated, with the Left’s overwhelming approval. Even then, it’s hard to get past the whataboutism label completely here since there’s the element of an unequal response, which works in the Left’s favor.

At least, it does until you realize the Left wants there to be different and unequal rules for their side. But that’s to be expected. After all, they’re our moral and intellectual superiors (just ask them).

As long as there are partisan hacks on both sides willing to be intellectually dishonest, there will be whataboutism, and there will be accusations of whataboutism, legitimate or otherwise. We may even find it creeping into our own thinking at times when we let our passions override our logic. The key to overcoming this is to keep consistent when presented with a seemingly contradictory situation.

That’s why I say both Trump and Biden need to be held accountable, no matter what. Not only does it confuse the partisan asshats, but it keeps things nice and simple. Plus, it will make for some great snarking.

Regardless of how you feel about Puddin’ Head Joe, it’s hard to deny the classified documents situation he’s in looks bad, as in Lena Dunham nude pictorial in Playboy bad. That’s why I take the Left’s whataboutism defense of Joe not as seriously as they do. Even so, it’s far too easy a trap to get into with political and ideological differences, mainly because neither side wants to be consistent. They want their team protected and the other team prosecuted until the end of time. But bad behavior is bad behavior, no matter what team you’re on, and it needs to be called out even when the partisan jagoffs accuse you of whataboutism.

When they do, feel free to do what I do and tell them “What about you shut the fuck up?”

Papers, Please

To say it’s been a rough few months for Democrats is an understatement. Oh, they were able to stem the tide of the “Red Wave” (thanks in part to idiots like Mitch McConnell), but since then they’ve been accumulating L’s like the world’s unluckiest Scrabble player.

Recently, we heard about President Puddin’ Head Joe having classified documents in the possession of a think tank (an ironic contradiction if ever there was) and just now started turning them over. Of course, his staff knew about them on November 2, 2022, but hey. Why let a little something like having classified documents six years after leaving office disrupt an election that could determine how our country is governed for the next 2 years, amirite?

If that wasn’t bad enough, more classified documents were found in Biden’s home in Wilmington, Delaware. But don’t worry, folks. Ol’ Puddin’ Head Joe kept them perfectly safe, right next to his Corvette in his garage. And it just so happens, Joe’s son Hunter stayed at that residence for a time. Wow! If you can’t trust meth-heads with a penchant for underhanded deals and possible child porn on a laptop, who can you trust?

As you might expect, Leftists leapt into action…to say a) the documents were planted, b) Donald Trump is much worse, c) Joe is cooperating, and d) it was just a mistake.

How’s that boot tasting, Leftists?

As more and more comes out about this story, the more and more Leftists want to push it under the rug, even going to far as to say this scandal might take attention away from investigations into Republican wrongdoing. Then again, it was CNN saying that, so take it with a Lake City of Salt.

Since the Right doesn’t have memories like ferrets hooked on meth, people have been bringing up how the Trump and Biden document scandals are being handled. Which, of course, prompted the Left to come up with all sorts of Oktoberfest-level pretzel logic to explain why it’s just different, okay? But is it? Let’s find out.

As President, Donald Trump had the authority to declassify documents within a specific scope, hopefully with more reasoning than “because shut up.” Some things can be declassified under different provisions within the government and by following the proper procedures. We can debate whether Trump and his team followed those procedures another time because the point is he had the authority to declassify.

The Vice-President, on the other hand, can only declassify documents he (or now she) classified or generated by his/her office. Without knowing what was found at Puddin’ Head Joe’s office, home, and garage, we can’t really tell whether he followed the process correctly. Knowing him, he forgot all about it.

As far as what former Executive officials can take with them, well…that’s where things get a bit murky. (Surprise, surprise.) There are some requirements and loopholes for Presidents and Vice-Presidents with regards to classified documents. Again, the lack of specific details gives Joe a bit of breathing room legally.

Having said that, Puddin’ Head Joe’s got some ‘splainin’ to do. If what has been reported so far is accurate (and I can’t say for certain that it is), some of the documents in question had to deal with Iran, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom, as well as China. Now, I may be wrong here, but at least half of the countries mentioned don’t like us and one of them loves us…as long as we keep giving them money and guns. No word on if Ukraine is accepting our lawyers yet, but I’ll keep you posted.

And if you got that reference, you are officially old. And cool as hell.

