What a difference a couple of weeks make! It wasn’t that long ago that we were told outdoor protesting against overly oppressive state lockdown decisions made by a dumbass Governor where open-carry laws were followed would cause COVID-19 cases to skyrocket! (Spoiler Alert: they didn’t.) Now, we’re being told by the same people that protests against the death of George Floyd (some of which have turned violent and destructive) are totes cool.
And people wonder why I have a healthy distrust of public figures.
It’s clear politics have more to do with these contradictory positions than actual science, which has been a destructive force for decades within the scientific community. From climate change to the number of genders, ideological elements have made it possible for science to defy itself at the same time the Left tells us we need to listen to the experts. Of course, when the “experts” are Leftists, it’s like they’re saying to listen to, well, themselves.
Funny how that works, isn’t it?
The problem with politics becoming part of science is the former taints the integrity of the latter. With the scientific method, the scientist work toward finding a conclusion by objectively looking at the results of the experiments used. With politics added into the mix, the scientific method either works backwards (as with climate change) or disregarded altogether if the results don’t come out the way the Left wants (as with genders). As a result, we get studies where the results don’t make sense, which opens science up to (deserved) mockery.
As a fan of science, I take the Left’s perversion of science seriously and, admittedly, personally. We cannot simply ignore it when the science tells us we’re wrong. We either have to accept the results or try again. There is no third option. There isn’t a provision where the results don’t matter if they hurt our fee-fees. Accept or reject are the only choices.
That’s where politics taints the process. There’s an old saying, “The personal is political.” The Left takes this very seriously because it allows them to make anything political with the right framing. Once that happens, they can find/create allies to whatever cause they deem appropriate at the time.
Now, here’s the fun part. Once those causes lose traction with the public, the Left chucks them and their supporters aside. Of course, they will pick these causes and supporters up when it suits their needs (like to blame Republicans for what Leftists did to screw things up). If you question this, let me ask one question: How’s the water in Flint, Michigan, these days?
Not good, huh? My point precisely.
Leftists have always treated the black community as below them in the hierarchy of power, which is why you rarely see blacks in positions of real power within their ranks. They’re always on the stage with white Leftists, but only as bunting, and optional bunting at that. And when black Leftists do create organizations, it’s always as subsidiaries of the main hive-mind.
What does this have to do with the Left’s hypocrisy…I mean change of position on protests? Control (and I’m not talking about the Janet Jackson song). With the anti-lockdown protests, the Left couldn’t control the protesters. They were powerless to stop them, so the Left tried to get people to believe they were dangerous and that a love of freedom is equally dangerous. However, with the protesters of George Floyd’s murder, the Left controls the narrative and can stoke the fires to make the tensions worse. And once the passion dies down, the Left will forget George Floyd even existed.
Just like they forgot about Flint’s water problem.
And just like they forgot about COVID-19 when it came to the George Floyd protests, even after these same folks shouted about how dangerous it was for people to be out in public without masks and social distancing.
Author: Thomas
I'm a writer and a ranger and a young boy bearing arms. And two out of the three don't count.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
I had a piece already written about a lighter subject, but recent events out of Minnesota changed the best-laid plans of mice and bloggers.
When four members of the Minneapolis Police Department detained and eventually killed George Floyd for attempting to pass counterfeit money, it started off a chain of events resulting in property being destroyed, people being injured, and general discord around the world. And, as you might expect, politics got injected into the situation early and often.
Enter Representative Ilhan Omar and the other members of “The Squad.” The Minnesota Congresswoman took to Twitter to help promote donations to ActBlue.com, a Leftist website, under the auspices of racial justice. What is that? I’m glad you asked, otherwise I’m out a topic for the Lexicon.
racial justice
What the Left thinks it means – getting justice for disenfranchised people of color
What it really means – tilting the scales of justice to favor people of color at the expense of actual justice
There is a reason statues of Lady Justice wear a blindfold; justice is supposed to be blind. Unfortunately, it hasn’t been when it comes to police officers and black criminals. In the former case, sentences tend to be on the light side, while in the latter case, those sentences are harsher. And it’s been going on for far too long.
Hence, the Left’s renewed call for racial justice. This is another term the Left devised that combines a powerful word that appeals to most Americans (justice) and adds a politically-charged modifier (racial) designed to advance an agenda. In this case, the goal is to take any negative feelings about racism and apply it to the judicial system to allow blacks and other minorities a chance to experience what the Left thinks/knows whites have enjoyed for so long.
The scary part is the Left has a point. Blacks and whites do not have equal justice in America, no matter how hard we try to ignore it. And before you start throwing out statistics about what percentage of blacks commit what percentage of crimes, the fact it took days to arrest the officer who choked George Floyd and at least contributed to his death shows how screwed up our justice system is.
Having said that, the Left’s solution isn’t to fix the problems, but screw them up even more by using race as even more of a factor than it already is. Of course, that’s by design. One of the cornerstones of Leftist ideology is to undermine the American legal system and institute a global legal system, an idea most American Presidents have rejected. But, the Left doesn’t give up that easily and has made progress towards their goals. The very fact we have four Representatives on record advocating for racial justice in an attempt to raise funds is proof of how emboldened they feel right now.
