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

If you listen to the Left for any amount of time (and, to be honest, why would you?), eventually the conversation will come to race. And by “eventually” I mean within microseconds. Recently, there’s been a new term that, surprise surprise, directly connects to race: white rage. Whether it’s CNN’s Brian “Mr. Potato Head” Stetler claiming Fox News’ Tucker Carlson stokes white rage or current Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark “Not Vanilli” Milley testifying the military should take training to avoid white rage, it seems the Left wants to make it a thing, and a racial thing at that.

But, just like with Critical Race Theory, it’s not exactly clear what white rage is. Good thing there’s someone who can cut through the bullshit and get to the heart of the matter. But since that person is off, you’ll have to let me do it.

white rage

What the Left thinks it means – white people’s reaction when their power and influence in the world is threatened, the most important problem in America today

What it really means – an accusation with little actual proof, but a lot of actual racism

As a white man, I get labeled with a lot of shit from the Left based solely on the color of my skin and what they believe what I believe. The Left sees me as a Bible-thumping, flyover country bumpkin who hates gays, blacks, women, albino midget Eskimos who walk with a limp, and so on. Now, to be fair, they are right about the albino midget Eskimo bit, but the rest of it is based off a serious of assumptions the Left has deemed to be true without affirmative proof.

And that’s the same basic principle behind white rage. As Leftists can’t leave a PR crisis untouched, they point to the 1/6 “insurrection” as evidence and bludgeon anyone who supports Donald Trump as someone who is one bad day away from being a mass shooter or insurgent against America. And if we’re not careful, white rage is going to create chaos (and that’s the Left’s job, darn it)!

Now, where have I heard that kind of verbiage before? Wasn’t there a movement in, say, the mid-to-late 90s that were considered to be dangerous crackpots not unlike the people the Left claim are out there waiting to strike? Why, yes. Yes, there was! It was the militia movement, and the rhetoric started to kick into high gear not long after the Oklahoma City bombing. The Left did their best to paint Timothy McVeigh as the typical militia member, even though he was kicked out of his local militia and had a record voting for Democrats, but why let the facts get in the way of a good narrative, right?

Last time I checked, the militia movement of the 90s didn’t cause any of the things the Left said would definitely happen if we didn’t do something right now. If anything, they just wanted to be by themselves to LARP as the National Guard, which is perfectly fine in my book. Just leave me be and don’t ask me to pay for your reindeer games.

Now, the Left is trying to resurrect the fear of militias and spin it into white rage. Within the Leftist hivemind, it works, mainly because a) it reaffirms their preconceived ideas about non-Leftists, and b) most Leftists today may not have even been born in the 90s or were too young to remember Militia Mania. That makes it easier to be successful than a coke dealer working on the Hunter Biden account. But here’s the thing: the fact it’s easy doesn’t make it right. Just like with the militia movement rhetoric, there isn’t anything concrete that suggests white rage is even a thing.

Except if you look at the Left.

Last year showcased a lot of violence and destruction from members of Antifa and Black Lives Matter. Although the Left swears up and down they weren’t responsible, the mugshots after the arrests show a different story. It seems most of the people arrested were…white. And the majority of BLM members? Also white. Hmmm…destroying property, attacking cops…that sounds a lot like the way the Left characterized 1/6, doesn’t it? And if 1/6 is an example of white rage, logic might lead us to conclude Antifa and BLM are examples of white rage, too.

Of course, this isn’t about logic. This is about pushing a racist narrative because the Left needs to make us believe white people are evil racist bastards. Call me conspiratorial, but I find it interesting the whole white rage concept didn’t get traction until fairly recently during a time when the Left wants to push Critical Race Theory that teaches…white people are evil racist bastards. With the pushback against CRT coming from mostly white parents, the Left appears to have scrambled to find a reason people might be against it and landed on white rage. On a side note, I swear the Left has a giant wheel with derogatory phrases they spin whenever they want to blame whites for something.

There’s a rule of thumb I’ve seen online that applies here. If you replace the racial word with a different race and think it’s racist, then it’s racist. This concept certainly applies to white rage, but there’s a twist. By assigning rage to whites only, the Left suggests no other race can get angry, which diminishes the other races’ agency. Under the Left’s constantly-changing definition of racism, that would be racism.