While the way these documents came to light differs greatly from the raid on Mar-a-Lago, it’s important not to lose sight of the basic facts here: Puddin’ Head Joe had classified documents in his possession and failed to do his due diligence in returning them or notifying the proper authorities that he had them.

Before you Leftists give me this “he turned them in as soon as he found out” bullshit, let me remind you his term as Vice-President ended six years ago. And during that time, his meth-head son has access to those documents, which in and of itself is a security risk. Not to mention, Biden didn’t come forward with these documents as soon as he found out. He waited two more months after they were discovered.

If you flipped your shit over Trump holding onto classified documents for a year and a half, your shit better be doing a Cirque du Soleil routine if you want to remain consistent. If you’re not, then take a seat. In fact, take all of the seats. Especially that old dusty one in the corner, the one with the ripped upholstery.

And while we’re here, remember how Leftists got so concerned about whether Trump was selling nuclear secrets since some of the documents seized were allegedly about a foreign country’s nuclear capabilities? I do. It was a Neal Peart drum solo of drumbeats from the Left lamenting about how Trump was guilty (without evidence of anything happening, mind you) and still allowed to walk freely amongst the people (see previous comment in parens for the reason). Now, these hawkish Leftists aren’t squawking so much. Even known Leftist and fuckknuckle Joy Behar said we give Puddin’ Head Joe the benefit of the doubt because, essentially, he’s not Trump.

No, Joe isn’t like Trump. Trump wasn’t fucking stupid enough to put classified documents in a fucking garage!

Anyway, we’re in for a shitshow as more information about Puddin’ Head Joe’s classified documents come to light and the Left tries to explain it all way without success. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting on an FBI raid of Joe’s home anytime soon.

Unless they find more on Hunter, that is.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

I’ve been asked a few times whether I like reality TV or soap operas, and I don’t. Mainly because I get enough of both watching Congress.

And this past week has ramped up both with the election of a new Speaker of the House. For a time, House Republicans couldn’t seem to figure out who got to be the honorary whipping boy (or girl because I ain’t sexist) of House Democrats who want to get more of Puddin’ Head Joe’s brilliant agenda passed. At this point, the method of choosing a new Pope seems a lot more logical and a lot less dramatic.

Leftists, being the helpful sort they are, keep the drama ramped up to 11 (because it’s one higher), claiming the lack of a Speaker of the House is a national security issue. Even former Speaker Nancy Pelosi is attempting to dunk on House Republicans, citing (of all things) dignity.

While we wait for our irony meters to get back from the repair shop, let’s take a closer look at the House of Representatives.

the House of Representatives

What the Left thinks it means – a vital legislative body being disgraced by House Republicans’ inability to elect a new Speaker

What it really means – a reflection of what America is right now

First, a bit of history and civics. Our Legislative Branch is modeled at least in part on England’s Parliament. While our British brethren have the House of Commons and the House of Lords, we have the House of Representatives and the Senate. This is by design in both cases, but I’m going to focus on the American version, which like the American version of “The Office” is great, but lacks some of the elements that make the British version better.

Although, I’m willing to die on the hill that Dwight Schrute is the superior character.

Anyway, the House of Representatives is supposed to be “the people’s house,” in that it requires Dwayne Johnson to own it…wait, that’s not it. It’s that way because the House is supposed to be more accountable to the electorate and are up for reelection every 2 years instead of every 6 years like in the Senate.

This accountability is underscored by the sheer number of Representatives. There is one for each District, including the District of Columbia, resulting in a grand total of 435 Representatives. As censuses and redistricting/gerrymandering occur, the size and shape of these Districts will change, but the number doesn’t. So, that means at any given time, there may be 435 complete asshats in Congress.

I know, right! It seems like more!

Meanwhile back at the subject matter at hand, the requirements to serve in the House are pretty simple.

– at least 25 years old
– a US citizen for at least seven years
– an inhabitant of the state he/she represents

That’s it. Notice breathing and thinking aren’t on the list, which explains a lot about how dead people and idiots wind up winning elections…

If you think about it, that’s a pretty wide net. And it doesn’t exactly mean we’re getting the best and brightest, either. It just means we’re getting people who can lie convincingly enough to win elections.

Which brings us to the House of Representatives as it currently works, which is to say it doesn’t. In between the people looking to turn their House election into election to a higher office and the people perfectly happy to take up space where they are, it’s clear the bulk of the House is lazy, often doesn’t show up for work for bullshit reasons, develops huge egos unrelated to actual achievement, starts Twitter spats with one another, gets nothing done, and spends a lot of money and wastes a lot of time doing it.