By adding race into a court proceeding, it guarantees the results will not be just because it prevents the jury from doing its sworn job. It’s not to try to figure out what race deserves what punishment; it’s to determine guilt or innocence based on the law and the arguments presented by the attorneys involved. Any thought outside of those two elements muddies the waters, making actual justice harder to obtain.
Granted, I’m a white guy and have undoubtedly received preferential treatment because of it, even though I don’t want it. We are supposed to be equal under the law, so I prefer to be treated equally. No, that doesn’t mean I want to be treated as poorly as blacks have. It means I want blacks to be on an even playing field with me. Racial justice doesn’t strive to do that. Instead, it strives to make race a major factor in determining whether I go free if I’m found not guilty or punished more severely if I’m found guilty.
In trying to bring racial justice to fruition, the Left has made justice racist. Good job, I guess?
Meanwhile, we should not be scared to point out the disparities between how blacks and whites are treated. It doesn’t start with looting, violence, and vandalism. It’s starts with a conversation so we can learn from each other and build a stronger relationship as a result. And, yes, that means we white folk are going to have to be willing to listen and accept how blacks have been treated overall, but it will lead to a much greater result, one that will make The Squad’s call for racial justice obsolete.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
There are times when I have to really dig to find Leftist Lexicon subjects that will excite, entertain, and inform you, gentle readers. This week is not one of them, and I have former Vice President Joe Biden to thank for it! During an online interview on The Breakfast Club, Vice President Biden said “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.” That’s bad enough on its own, but at the time he said it, he was speaking to a young black man, and his tone was, to put it mildly, scolding. After Biden’s campaign surrogates and members of the media (who are pretty much the same people) tried to convince people the former Vice President’s sentiments weren’t racist, he later apologized…to a completely different group of blacks.
The Left pins some of its hopes for 2020 Presidential and Congressional victories on the black vote, which has been predominantly Democrat for a couple of generations now. However, the 2016 Presidential election showed blacks moving away from the Democrats and warming up to the possibility of voting for a Republican, or at least voting for Donald Trump. With this key voting bloc being so important to the Left, it’s time we take a closer look at it.
the black vote
What the Left thinks it means – black voters who have been disenfranchised from society due to racism and classism, a key component to any campaign
What it really means – black voters who the Left thinks can be convinced to overlook their mistreatment from the Left by throwing money at them and giving lip service to their concerns
Before I begin, I realize I’m white (or Honkey-American, if you prefer). To many, that makes my commentary on blacks as valid as Elizabeth Warren’s claims to be Native American. If that’s what you think, that’s fine, but I think I have some insights that you won’t get anywhere else (mainly because I’m the only one crazy/stupid enough to advance them).
The Left has taken blacks for granted for quite a while now, and with good reason (at least to them). The Left’s default position is blacks, or any minority for that matter, need people to speak up for them within the current power structure. Barring electing people of a certain color who parrot the Left’s squawking points, that duty falls to…rich white Leftists. Funny how that works out, isn’t it? Either you have to be a rich white Leftist to speak for minorities or talk and act like one to get ahead.
Even for a Honkey-American dude like me, that’s messed up.
For all the talk from the Left about respecting a person’s agency, they simply don’t apply it. Then again, the Left doesn’t actually care about the plight of anyone outside of their cul de sac in their gated communities. Remember the Flint water situation? Still hasn’t been addressed yet, even though Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, is Governor. And who does that affect most? Blacks, unfortunately. Granted, the Right has been as effective as Nancy Pelosi’s impeachment of the President at attracting black votes, but in recent years we have seen black conservatives and Republicans become more visible, for lack of a better term. And, of course, white Leftists either pretend they don’t exist or call them racial sellouts.
But the Left is better on racial issues. Just ask them.
This may sound like a “not all X” statement, but black voters aren’t a monolith. They may tend to vote Democrat, but there are plenty who not only see through the Left’s high-minded rhetoric, but actively push back. And, much like their white counterparts, each has his or her own style. Whether you like sober and intellectual rhetoric like Dr. Thomas Sowell or the take-no-crap-nor-prisoners style of Candice Owens, you will find a greater diversity among black conservatives than you find among Leftists, let alone black Leftists.
That’s how Donald Trump was able to do better with black voters in 2016 than Hillary Clinton. Well, that, and she’s a horrible candidate. Trump not only reached out to the black community, but he offered them an opportunity to take a long, hard look at their environment to see if they wanted the change Barack Obama promised, but never quite delivered. In his time as President, it’s hard to overlook the strides Trump has made to improve conditions in the black community and act on some of the issues they’ve been talking about for years, like prison and sentencing reform. If black voters look at actions instead of words, they have the opportunity to put Donald Trump back in the White House.
And it’s that possibility that scares the Left. Even though Joe Biden walked back his comments and his fans and the media (again, pretty much the same people) are trying to turn this situation into a non-issue, it is an issue on a grander scale. Biden tried to wave it off as his being “cavalier,” but one has to ask why he felt comfortable saying it in the moment. And we can’t overlook the dismissive and scolding tone of the initial statement. Within the context of the moment, it doesn’t make a good case for black voters to pull the lever for Biden.