But in a Rod Serling-esque twist, I have to point out the ones who claim there is white rage…are white Leftists. They seem to have forgotten in their rush to make white rage all the rage who they are.

Normally this is the part where I give you advice on how to deal with the latest Leftist controversy-du-joir. This time there isn’t any advice to give because white rage is going to fall in on itself without us having to lift a finger. There is simply too much implausibility and illogic to adopt at once for it to survive much outside of the Leftist bubble. But should you run into a Leftist bound and determined to talk about white rage, ask them how they felt about the Antifa folks arrested in Portland and how they were predominantly white.

Then ask them to repeat what they said about white rage.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

These two stories are filed under “If Donald Trump did it, Leftists would lose their shit.” First, Democrat Senator Sheldon Whitehouse got caught at an all-white private beach club. Then, Joy Behar of “The Spew”… I mean “The View” made a questionable, but funny joke after the show reported on the first openly gay active player in the NFL. Behar talked about losing interest after a report mentioned “penetrating the end zone.” Even though Whitehouse and Behar caught some flack for their actions, most Leftists defended them using the same basic defense.

They’re allies.

To paraphrase a popular credit card commercial from my youth, “Allyship has its privileges,” and it’s worth exploring in deeper detail to find out how allies obtain a Get Out of Leftist Outrage Free card.

ally

What the Left thinks it means – someone who supports causes and ideas in line with the Left

What it really means – someone who can get away with just about anything until it becomes problematic

At the risk of being accused of “whataboutism”, it’s clear any conservatives or Republicans who said and did what the aforementioned heads of knuckle said and did, the Left wouldn’t be nearly as dismissive. If anything, it would be a talking point for, oh, the next 5 or 6 lifetimes showing how bad the Right is. And that’s not speculation, kids. That’s what the Left always does.

What separates the bad behavior on the Left from the bad behavior on the right is what you could consider a body of work. Both Whitehouse and Behar have been consistent Leftists, so Leftists say we have to put their bad actions in the context of the good they’ve done. And, surprise surprise, all the good they’ve done is based around…being on the same political side! Funny how that works, isn’t it?

Take someone like Strom Thurmond. Yes, he has a history of supporting segregation, but he was also instrumental in desegregating Augusta National, allowing blacks to play on the Masters course. For all of his faults, Thurmond didn’t just pass legislation and pat himself on the back for “doing something positive”; he actually did something positive. But, as Trent Lott can attest, the Left will never forgive Thurmond or put his contributions to the black community into a favorable context.

Compare that to how the Left treats Robert Byrd, a literal member of the Klan. He spent decades sowing hate, but says he’s grown up and things are kosher?

Not to me, but if the Left didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have standards at all.

And really that’s what we’re dealing with when the Left tries to add context to a hateful comment or an off-brand message as a means to get people to assume it was just a one-off and we should move on. However, the good someone does cannot and should not be used as a shield when he or she does something reprehensible. At the risk of invoking Poe’s Law, it would be like the Left saying Adolf Hitler wasn’t that bad a guy because he was a vegetarian later in life. The two don’t cancel each other out. A bad act is a bad act. Just ask Carrot Top.

That’s where the Left gets into trouble here. By being lenient with allies, they send the message it’s okay to be an asshole as long as you think a certain way. In Whitehouse’s case, he was promoting Black Lives Matter just a year ago, but his current actions (as well as his unfulfilled promise to quit the club, only to become one of the owners) show he was never truly committed to BLM as a movement. He adopted it as a political move because all the “cool kids” were doing it.

With Behar, it’s a bit different. She has been on record many times as being pro-gay, which is absolutely fine in my book. The joke she made was off the cuff and, although humorous, could be construed as anti-gay. She tried to brush it off as not being suitable for daytime TV, which kinda pours more salt into the wound here. She didn’t apologize for the comment being possibly offensive to gays, only that it wasn’t appropriate for daytime TV. The other hosts of “The View” all enjoyed the joke, except one.

Meghan McCain, a Republican who also supports gay rights.