In other words, America in 2023.

That’s why I find it so hysterical former Speaker Pelosi talks about the dignity of the House of Representatives as it relates to the current Speaker fight. (Plus, it gives me a chance to really rub it in that she’s not the Speaker of the House anymore.) It’s really not all that dignified, and it’s not supposed to be. It’s supposed to be the legislative body that responds to the folks back at home and represents their interests.

And right now, their interests have little to do with what’s best for the country. If anything, they’re loving the shitshow and popping more popcorn and ordering more pizza. Sure, Leftists are upset no important bills are getting passed, but it’s more based on self-interest than concern for Americans. After all, the House is part of the legislative body that spends the money, per Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution. And if we’ve learned anything from recent history, Congress loves to spend our money.

Of course, if there’s no Speaker elected, there’s no leadership. (Granted, that’s been standard operating procedure for decades, but work with me here.) If there isn’t a Speaker, no bills can come out to the floor to be voted on. And that means nothing gets done and no tax money gets spent.

Wait. I’m trying to find a down side here…Nope! Coming up empty!

But to the Left, government inaction that prevents them from spending money or passing laws is bad because it prevents them from getting more power over our lives. That is, except when it’s their actions causing gridlock. When they do it, it’s justified because…reasons. For me, anything that mucks up the wheels of authoritarian malfeasance is fine.

But, let’s say for the sake of argument I wanted to fix the House of Representatives. I would start by adding a few more requirements to serve in the House. The requirements we have are lower than a snake’s cock ring, but yet candidates still find a way to limbo under them and still get elected. Here’s a few I’ve put together.

– Parental locks on a Representative’s Twitter account, allowing him/her only 1 hour a day to tweet

– An emotional age of at least 25

– Actually living in the District instead of having a “paper residence” for election purposes

– Work from home requirement for at least 6 months

– Since they’ll be home, mandatory town hall meetings where the public can appear, not just a hand-picked asskissers

– A regular State of the District Address with opportunity for a rebuttal

– At least a B+ grade on a civics test. And since I’m the one who came up with the idea, I suppose I could be persuaded to come up with the test because, dammit, I care!

By the way, if there’s an Academy Award for bloggers, I humbly submit that last point for consideration. Thank you. Moving on…

– Signing and agreeing upon the government version of a “non-compete clause” meaning they aren’t allowed to join any insider think tanks or media outlets for at least 10 years. And going along with this…

– Former Representatives have to get gainful employment within their former Districts within 30 days of the start of the new House session or they lose their government pensions, because nothing would be funnier to me than seeing a defeated Representative having to spritz vegetables at a local grocery store for minimum wage after living the high life in Congress

I have a few more ideas, but some of them involve tar, feathers, pitchforks, and torches…I’ve said too much. Let’s just say I’m not at a loss for ways to improve things. You know, if I wanted to pull a “This Old House” on the House, that is.

Instead, I’m going to kick back with steak and some adult beverages and watch the proceedings for the shitshow they are, and I suggest you do the same. At least until we see white smoke coming from Capitol Hill. Then, either we’ll have a new Speaker of the House, a new Pope, or Adam Schiff is trying to destroy as many incriminating documents as he can find.

The Elephant In the Room

As much as I like ripping into Leftists, there are times when I have to take the Right out to the woodshed for being dumbasses. And this is one of those times. Otherwise, you’d just be watching me typing nonsense and wasting your time. I mean, more than usual.

The “Red Wave” most people were expecting turned out to be just a trickle, with Republicans mostly underperforming in races that shouldn’t have even been close. Although there are still some unresolved election issues (namely alleged misconduct affecting Republicans in Arizona, surprise surprise), the fact remains Republicans did not do as well as expected. Electile dysfunction, if you will.

Or even if you won’t, that’s what I’m sticking with.

Although the “Red Trickle” has been analyzed more than Donald Trump eating a salad with Russian dressing, there’s a problem even the smart pundits on the Right seem to have missed. Right now, the Republican Party has a serious identity crisis.

Unlike the Left, who has a loose coalition of voting blocs united by the idea “Republicans Bad, Democrats Good,” the Right has a diverse pool of voters, but doesn’t have a single rallying cry. Under Presidents like Ronald Reagan, that wasn’t the case, but since then it’s been the political version of Whose Line Is It Anyway, the political party where everything is made up and the percentage points don’t matter.

I’ve narrowed down the various factions vying for control of the GOP to these groups.