Also, this opens him up to a lot of scrutiny of his past statements. Spoiler Alert: Joe Biden has made some questionable statements about blacks, which will certainly be used as attack ads by the Trump campaign. Plus, there’s the snubbing of up-and-coming Leftist superstar and self-identified Governor of Georgia, Stacey Abrams. During a recent joint interview, Biden had a chance to introduce her as his running mate, only to ask others (read: white Leftist women) to be vetted for the position.
Looks like Abrams isn’t the only person who will be relegated to self-identified leadership in the near future.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
If there’s a figure in the Trump Administration that is a lightning rod of criticism (outside of the President himself), it’s Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. Some of the criticism (she doesn’t have an education background) is legitimate, while some of it (she wants to take away victims’ rights on college campuses) is as valid as a Nigerian prince’s email. It’s not secret Secretary DeVos has been pushing for changes to Title IX that would give accused sexual assault attackers the opportunity to defend themselves against allegations.
Enter our good friends, the American Civil Liberties Union. For decades, they have championed rules of evidence and due process. What did they do? They…sided with victims’ rights group and filed a lawsuit against Secretary DeVos to try to prevent the proposed Title IX changes. Yes, you read that right. The ACLU came down against due process on college campuses.
If you’re still scratching your head over this, keep reading. I have a lot to unpack here.
ACLU
What the Left thinks it means – an organization whose sole purpose is to defend civil liberties against those who would seek to undermine them
What it really means – an organization whose commitment to civil liberties is spotty at best these days
Before we get into the specifics of the lawsuit against Secretary DeVos, it’s important to understand the ACLU isn’t what it used to be. Throughout much of its history in the 20th Century, it defended everyone from conscientious objectors to neo-Nazis. Their commitment to civil liberties was unquestioned, and justifiably so.
Even so, there were parts that would cause fans of civil liberties to take pause. Their commitment to the Second Amendment is weaker than Richard Simmons’ handshake. Their interpretation of the freedom of religion section of the First Amendment pretty much ignores the whole “Congress shall make no law” verbiage and comes down that any entity even remotely funded by Congress can’t express any religious sentiments (well, except for Islam because…reasons).
If these were the only issues, the ACLU could skate past any criticism. Yeaaaah, about that. There are a lot of issues beyond that. In recent years, the ACLU has decided to give up its commitment to civil liberties for everyone to whatever civil liberties the Left wants to promote this week. In other words, the ACLU has gone from the American Civil Liberties Union to Always Cucking to Leftist Underlings.
Which brings us to the situation with Title IX. Previous Administrations attempted to walk a tightrope between protecting equal treatment of male and female students and maintaining a common sense approach to enforcing that equal treatment. Then, President Barack Obama came along and decided due process on colleges campuses was best handled by letting people not in the legal profession hold kangaroo courts where the accused is presumed guilty even if proven innocent. But remember, President Obama is a Constitutional scholar and the smartest man to ever be President (without knowing what was going on without watching the news), so the Left thought it was okay. Besides, men are icky, amirite? How dare Betsy DeVos try to prevent colleges and universities from trampling on Constitutional rights in the act of sweeping bad press under the rug?
Although I have some misgivings about Secretary DeVos, she’s in the right here, and for the ACLU to ignore their previous stances in defense of due process shows how far left they’ve gone. Yes, there are scumbags like Brock Turner on college campuses, but there are also scumbags like “Mattress Girl” who invented sexual assault charges out of whole cloth and were rewarded for it by the same Leftists who tell us repeatedly victims tell the truth. The fact there is such a dichotomy in dealing with something as serious as sexual assault under the auspices of Title IX with the backing of a civil liberties group should have more people outraged than there are.
I’m sure no one from the ACLU will be reading this, but it has to be said: you have utterly lost your ever-loving minds (and I say this as someone who remembers when a couple of your members went to bat for NAMBLA). Civil liberties aren’t subject to ideological litmus tests; either you’re all in or all out. What’s truly scary is what impact this lawsuit will have on justice as a whole. Sure, your position is that relaxing the protections you say are in Title IX will undercut sexual assault victims and make them feel as though they won’t be believed, but there is another party in this equation that will definitely get the shaft if you get what you want. The falsely accused get railroaded under the current system precisely because their civil liberties are ignored. They don’t get to face their accusers, offer an alternate opinion of what happened, or even have an attorney to cross-examine the accusers (if they’re even allowed to represent the accused in the first place). At the risk of invoking the wrath of “whataboutism” from the Left, I would say you would be far less forgiving if this happened in a courtroom in, say, Alabama.
And that’s the problem.
When you base your commitment to civil liberties on what will get you more Leftist street cred, you erroneously conclude only the Left cares about civil liberties. News Flash for you, kids. They don’t care about civil liberties until they can find a way to get support and money for supporting it, and it seems you’re okay with it.
For the purposes of this point, I did a quick search to see how the ACLU responded to Senator Kamala Harris’ practices of mass incarceration of blacks while she was Attorney General of California. How many hits did I get? If you guessed 0, you’d be right! But I did find a lot of press releases praising her work in the Senate defending “protesters of color” from surveillance efforts. Just a bit of a disconnect there, kids.