Guess who got more hate mail.

That should be a big rainbow flag that someone who supports gay rights, but doesn’t have a D on their voter registration card, is still not considered a full ally. Say what you will about McCain’s commitment to the GOP and her stance on the subject, but she has at least been consistent in her condemnation of anti-gay sentiments, even when they come from her fellow cohosts. In a “This Is Why Twitter Is Bizarro World” twist, many gays came to Behar’s defense, saying they didn’t find the joke offensive and we should recognize her as an ally, while others bashed McCain for not laughing at the joke.

Granted, some Leftists will say I’m cherry-picking two examples that make the Left look bad. If only that were true. People like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan have been skating on their actions, statements, and behavior. Ditto with Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, and Bill and Hillary Clinton. And their numbers keep growing, with the addition of “The Squad” and other duplicitous Democrats. Wow. Seems to be a bit of a pattern forming, don’t ya think?

This should make a lot of Leftists reconsider what being an ally really means. Is it saying and thinking the right things, or is it actually doing something positive outside of the political and ideological realms? Speaking personally, actions speak louder than words, and no matter how you try to spin it, Joy Behar and Sheldon Whitehouse’s actions, it’s clear they’re using their allyship as a shield to protect them from valid criticism. It’s just lip service to the people directly affected by what they say, which makes their commitment to being an ally questionable at best.

The only way to address this behavior is to call it out and hold allies to a higher standard. Remember, these are people who allegedly support your personal causes. Even if there are only a few bad actors, all it takes is some attention to these bad actors to make your cause look like Tammy Faye Bakker: clownish and bad.

And given how Sheldon Whitehouse and Joy Behar look now after their actions, that might actually be an improvement.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

It started in Maricopa County, Arizona. Republicans who suspected there might have been election irregularities in the 2020 election requested and eventually got an audit of the ballots. In the relatively short time since then, they have uncovered dealings shadier than a Nigerian Prince trying to give away his fortune via email. Then, other states started to join in the fun and Audit-A-Mania was running wild.

So wild that Colorado Secretary of State Jena “Don’t Call Me Clark” Griswold issued rules concerning audits, specifically calling out what she called “fraudits.” This echoes a Leftist sentiment getting a lot of traction these days: the audits are being done under less-than-honest means and with questionable justification.

Which means it’s a prime target for a deep dive, courtesy of the Leftist Lexicon!

fraudit

What the Left thinks it means – fraudulent audit requests from Republicans and Trump supporters designed to undermine election security

What it really means – an attempt to rewrite recent history without having to explain why their opinions have changed since 2016

Remember 2016? Why, it’s like it was five years ago…

Seriously, after the 2016 election, Leftists were up in arms about Russian collusion allegedly swaying the vote for Donald Trump. They swore up and down (both figuratively and literally) Trump was not the legitimate President of the United States and our elections were “hacked.” Sure, they could have easily figured out Hillary Clinton wasn’t a good Presidential candidate from, oh, looking back at her 2008 campaign when she crashed and burned like the Hindenburg, but no. They went with the “Trump cheated” line.

To be fair, there were irregularities in the 2016 election from both sides. Instead of using that fact to build bipartisan support for better election security, Leftists spent time and energy bitching about it and pushing a narrative they had to trump up (if you’ll pardon the pun) evidence to make quasi-believable.

And they even fucked that up.

Four years later, the same people who said our elections were fundamentally flawed when Donald Trump won now say the elections were secure and everything was fine. Yet, what changed? Nothing. In fact, most of the proposed changes to current election law have come from the Republicans with Democrats throwing in a couple of proposals that ultimately don’t deal with election security, but does have a lot to do with creating less transparency and more voters…for Democrats.

The thing is the audits put a speed bump in that process because the Left has to not only push its current agenda, but spend time and energy trying to convince people the audits are a bad idea. After all, if the audits are successful, it might get more people to look at the 2020 election as legit illegitimate. But there’s another reason, one that involves everybody’s favorite Leftist bad guy, Uncle George Soros.

After the 2000 election, Leftists were upset (as they are now), so some of them put their heads together and came up with the idea to put ideological allies into Secretary of State offices across the country. Why? Because the Secretary of State is usually the person who certifies the votes in statewide elections.