Evangelicals – These are men and women of faith who want to take America in a positive moral/religious direction and believe politics is the means to that end. To me, that’s like a Luddite computer repair shop, but who am I to begrudge these folks?

Fair Weather Republicans – These are your Mitt Romneys, Mitch McConnells, Susan Collinses, Marco Rubios, and such who talk a good game, but don’t have the track record to back it up. If these folks were a rap album from the early 90s, they would be “As Wishy Washy As We Wanna Be.”

MAGA Republicans – These are the politically-minded voters energized by former President Donald Trump. And when I say “energized,” I mean you could run the Texas power grid if you were to tap into their enthusiasm over all things Trump. Again, not bad people.

The Intelligentsia – These are the former conservative talking heads and consultants who were taken very seriously until Donald Trump came into the picture. Now, they’re too busy trying to “preserve conservatism” to notice their relevance is lower than the trading price of FTX right now.

Old School Conservatives – These are the Republicans who long for the days of Ronald Reagan and want to try to be his second coming. I would put Rand Paul and Ted Cruz in this category, and to be fair I almost voted for Zombie Ronald Reagan in 2020. I guess I would be in this category, too, even though I don’t see myself as a Republican.

Talking Heads – This group runs the gamut from Sean Hannity to Glenn Beck to even Tulsi Gabbard (still not a Republican, but I’m including her here to make a point). They command a lot of attention and viewership/listenership when they speak about what conservatism and Republican values mean.

Big Business Republicans – These are Republicans who are beholden to Corporate America and will do anything to please their corporate masters. Although there is the potential for overlap, usually these Republicans defer to whatever the business world wants, no matter how it betrays the party line.

The Rank and File – This group represents most Republicans, but ironically it has the least amount of power because it lacks the money, insider connections, and media presence of the others. Whether they’re life-long Republicans or Johnny-Come-Lately Republicans doesn’t matter.

Minority Republicans – This group is different from the others in that they’re also part of other groups that may or may not normally associate with the GOP. Gay, black, Hispanic, and so forth.

There may be others I’ve overlooked, but I think you get the idea. With so many voices talking about their version of Republican ideas, it’s hard to find a single unifying idea. Plus, it doesn’t help that some of these groups are less friendly than the reception Nick Fuentes gets at the Apollo. This is a byproduct of the many voices at play here. With so many groups trying to become The One True Voice of Republicans, there will be conflict.

If you doubt me, I have three words for you: The Lincoln Project.

Normally, infighting is par for the course with political parties, but in this case, it’s starting to become counterproductive. You might be able to get a couple of groups to gang up on one of the others, but such coalitions don’t last because Republicans and conservatives deeply care about issues. Leftists may say they do, but they care only as far as it takes to get stupid people to vote for them. Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to have bedrock principles on which they will not bend. For some, it’s defending the Constitution. For others, it’s Christian values. For others, it’s recognition. Whatever the motivation, conservatives will draw a line in the sand at some point.

And if you dare cross that line, you’re an enemy.

Not a great way to win elections, kids.

No matter how bat-shit insane the Left gets (and, believe me, they’re going for the record), expecting people to vote for the Right because they’re not Leftists only works for so long. Eventually, potential voters are going to ask “So, what do you stand for exactly?” And if you don’t have a good answer aside from “the Left is bat-shit insane” you will lose potential voters.

Believe it or not, some of us actually want to be courted. Give us ideas, principles, goals, actual substance for the love of Pete! Just because you’re not as crazy as the Left doesn’t mean you’re not crazy. After all, the Left says the same thing about the Right and you can guess how I think they are.

This is where a unifying theme is essential. The thing many conservatives and Republicans forget about Ronald Reagan is the fact he found a way to bring people together through the unifying theme that America was worthy of being respected and loved by its people. That helped peel off a number of people who might not have normally voted Republican and helped The Gipper win two terms. These days, Republicans might be lucky to win one term in the White House because while each of the groups believes they are carrying on Reagan’s vision, few of them remember the important essence of the vision itself.

Remember Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment. No matter how distasteful you may find one of the other groups, a unified front is what is needed going forward. In 2024, Republicans have a chance to make the argument their Presidential candidate is up to the task. And with Puddin’ Head Joe and Kamala “Word Salad” Harris, you could drool on yourselves and make a better case.

Yet, this should be the starting point, not the only point. If Republicans want to make Puddin’ Head Joe a former President, it has to be done with one voice. Yes, you can have opinions and you don’t need my permission to express them, but keep in mind a split party makes it easier for Biden to win again. Find common ground and hold onto it no matter what.