The ACLU should no longer be considered the benchmark for the protection of civil liberties because they’ve long since given up any pretense of living up to the principles their name suggests they have. And with their recent lawsuit against Betsy DeVos, they’ve brought their own backhoe so they can bury the last remnants of their credibility.
Circular Firing Squad, Anyone?
If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a million times: the Left has no idea how to plan for the long term. Their nature is to gain quick victories that turn pyrrhic over time. Of course, I thoroughly enjoy seeing that because it reminds me of the Road Runner cartoons. Wile E. Coyote (suuuuuuperrrr geeeeeeniussssss) would always think he had the upper hand, but his plans to catch the Road Runner would always fail.
Aside from taking a walk down Old School Cartoon Lane, what does this have to do with anything? Well, the Left is back to the drawing board with another can’t-miss scheme that is sure to blow in up their faces yet again. It’s no secret the Left hates the wealthy, but usually their hate is dependent heavily on how heavily those rich people donate to their causes.
Recently, Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos have come under fire from the Left for straying a little off the Leftist reservation. Musk has been on record telling people the current shutdown due to COVID-19 needs to end and has even butted heads with Alameda County, California, because he wants to reopen his Tesla factory and allow any of his employees who wanted to go back to work to do so. On the Bezos front, it was reported he would be making one trillion dollars, which angered Leftists who a) don’t want anyone to have that much money, and b) use Amazon for just about everything they need during the COVID-19 situation.
To put it mildly, this is a puzzling situation. Musk is very much on board with electric cars and renewable energy and Bezos is a consistent donor to the DNC and Leftist causes. You would think Leftists would give these two the Golden Ticket for what they’ve done. Instead, what they’re getting is something that looks like chocolate, but sure doesn’t taste or smell like it. And we have people like the Socialist Socialite to thank for it.
Over the past 10+ years, the Left has convinced themselves they have the power to affect change (even if people like the Socialist Socialite can’t make it) and have installed themselves in positions that would allow them to do just that. Then, when these folks start coming up with wish lists of programs, funding, and the like, the people in power above them have two choices: push back or fold. And for the most part, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has been folding like a poker player having a cold streak that can only be measured in degrees Kelvin.
This also puts less crazy Democrats in a rough spot. If they don’t at least sound like they back the more radical members of their party, they will get attacked by said radicals. If they do at least sound like they back the more radical members of their party, they will get shunned by people with the money to help their reelection campaigns, which will help more radical members get their seats. Then, the ousted members get tossed aside and forgotten, no matter what they accomplished or how much they advanced Leftist causes. It’s all about the now, baby!
And that’s what Musk and Bezos are experiencing right now. No matter how much money they give, no matter how closely they walk in lockstep, they are ultimately expendable if they don’t produce what the Left wants at a given moment. COVID-19 has given the Left a perfect opportunity to keep people under their thumbs. Having people like Musk and Bezos buck that trend by wanting to work or by providing a service during the outbreak works against the Left’s objective to keep people down as long as possible. Since they’re not on board, the Left has to destroy them by painting them as evil rich guys (unlike a similarly wealthy peer, Bill Gates, who continues to do the Left’s bidding under any circumstances). Gates is helping the world, while Bezos and Musk are only in it for greed and want to endanger the poor so they can get richer.
Although wealth envy works on a lot of people, what Bezos and Musk are doing should be seen not through the eyes of envy, but through the eyes of reason. Running a company like Tesla or Amazon takes more talent and knowhow than the Left possesses in economic affairs. Instead of believing the rich steal from the poor, we should recognize it’s people like Musk and Bezos who help keep the country going. I may disagree with their politics and business practices sometimes, but I won’t let that stop me from acknowledging their contributions to America under COVID-19.
On the other hand, we should question the Left’s approach to this situation because it makes no sense. Politically, it puts otherwise acceptable candidates who could get crossover votes in jeopardy to cater to niche candidates. Economically, it puts the Left in a bad position because they look, sound, and act like they want the economy to grind to a halt. Socially, Americans are getting tired of being in lockdown, especially when we’re moving from spring into summer. Medically/scientifically, the lockdowns are starting to negatively affect us to the point we may get sicker if we wait to “flatten the curve” even as the curve appears to be flattening as we speak. There is no way the Left comes out of this looking good, even if they manage to convince people to keep panicking. At some point, even fear and loathing will give way to a desire to go outside and live.
And not even the Left has the ability to overcome a good bonfire.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Although COVID-19 put the kibosh on a lot of festivities this year, we still had the Pulitzer Prizes awarded. Aren’t we lucky? Among the wieners…I mean winners were reporters who wrote about global climate change being bad, Vladimir Putin being bad, and President Donald Trump being bad. You know, the same topics the media report on during any day ending with a Y.