Including Presidential elections.

This effort called the Secretary of State Project received a lot of support from various Leftists. And who was one of the founding members? Uncle George himself. And who managed to wrangle up some sweet campaign cash from the Soros family?

Jena Griswold. The Colorado Secretary of State who is trying to make the case audits aren’t legit.

And the funny thing? She ran on a platform that allegedly eschewed billionaires trying to affect the outcome of elections. I’ll take “People Who Live in Glass Houses” for $800, Alex.

The big fear for Leftists, beyond not being able to hide their cheating, is people finding out about how Uncle George has been quietly pulling the strings behind the scenes for close to 20 years and possibly affecting elections. The minute an audit uncovers discrepancies, the sooner the plot gets foiled and the more likely Leftist candidates get stomped in elections because they can’t control how the votes are counted. And that, kids, puts a crimp in their ability to cheat.

Thus, the attempts to discredit the audits. If you can dismiss the validity of the need for the audits, you control the narrative and keep the status quo, which the Left has plans in place to bend even further under the guise of protecting democracy. More on that at a later time, but know the Left’s idea of protecting democracy is closer to protecting Democrats. As long as you vote for Democrats, Leftists have no problem counting your vote, even if you’re deceased and have 5 ballots sent to a single address.

However, calling the audits fraudulent only works if there isn’t a legitimate reason for them and they’re being requested to disrupt proceedings after the election. From what we’ve seen out of Maricopa County so far, I’d be hard-pressed to call them fraudulent. We’re not talking about a handful of votes impacted here; we’re dealing with thousands of votes, which can be enough to swing an election to a candidate.

Although it’s unlikely Donald Trump will be able to completely change the outcome of the 2020 election, it’s still worth the effort to ensure what we saw on Election Night is what actually happened and if it isn’t, it may be enough to inspire voters to come out in numbers large enough to overcome Leftist attempts to rig elections.

Which is what the Left has been pushing since the 2016 election, by the way.

Nobody said the Left were masters of long-term strategizing.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

If there’s one thing Leftists love to do more than spending other people’s money, it’s playing with the English language. With the advent of “cancel culture,” the Left got caught off-guard a bit, but have since rolled out a new term to describe people getting rightly called out for bad behavior, either in the past or right now. Enter Hunter Biden and a couple of emails where he used a word that can be construed as negative towards blacks. Oh, and did I mention Hunter is white?

While we wait on the Left to try to walk out of the rhetorical minefield they’ve created, let’s take a closer look at this revamp of cancel culture.

consequence culture

What the Left thinks it means – holding people accountable for bad words and actions

What it really means – cancel culture with no time limit

Although it’s nice to see the Left embracing consequences for bad actions, as opposed to trying to federally subsidize them, let’s not fool ourselves. The Left believes in consequences…for everybody else. And they are the only ones who can determine what constitutes an offense and how severe it is. But the best part? They are the only ones who can determine if someone is forgiven. That’s a pretty sweet gig if you can get it, and if it has a good dental plan.

So, where does the consequence part of consequence culture come into play? If you’re a conservative or even a libertarian like me, it always applies. Even if your only crime is not being as Leftist as the hivemind, you can be a target. Just ask Ellie Kemper. She was crowned Queen of Love and Beauty at a debutante ball in 1999 connected to the Veiled Prophet Organization. As a result, she was attacked last week on social media for participating because the group had “an unquestionably racist, sexist, and elitist past,” according to Ms. Kemper’s apology.

Here’s the issue. By the time she was part of the pageant, the group had integrated. Gone were the days of white supremacy and/or exclusivity. Ms. Kemper was punished because she won a pageant from the wrong group at a time when that group had become more racially diverse. Why they chose Ms. Kemper to attack is beyond me, but then again most Leftist thinking is beyond me these days.

So, why does Hunter “I Prefer Coke to Pepsi” Biden get a pass for being a racist and Ellie Kemper get lambasted for not being one? Well, we’d better call Saul. Alinsky, that is. In his book Rules for Radicals, Alinsky gave us 13 rules that the Left continue to use. Without going into a diatribe on all 13, the basic ideas come down to how to hurt your political enemies while ensuring your allies don’t get bored with your agenda.