Otherwise, get used to seeing Puddin’ Head Joe embarrass us on the world stage.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Ever see the movie “Catch Me If You Can“? If not, it’s a movie about a real person, Frank Abagnale Jr., who made a name for himself by scamming people. Well, recently Republicans found their own Frank Abagnale in the form of George Santos, incoming Republican Congressman from New York. Seems he lied, like, a lot.

In other words, he was well-qualified for the job.

Leftists, never known for being honest or consistent, have jumped on the controversy to try to demand he resign and start state and federal investigations into his campaign. Although I really don’t have a problem with any of that, the Left’s reaction is a bit of a tell, as we’ll see in a bit.

George Santos

What the Left thinks it means – a Republican politician who should not be allowed to represent anyone because he lied about his past

What it really means – a man being held to a different standard by the Left to hide the real reason they want him gone

This is going to come to a shock to some of you, but politicians lie. I’ll give you all a moment to compose yourselves after such a revelation.

Okay, that’s long enough.

What makes Santos a different breed of cat, according to the Left, is the extent of his lies. He’s claimed to be Jewish, gay, a financial advisor to Goldman Sachs, and any number of things, both about himself and his family. Hmm…that sounds a lot like a former Vice President, but I can’t remember who…

Oh, well. Guess I’ll have some pudding.

While the lies themselves are troubling, what’s more troubling is the underlying reason for the Left’s reaction. No, they haven’t decided to turn over a new leaf and become truth seekers. Instead, their reaction is based on something more…base. And if Meghan Trainor taught us anything, it’s that it’s all about that base….

For more context, let’s take a trip to New York. See, Mr. (or Doctor or Monsignor or whatever title he’s given himself) Santos committed a mortal sin in Leftists’ minds: he beat a Democrat. What’s more, it was a seat formerly held by a Democrat, meaning it flipped with Santos’ election. That alone would make Santos a target for Leftist hate, but the over embellishment of his resume gives them a legitimate hook on which to hang their disdain and hide their real agenda.

Of course, getting Santos to either resign or have House Republicans not seat him won’t affect the fact Republicans will still hold a slight majority. But that’s not the point. The point is to make Republicans live up to their own standards, as our good friend Saul Alinsky taught in Rules for Radicals. And knowing how many House Republicans have spines of Jello, there’s a good chance this strategy will work.

Provided, of course, some House Republicans don’t use the Santos situation to expose the Left’s hypocrisy, that is. And it’s not like they will have to do a lot of legwork because conservative commenters on Twitter have already done it. It is just a matter of playing the Left’s game better than they do. Make them defend their silence/defense of Puddin’ Head Joe’s multiple lies, and don’t let them off the hook. After all, these are the same fucknuckles who said former President Donald Trump lied over 30,000 times and said it was unbecoming of a President.

Of course, the Left will call this “whataboutism” (mainly because they can’t refute Puddin’ Head Joe’s lies), which to some extent it is. My counter to this is simple: lying is never good for leaders to do, even if it’s infrequent. Whether it’s 30,000 lies or just 30, each time a political leader pulls a Tommy Flannagan it undermines public trust. Or at least that’s what my wife, Morgan Fairchild, says.

But a key for this to work is consistency. Republicans need to hold Santos to the same standard as Biden, and not quietly in either case. And, while we’re at it, let’s follow the Left’s logic a bit more. Santos should be punished, whether it be by the House Leadership or by his constituents, and so should Puddin’ Head Joe. Then, sweeten the pot by pointing out how Leftist darlings Nancy Pelosi, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth “Chief Running Mouth” Warren, Eric Swalwell, Richard Blumenthal, Adam Schiff, and others should be held to the same standard the Left wants to apply to Santos.

Then, when Leftists point out Republican liars, say, “Sure. Throw them out, too.”

Then, grab a bottle of water as the Leftists run off in a cloud of dust that would make the Road Runner look like a sleeping sloth. But enough about Jerrold Nadler.

Let’s face it, George Santos gives the GOP a black eye (or if you’re politically correct, an African-American eye). The fact he got this far without someone at the RNC giving him the side-eye at all the red flags that came up means the party needs to seriously revamp their vetting process. It doesn’t matter if the candidate is backed by Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, or Susan Collins, Republicans need to do a much better job in 2024 to avoid embarrassments like Santos.