And speaking of Y, why are these reporters winning an award for journalistic excellence when there is very little deviation in the subject matter? That, dear readers, is a fine topic of discussion.
the Pulitzer Prize
What the Left thinks it means – a prestigious award given to the very best in the journalism field
What it really means – an award as worthless as the reporters who win them these days
I wouldn’t want to be a journalist or a reporter today. The pay sucks, the hours are as erratic as Joe Biden going off script, and more often than not the only time you get recognized is when you screw up or get nominated for a Pulitzer. And more often than not, you get known for the former because most people don’t care about the latter.
So, why should we care? The people who are getting nominated are the ones who have an incredible, albeit waning somewhat, amount of power to shape narratives. There was a recent story that spread like wildfire that President Trump had a financial interest in a company producing hydroxychloroquine, a drug he promoted as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The press reported it without highlighting the fact the interest was 1) part of a mutual fund, and 2) so financially insignificant he could have found more money under his couch cushions. Even after the facts came out, people believed the initial truncated reporting.
And we’re no longer just dealing with half-truths being heralded, either. One of this year’s Pulitzers went to Nikole Hannah-Jones for the 1619 Project, a major New York Times undertaking reviewing the history of slavery in America. And by “reviewing,” I mean “making shit up.” One of the major contentions Hannah-Jones made was the American Revolution was fought to keep slavery alive here. Yeah, nothing about taxation without representation, unfair treatment of the colonists, and, oh yeah, “The Shot Heard ‘Round the World” that sparked the American Revolution (and included the death of Crispus Attucks, who just happened to be black). It was totes about slavery, yo!
Yet, in spite of the fact historians called out the multiple historical inaccuracies and Hannah-Jones promised to revise her derisive drivel before it gets published as a book, the Pulitzer Prize Board shrugged its collective shoulders and gave her the award anyway. Granted, it was for Commentary and not actual reporting, but the fact she was rewarded for making up easily refuted shit should tell you all you need to know about the Pulitzer Prize and journalism in general today.
While the New York Times can pat itself on the back for winning it, the real payoff is the credibility it gives them with fans and the general public. Joe Sixpack may not be able to name many, if any, Pulitzer winners, but they may recognize the name and extrapolate it means something good for the recipients. But we shouldn’t let the award dazzle us into thinking the Times is worth a damn. Let’s not forget the Times keeps Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman on staff to write about economics, and he’s an idiot on the subject. Then again, it would explain how Hannah-Jones got her job…
In preparation for this week’s Lexicon, I did a little research on past Pulitzer winners, as well as the members who decide who get them. (The sacrifices I make for you…) To put it mildly, it’s mostly a Leftist circle jerk. There are the occasional exceptions to the rule, but it’s safe to say there are some real journalists getting shafted so the “right” people win and the media outlets they work for can pretend they’re actually doing something great for the journalism field.
Of course, they’re not. The profession has undergone a death by a thousand newspaper cuts, combined with a push (or in some cases a gentle nudge) to advance an agenda at the expense of the truth. Nowadays, bloggers like your humble correspondent are the ones digging through the layers of bullshit to get to the heart of a story and then tell it to the world. And we do it without killing trees or brain cells.
That’s more than I can say for the Pulitzer Prize “winners” this year.
Sorry, We’re Open
To put it mildly, COVID-19 has put a strain on the world and its citizens. Whether it’s dealing with the virus itself, the stress of dealing with a new normal we hadn’t anticipated, having to spend more time inside than Boo Radley, or wondering how we will pay the bills with so many places shut down, we are all on edge. This tension has been heightened by recent actions and reactions from the government and the governed.
Let’s look at Michigan, for example. Governor Gretchen Whitmer has used COVID-19 as a way to shut down some businesses and keep others open under the auspices of what was considered essential. Once news started coming out about what was considered essential (selling lottery tickets) and what wasn’t (being able to buy car seats for children, which is a state requirement in Michigan), people started getting angry, leading to armed, but peaceful, protesters surrounding the state capitol building. Similar acts of civil disobedience also occurred from California to Florida.
The Left tells us the protesters are a public health threat and some have even called them terrorists (usually with the totally non-racist descriptor “white” in front of it). The Right tells us the government is overreaching in an attempt to use COVID-19 as a means to grab up more of our rights with no expectation of giving any of them back, not to mention cripple the economy to give Democrats a better chance of defeating President Donald Trump in November. So, who’s right?
They both are. They’re also both wrong.
This is an uncomfortable position for me as someone who not only sees COVID-19 as a legitimate medical threat, but also sees government overreach as a threat. Trying to reconcile the scientific facts and my libertarian leanings has been harder than Bill Clinton on a Viagra bender at the Moonlight Bunny Ranch after Hillary buys it (and I’m not talking cattle futures). Here’s where my head’s at.
COVID-19 isn’t a seasonal cold, nor a variation on that theme. It’s a virus we haven’t dealt with sufficiently yet, so we’re having to play catch-up. And we’re not doing a great job of it. I am someone in a high-risk category for various health reasons, so I take the warnings very seriously since I have a vested interest in avoiding contracting it. Beyond that, however, I feel a responsibility to my fellow citizens not to spread it if I can help it. It may be uncomfortable and keep me feeling hotter than a ghost pepper, but I wear a mask when I go into stores and other high-traffic areas if only to avoid having to deal with the guilt I’d feel if there was a chance I spread COVID-19 to someone else.