After all, we wouldn’t want someone like that to be President, right?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

To all of you from all of, well, me, I hope you have a Merry Christmas, Happy Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Kickin’ Kwanza, Fabulous Festivus, Cool Yule, a Spectacular Solstice, or for those who don’t celebrate anything this time of year, happy Sunday.

And for a number of people who just so happen not to be us, Congress gave them a very generous holiday bonus to the tune of, oh, $1.7 trillion. It was part of an omnibus spending bill whisking its way to President Joe Biden’s desk as of this writing, where there is no doubt he will sign it. Where the doubt lies is whether he’ll sign it in pen or purple crayon.

Another issue not in doubt is your favorite blogger is going to cover it this week. And I will, too!

omnibus spending bill

What the Left thinks it means – a necessary spending bill that helps America and Americans

What it really means – a bill so full of pork Jews and Muslims can’t partake of it for religious reasons

In my lifetime, Congress has always been the home of big spenders, as the National Debt Clock continues to show. More on that later, but I wanted to give you an idea of the numbers we’re dealing with here before giving more details. Plus, it will give you a chance to get a stiff drink or fifty to steel your nerves.

First, let’s dig into the details. Thanks to Senator Rand Paul and Congressman Chip Roy, we have an idea of just what Leftists were telling us were vital expenditures necessary to keep the government from shutting down. Here are a few examples.

– $4.5 billion in COVID Economic Injury Disaster Grants to people who weren’t eligible to get them in the first place

– $1.7 billion for upkeep of federal office buildings not currently in use

– $140 million in COVID funds used to build a spa

– $31.5 million in COVID funds to buy luxury cars

– $3 million on watching ‘roided-up hamsters fight

– $2.1 million to encourage Ethiopians to wear shoes

– $1.1 million to teach mice to binge drink (could have just sent them to college)

– $69 million in overpayments to government contractors for a terminated contract

– $77 million in mismanaged and untracked fuel purchases by the State Department

And so on and so on.

Granted, you could make an argument for some of the spending ($3 million to build a Gandhi museum, almost $500 million to redevelop our hard cider industry, $200,000 for radio spots telling drivers to stop at railroad crossings), but most of it is USDA Certified Lean Bullshit. Out of all the bad financial decisions that makes Arthur Andersen look like Warren Buffett, possibly the worst was almost $120,000 going towards…and I wish I was making this up…a grant to research whether Thanos could actually snap his fingers while wearing the Infinity Gauntlet.

The short answer? No. My answer? No, because Thanos is a fucking fictional character.

Where is that stiff drink?

Okay, I’m ready to continue.

Remember when Ukrainian President and Vogue photo subject Volodymyr Zelensky recently told Puddin’ Head Joe he would need more money? Well, surprise surprise surprise, the omnibus spending bill has nearly $45 billion in aid earmarked for Ukraine. And that’s on top of the $68 billion we’ve already given them in 2022. For the math challenged out there, that will be in the neighborhood of $113 billion.

Of course Leftists and some self-described “real conservatives” tell us this money is essential and if we don’t agree, we’re anti-Ukraine and, thus, anti-American. In fact, to them it’s a no-brainer. After all, if we fund the Ukrainians well enough, they’ll beat the Russians and hinder their ability to influence the world

No. That’s really what they believe.

And if it hadn’t been for 18 Senate Republicans voting with Senate Democrats and two Independents in favor of the omnibus bill, we might not be having this conversation. As of this writing, only one of these 14 asshats, Mitt Romney of Utah, has even attempted to explain his reasoning.

Put simply, the Senate Republican support was a no-brainer because no brains went into their votes.

Bartender, hit me!

Now, for the fun part. All of this spending is being done without being in a budget. Since 1996, the federal government has been spending money through Continuing Resolutions (basically, an IOU Congress writes to itself promising to spend more money without any rhyme or reason) or…drum roll please…omnibus spending bills. The reason is simple: no budget means no budget limits. I’ve seen inebriated sailors with more restraint than Congress.

Speaking of inebriation…bartender!

Let me lay my cards on the table here. I’m not a fan of omnibus spending bills, not just the ones Puddin’ Head Joe will sign. Congress has a spending problem, and omnibus spending bills are blank checks backed up with the promise of professional liars that they’ll pay it back with interest.

By the way, $475 billion of the omnibus bill is for interest on the national debt.

Yeah, we’re never going to see a balanced budget anytime soon, not when it’s so easy to pass spending bills that have no fiscal strings attached.