Yet, I cant sit by and agree that every government action is done with the best of intentions. Governor Whitmer alone has been an example of what Leftists do when they’re given limitless power. Other government officials from governors to local politicians have undercut the Constitution under the guise of protecting people. As much as these bureaucratic weasels want us to believe even being out in a public park while practicing social distancing will make COVID-19 spread like wildfire, the fact remains the survival rate is still in the high 90% range. Even if it’s asymptomatic, it’s not a definite death sentence and certainly not if you’re not in a high-risk group. Funny how the self-professed “Party of Science” ignores the actual science here.
Being a small-l libertarian, I have a general rule of thumb: leave me and my rights alone, and I’ll do the same for you. Even with COVID-19, I adhere to that. But with rights and power there are responsibilities, and both sides of the shutdown controversy have forgotten this. Yes, the Constitution says we have the right to peaceably assemble, but with what we don’t know about COVID-19, it’s important we assemble peaceably and safely. And, yes, we have to watch out for our fellow human beings, but enforcing the letter of the law to the point of absurdity isn’t helping anyone get or stay healthy.
The problem is we as a society don’t think on so grand a scale. We are stuck in the moment and what we want at any given time, regardless of who gets hurt in the process. Why else would there be a run on toilet paper when COVID-19 is a respiratory virus? Simple. People didn’t care about anyone but themselves. Although looking out for number one may seem good in the short term, it almost always backfires in the long run. Good luck with your 43 jumbo packs of toilet paper you can’t return. Hope you can find a use for all of it. One, maybe two trips to Chipotle?
So, maybe there is a middle ground to be had, but it’s going to take a lot of work on ourselves and society. You want to really help medical personnel right now? Don’t put yourself in harm’s way if at all possible. Exercise a bit of caution in public, and exercise your freedom of expression to let your elected officials know how you feel. Then, take care of yourselves and look out for others. A sense of community will go much further than armed protests and overbearing laws in ending the COVID-19 shutdowns.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Since Tara Reade came forward with allegations former Vice President Joe Biden sexually assaulted her, the Left has been in two modes: attack the accuser and the Right, and defend a man who in on video sniffing females’ hair. When people of all political stripes point out the Left’s double standard, the Left talks about “fake outrage” and suggests the people calling them out don’t really care about women, just scoring political points.
You know, like they did with Brett Kavanaugh?
However, it is interesting to look at how the Left uses outrage to achieve ideological goals. Before we do that, let’s define the term.
outrage
What the Left thinks it means – an expression of righteous anger over a grave injustice
What it really means – the rhetorical equivalent of holding your breath to get your way
Today’s society is an emotional minefield. Say something, do something, or believe something that offends a Leftist’s feefees, and you are subject to a world of hurt. If you’re lucky, they will stalk you, find out every piece of information they can about you and release it to the world, protest in front of your house, leave threatening messages for you and your family, contact your employer to get you fired, and make you look like Sybil’s crazier cousin. Just think of what they might do if you did something really bad!
This is only possible due to outrage. Leftists love mobs because they give the impression of popular opinion without the niggling little detail of confirming whether the mob actually represents popular opinion. The other aspect of this is volume, as in loudness. A mob can make a lot of noise, which underlines the impression of public opinion being on its side. It, too, fails to go the extra step to confirm whether the public agrees with the mob.
Let’s look at ANTIFA, for example. This group of happy-go-lucky miscreants make a lot of noise and come out in droves, and the Left uses them to justify their positions on social injustice. It’s a win-win for them…until ANTIFA starts breaking the law and the Left has to pretend they don’t agree with ANTIFA’s methods (Spoiler Alert: they do). And all of this is made possible through outrage.
And, unfortunately, outrage works. Humans have a natural desire to be accepted by a community, and anything that threatens that makes us defensive. Imagine a bunch of blue-haired pink pussy hat wearing Leftists appearing outside your house saying you were Adolf Hitler. The most obvious response is to deny it and try to persuade others (and possibly the mob) you aren’t. Some will believe you, but most will either keep quiet or agree with the mob to avoid having the mob come after them. Or at least to try to get the blue-haired pink pussy hat brigade to stay out of their begonias.
Here’s the funny thing: the Left is always outraged about something, which is as close to a perpetual motion machine as we will see in our lifetimes. As a result, the world outside of their ideological bubble will tick them off at the drop of a microaggression, and we will all have to walk through the resulting minefield while wearing clown shoes. It’s not a matter of if we’ll offend them; it’s a matter of when.
This brings us back to fake outrage, which is a way for the Left to defend themselves against those who see what they do as fake. The Left believes all of their motives are noble and anyone who doesn’t agree is ignoble. Therefore, all of their fake outrage is real and all of our real outrage is fake. And, yes, I realize this makes no sense, but the Left don’t care about facts and logic, only feelings.