Even if you’re in favor of the bill, you’re going to have a hard time convincing me spending any money on Thanos research, luxury cars, or building a spa advances anything in the national interest. Personal interests, sure, but national? Give me a fucking break!

Speaking of which, I’d better take a break from drinking long enough to wrap this up.

The very fact supporters of the omnibus spending bill have to rely on faux patriotism, a backdrop of Ukraine fighting for freedom, and the idea the government has to stay open or things won’t get done should give us pause to drink…I mean think. As Americans struggle to make ends meet due to inflation being higher than Tommy Chong on Willie Nelson’s tour bus, our elected officials continue to make matters worse by making our money more worthless than an abstinence talk by Bill Clinton.

The sad thing is there’s nothing we can do about it. Aside from a wholesale house (and Senate) cleaning and starting over, we’re stuck paying for someone else getting a luxury car, thanks to Daddy Government. The sad truth is there are so many Democrats and Republicans, both elected and governed, who have no problem with the current state of affairs. After all, they’re not going to pay the tab; we are.

And with that, I bring this Lexicon entry to a close. Which is good timing because I’m about to passdkjladkahdfadjf;dajkl;

[Editor’s Note: We found Thomas slumped over his laptop after getting blackout drunk writing this piece. We cleaned up his entry and his computer as well as we could. We are giving him coffee intravenously in the hopes he’ll be awake in time for next week’s Lexicon.]

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

First, we had homophobia, which is the irrational fear/hatred of gay people (according to the Left). Next, we had transphobia, which is the irrational fear/hatred of trans people (also according to the Left). Now, thanks to the people at GLAAD, we have…dragphobia.

According to the…well, I repeat myself.

The latest phobia has roots in a group affiliated with the LGBTQPXBNOTHATISADIFFERENTBAFEWMORELETTERSADDEDEVERYWEEKCHECKBACKDAILYFORUPDATES community and a trend that seems to keep popping up: drag aficionados appearing in what some people consider inappropriate locations in front of all ages. Namely, where there are children congregating. And, well, some people don’t take too kindly to that.

Congratulations, kids. You got another phobia!

And I got another Lexicon entry!

dragphobia

What the Left thinks it means – the irrational fear or hatred of people in drag

What it really means – the real fear and hatred of Leftists trying to warp the younger generations into supporting the Left

If the Left is to be believed (and at this point, it’s a pretty safe bet they shouldn’t), hate speech of all kinds is on the rise, not just on Twitter, but in America. Gays, lesbians, trans people, bisexuals, queer, and now people in drag are all victims of this hate, and, dammit, we need to do something about it.

Like…Tweeting about it?

Or at least podcast about it like GLAAD did. Because as we all know the only way to fight hate is to put it on blast on social media! No need to even put on a pair of pants, or in some cases a garter belt that matches your wig and eye shadow as you prepare for Drag Finger Painting Day at the local preschool.

Okay, so that was a bit excessive. Drag queens haven’t held finger painting day at a preschool, mainly because the paint could get on their sequined dresses and ruin their nails. But if current trends continue, we are not that far away from this becoming a thing.

“But, Thomas, how do you know this is going to happen?” you might be asking. Others might be asking, “Why do you care about drag queens so much?” Still others might be asking, “Would you like fries with that?” Trust me, gentle reader, all will become evident in time.

The first question is easy to answer: it’s been done before successfully. The Left have a standard framework when they want to indoctrinate…I mean educate people.

1. Swing for the fences. Push for exactly what you want and see if you can get it. If not, move to step 2.

2. Find out which groups agree with you and work on a strategy to get more of that group to agree.

3. Introduce a step towards the primary goal that would appeal to that particular group and make it sound like it’s perfectly normal and right to agree.

4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 until enough people agree to sway public opinion (perceived or actual) towards normalizing the idea introduced in step 2.

5. Introduce the next step towards the final goal and repeat steps 1-4.

6. Repeat until you get what you want.

The Left did this with homosexuality and with the idea gender is fluid. Today, anyone who isn’t on board with gay men and women or think there are only two genders can get you “on the wrong side of history” as the Left likes to say. The Left is still in the early stages of getting trans people accepted as just one of the guys…or gals…or something, and it’s having some success.

Since this process works so well, why wouldn’t Leftists try it with drag?

To answer the second question, I really don’t care about drag queens on the whole. I don’t dig it, but I don’t judge anyone who does. Those who do drag and do it well are talented and often can fool the untrained eye. That’s how I met my first girlfriend, Tyrone.