Oddly enough, that is exactly how to overcome the Left’s outrage. They need to feel it, but we don’t. If we accept what they believe to be true, we surrender the rhetorical high ground to them. If we don’t, all they have to fall back on is their outrage, which inevitably escalates and makes them seem a lot less persuasive and a lot more cray-cray. Eventually, the line between true outrage and abject insanity gets so blurred as to be non-existent, and the Left is pretty much tap-dancing on the line as it is. As a result, it’s easy to turn their outrage against them by denying them the oxygen for their outrage bonfire.
This isn’t to say the Left is completely full of bullshit when they get outraged. Most of the time, yes, but sometimes they do bring legitimate points to the table, albeit couched in layers of bullshit. I do believe there is a stigma around victims of sexual assault and it needs to be called out no matter who it is maintaining the stigma. On the flip side, there are also people who are unscrupulous enough to make up sexual assault allegations for any number of reasons, which furthers the stigma. I observe Tara Reade’s allegations with the same critical eye I used with Christine Blasey Ford’s: there may be something there, but we need a full investigation to be sure to make sure we move forward with the right course of action. One based not on outrage, but on facts.
The Left doesn’t agree. Whether it’s male college students, a Supreme Court nominee, or a former Vice President, their course of action is the same: protect the Left, no matter how absurd it makes them look. Knowing this makes it possible to see the Left’s outrage for what it is: a temper tantrum designed to get people to knuckle under to whatever they want, only to have them throw another one the next time they want something. As any parent who has had to deal with this from their children will tell you, it never ends well.
The Chicks Have Come Home to Roost
Remember when the Left went crazy over leaked audio of President Donald Trump talking about grabbing women by a part of the body referred to by a nickname for a cat? They still talk about it today (while leaving out important details of the audio that add context…funny thing, that). Now, we have former Vice President and current presumed front runner for the Democrat nomination for the 2020 Presidency, whose history contains a lot of weird and pervy incidents that could normally be brushed off as “Joe being Joe.”
Enter Tara Reade. No, not the co-star of the “Sharknado” franchise, but a former staffer who worked with Biden who is now claiming he not only grabbed the part that is a nickname for a cat but put his fingers in there. And the Left’s response? They’ve been recycling the same defenses they used for President Bill Clinton when he was accused of harassing Paula Jones. Good thing it was Earth Day recently!
This isn’t shocking to me because if the Left didn’t have double standards they wouldn’t have standards at all. Even after the #MeToo, #TimesUp, and #BelieveAllWomen became a thing for all of a few weeks, I knew it would only be a matter of time before the Left would have to address the sexual skeletons in their own closets. When that happened, we would see their commitment to protecting women from sexual assault by powerful men was as solid as pre-chilled Jello.
Further complicating matters is the latest hashtag, #DropOutBiden, which is a movement to get Mr. Biden to drop out of the 2020 Presidential race because of Ms. Reade’s allegations. In other words, the Left wants a do-over after agreeing to the rules of the game and watching their team get crushed like grapes at a wine-making marathon. On its face, it makes some sense because it allows the nomination process to reflect the will of the voters (or at least the voters whose will it is to make someone like Biden President) while simultaneously allowing Reade’s story to be heard and digested.
Hey, Leftists? Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh would like a word. Take a seat. In fact, take all of them. He’ll bring the beer.
I would be dishonest if I didn’t mention there are holes in Reade’s story that have yet to be adequately explained. I would also be dishonest if I didn’t recognize the Left’s scrutiny of her story far exceeds the scrutiny paid to Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s story, which had as many holes as Reade’s story has, if not more. By asking Joe Biden to drop out of the race, it gives the Left some cover for its hypocrisy while attempting to shore up the votes of more progressive voters who wouldn’t back Biden if he were the last candidate on Earth.
Put simply, they’re treating alleged sexual assault as a political issue. Again.
In fact, the Left makes sex political whenever they can. From gay rights to how to address allegations of sexual assault, the Left sees each issue through the prism of how it can be used to gain or retain political power. They want to beat President Trump in November, so they are willing to overlook the fundamental flaws of a candidate, even if those flaws involve backtracking on their previously stated ideological positions. Believe All Women becomes Believe All Women Who Agree With Us and To Hell With Anyone Else. But, hey, at least you can kill your babies in the womb, right?
To me, both the defense of Joe Biden and the call for him to resign show the indifference the Left has for women specifically and minorities in general. They honestly believe people won’t notice the change in stance and approach, and when dealing with many of their ideological allies, they’re right. They would rather be hypocrites for the sake of achieving a favorable political aim than to be consistent and risk losing power. The people directly impacted by sexual assault are merely pawns in the game with no chance of ever being a Queen. And now the Left is trying to play both sides of the board so they can’t lose.
Of course, this only works if people continue to play the game the Left is. As with any and all accusations of sexual crimes, I want them investigated fairly and honestly because a failure to do so undercuts the legal process and subjects victims to further hardships. This isn’t a political game, kids. People’s lives are ruined by real and falsified allegations, and no amount of political power gained will make that okay in my book.
As far as whether Joe Biden should drop out, I think it’s too late. The Democratic National Committee had their chance to vet their candidates and they opted to punt, even when the former Vice President’s escapades were well-known for decades and have been circulating on this little thing the kids call the Internet for a while now. The Left can’t plead ignorance here, nor can they redo the nomination process now to allow someone else to get it. The soonest they would be able to change the nominee without creating a massive schism would be at their convention this summer.