But just like how drag artists use makeup and costuming to tone down elements that ruin the look, there are a number of people using drag as a cover for what they really want, which is apparently as many young boys as they can get their well-manicured hands on. These are the bad apples that are turning an adult activity into a poisonous applesauce.

I have known people who like to dress in drag, and underneath the make-up and clothing, they’re human beings. For that reason alone, I can’t cast a wide net as some. After all, there is Lady MAGA, a drag artist who was and may still be unabashedly a fan of Donald Trump. Granted, Lady MAGA is an exception rather than the rule, but there are bound to be others who quietly support Trump and the GOP or who don’t say anything because of what would happen to them if anyone found out they weren’t Leftists.

Only in Leftist America can someone be supported if they come out as gay, but be reviled for coming out as conservative.

Now, for the part that may get me some hate mail. Drag performances in and of themselves aren’t necessarily sexual in nature. They can be adult in nature, but that doesn’t make them sexual. Even when they get sexual in nature, that’s not automatically bad…when the target audience is fellow adults. When the target audience skews more towards eating boogers than eating caviar, that’s when members of the drag community crosses the line.

Take Drag Queen Story Hour, for example. Supporters say drag artists reading to children is a way to spark their imaginations and get them interested in reading. This approach has some merit, as children (and even some adults, like your humble correspondent) enjoy seeing colorful characters they recognize or like hanging out with them. Detractors say drag artists are trying to groom children into getting into drag, pedophilia, homosexuality, and other adult subjects they’re not intellectually or emotionally ready to understand yet. This approach also has merit, as children are impressionable and may try to imitate what they see and experience.

While both sides have points in their favors, there are still enough niggling points that I can’t support either. If a drag artist is reading The Very Hungry Caterpillar, it’s not necessarily an attempt to get your child into becoming the next RuPaul. If a drag artist is reading How To Get a Gerbil Out of Your Ass, that’s a different story altogether. For one, different creatures. But more importantly, different subject matter that wouldn’t be appropriate for m0st adults, let alone children.

Ah, there’s the vital concept: age-appropriate. Drag by its very nature is not age-appropriate for children because it requires a level of sophistication to understand and appreciate. Having it appear at events geared towards children is going to piss people off instead of fostering the aforementioned understanding and appreciation. Even if your goal really was just to get kids into reading, someone has to understand how it might be a shitty way of going about it.

Then, there are the “all ages” or “family friendly” drag shows. Both sides are guilty of mischaracterizing what goes on at drag shows. The anti-groomers want to make it sound like a significant number of these events actually involve children based on video footage of some of the more egregious examples. The pro-drag side want to make it sound like these events are family friendly and put the responsibility of children appearing at them on the parents. For those well-publicized events where drag artists are barely dressed around or actively encouraging lewd behavior from children in attendance, the only family friendly activities are those of the Mansons.

That quip would surely get me labeled as dragphobic and I would deeply care about how to respond to that…if I gave a fuck about what the GLAAD dipshits think about me. I neither fear nor hate drag artists, but I fear for their futures if the Left continues to sacrifice them to advance an ideological goal.

One of my Immutable Truths is “A movement’s worst enemy is the movement itself.” Right now, the worst enemies of the drag scene are the members who are using drag as a way to get close to children for sexual gratification. These are the ones getting all the attention and, thus, shaping the public image of what drag artists are like. Bad publicity may still be publicity, but it’s a letting-Joe-Biden-work-without-a-teleprompter level of horrible idea if the end goal is to get people not to care about drag.

And true to their core, GLAAD isn’t helping matters any by creating the dragphobia label. Drag artists, along with gays, lesbians, and trans people, don’t need GLAAD to help them gain acceptance. They need good PR, and GLAAD ain’t interested in that. They have an agenda to push like a drug dealer working straight commission, and they don’t care who gets hurt along the way, even if those being hurt are the people the organization are allegedly trying to help.

The truth is there are very few people who actually hate and/or fear drag. Most people on both sides of this issue are operating on a lack of knowledge, which is used to gin up an abundance of fear. Under those conditions, there can’t be understanding since there is no real trust between the sides. They are automatically conditioned to believe the worst in the other side because of what misinformation is getting released. To break this cycle, we need people to understand the issues and facts and then reach out with a genuine intent to fix the problems together. A pipe dream, perhaps, but it’s the only one that makes sense to me.

Oh, and as for that third question, I do want fries with that, and I hope you find use for your gender studies degree soon.