Provided, of course, COVID-19 doesn’t prevent either party’s convention from convening. I’ll admit I’m a bit of a parliamentary procedure geek, so this isn’t something that most people would pay attention to. In order for any business to be conducted at a meeting where officers are elected, there has to be a minimum number of voting members, called a quorum. Without that, there’s no nominee and no way to adjust the rules to choose a new one. (Of course, this plays into the fear-porn the Left is trying to peddle that President Trump will suspend the 2020 elections, but that’s a delusion and a blog post for another time.)
The Chinese curse “May you live in interesting times” is apropos for America right now, but for none so much as the Left. As they tiptoe around the allegations against Joe Biden while holding President Donald Trump to a different standard for just talking about what the former Vice President is accused of doing, the Left is banking on people not seeing the double standard or the political motivations behind their actions and reactions. Unfortunately for them, their action and inaction don’t pass the smell test.
To borrow a hashtag, Leftists, Time’s Up.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
I have been waiting a long time to write about this topic (partially because of the hacking attack on the site, partially because this is a fun topic).
With Coronavirus-A-Palooza running roughshod around the world like a Guns N Roses concert with security supplied by the Hell’s Angels, people look for someone or something to guide us. One such something is the World Health Organization. The Left loves the WHO for multiple reasons, with the main one being…Orange Man Bad.
Yet, are they truly the go-to folks for a global pandemic? That’s a matter of opinion, just like these Leftist Lexicon pieces you kind folks keep reading and circulating. However, unlike some of the people rooting for the WHO, my opinions tend not to be tainted by anti-Trump ideology. Plus, I tend to bathe regularly.
World Health Organization
What the Left thinks it means – a team of professionals devoted to scientific discovery and the advancement of medical science as they combat global health issues
What it really means – a group that is to medicine what the United Nations is to global stability
The real definition isn’t an accident. The WHO is a part of the UN, which should raise more than a few eyebrows considering what the latter group is known to have done. Unless, of course, you’re cool with child rape, giving a non-existent country more of a platform than a member nation, and allowing such human rights champions as Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Syria spots on the UN Human Rights Council unironically.
Well, at least the WHO is above board, right? Yeaaaaah, not so much. Just with the COVID-19 situation, we’ve seen them proclaim there was no evidence of person-to-person transmittal of the virus, even as it was literally happening. The head of the WHO, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, spoke glowingly of the way China handled the COVID-19 outbreak in January, even as China hid their real numbers. Although his name would get you at least a Triple Word Score in Scrabble, his value has fallen more than oil prices, and just about as rapidly.
Although this begs a lot of questions, one of the primary ones should be what the WHO actually does. If you listen to the Left, you would think they’re hard at work in laboratories working around the clock trying to figure out how to combat COVID-19. Which, of course, is bullshit. As you might expect with any organization connected to the UN and with the word “World” in its name, it’s a bureaucratic nightmare that would make the DMV look like The Flash.
And just like with any bureaucracy, the WHO has a nasty spending habit with few tangible results. According to an internal report, the WHO spent nearly $192 million in 2018 on…travel. And that number was down from what they spent in 2017 on the same expenses. And what did the World Health Organization spend in 2018 on medical supplies and materials? Half of what it spent on travel. And we’re not talking about economy class flights here. The WHO lives large off our tax dollars.
That’s right, kids. We are the number one financial contributor to the WHO, even higher than the UN itself. Which is exactly what we do with the UN: pay out the nose for service that we would ask to see the manager for if we received in real life. Especially if we were named Karen. (Yes, I went there.)
The aforementioned internal report also mentioned the WHO spends its time trying to find medical solutions for social and economic problems, which takes it out of the realm of medicine and into the world of Leftist ideology. The Left keeps trying to apply science to problems that have little to do with science because it lends credibility to their hare-brained ideas that have yet to actually work. Most people, unfortunately, buy into this line of thinking because we’ve been taught to listen to the experts. Well, at least until the experts prove the Left wrong.
The Left needs the WHO to be the experts with COVID-19 because it ticks all of their ideological boxes: a bloated unaccountable entity focused more on social justice than actually doing its job. Plus, more people are going to reflexively believe the WHO over President Trump’s COVID-19 task force solely because of the name. This is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority, where the seemingly logical conclusion is based solely on because someone with presumed superiority over us says so. That is the go-to Leftist position because they believe they are the experts.
Yet, when you consider what the WHO is doing with the money we’re giving them and what they should be doing, it’s hard for me to say they are the experts we need to be listening to on COVID-19. It’s clear they’re operating either as a willing culprit in the whitewashing of China’s poor handling of the disease or useful idiots doing China’s bidding at the expense of its reputation. Just like CNN!
And until the WHO can show the class they are completing their assignments within the set parameters, we should trust them as much as we trust Joe Biden’s memory. Given how they’re more enamored with cushy travel perks than with decidedly non-cushy jobs working on behalf of the world’s health, I’m guessing we’ll see that happening about the time Stacey Abrams accepts losing in 2018.