One of these rules in particular strikes me as apropos in the aforementioned instances: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” For the purposes of this sketch, the enemy is anyone who isn’t a hardcore Leftist. The key to this rule’s effectiveness comes down to appearances. If the Left wants you to think it has the power to hurt you personally, professionally, or monetarily, they will project an air of invincibility and popularity in the public circle. An example of this is their “right side of history” bullshit.

The obvious weakness with that argument, as well as their use of the Left’s version of The Art of War, is its reliance on illusion. Once you pull the curtain back and see who Oz really is, their strategy goes the way of disco. After that, the Left will only have the power you let them have. And with their ANTIFA and BLM squads LARPing as revolutionaries, the only card they have left in their deck is threat of violence. Then, it becomes a value decision: are you willing to ruin your life and the lives of your family members to hold a particular point of view?

That’s where the Left’s concept of consequence comes into play. Their goal is to silence the opposition by any means necessary. Knuckle under or be brought to heel. Of course, you could always pull a David Brock and become a rabid Leftist. Then, you can have all the coke binges, illegal firearms, and criminal activity you want. The Left will go out of their way to ensure you are protected from those mean ole conservatives! I believe the Mob has something similar. I believe it’s called…protection?

Wait. Is that what is at the heart of consequence culture? Why, yes! Yes it is! With a little help from Uncle Saul, the Left has perfected the art of the shakedown to the point Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton may want to take notes, and not C-notes for a change.

But remember what I said earlier about this approach’s fatal flaw. As long as the Left has to deceive to make their point, they are never going to argue from a position of power unless we give it to them. On top of that, the more they play fast and loose with who is eligible to be held accountable, the harder it becomes for them to argue in good faith. These two strikes alone are enough to undercut the Left, but the third strike come from us. The Left needs us to act emotionally so it plays to their strengths, but they will get thrown off if your reaction doesn’t match their expectations. Their overconfidence becomes their Achilles heel because it limits their ability to see other options besides the ones they assume will be the ones we will take. Deprive them of their actual strength and deny them the power they want you to think they have, and they are weaker than Logan Paul’s fight game.

Then, really surprise them by holding them accountable to the rules they set up for everyone else because…well…consequence culture.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Technology can be a two-edged sword at times. Whether it’s email or Twitter or Twitch, there will be a time when your past will come back to haunt you.

Just ask Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Over the past few days, a Freedom of Information Act request unleashed a torrent of emails to and from the sainted Dr. Fauci showing a less-than-flattering side to the good…ish doctor. The Left has rallied around him, even to the point of blaming those who are reporting on the emails for the controversy. Hmmm…is that gas I smell?

Either that, or it’s the smell of yet another Leftist Lexicon entry!

the Fauci emails

What the Left thinks it means – emails hyped by right wing media to discredit Dr. Fauci and his leadership

What it really means – emails that prove Dr. Fauci is not only fallible, but may be as bad as some have claimed he is

The self-professed “Party of Science” elevated Dr. Fauci to the point that anyone who questioned him was ignorant of the science, a right wing wacko, or both (because there is no difference between the two groups in their hivemind). With the emails being released, however, the Left is no longer talking about the science, but is talking at length about how the emails aren’t anything contradictory, hypocritical, or even newsworthy. And the Left is digging in using this defense.

You know who else benefited from this kind of digging in? Bill Clinton, post-Lewinski, if you know what I mean.

This is pretty standard for the Left when it comes to Leftists or Democrats found to be utter scumbags. Deny the allegations until the coverage gets too hard to ignore, then pretend like nothing’s wrong and it’s old news. For most Leftists, this works too well. Remember Hunter Biden’s laptop? I guarantee the Left does…and simultaneously doesn’t.

With Dr. Fauci, however, it’s a little harder to cover up, mainly because of the Left acting like Dr. Fauci’s hype men…uh, women…uh, non-binary individuals. Anyway, the point is the Left pushed all their chips in on Dr. Fauci early on and built a narrative around that act. Granted, it was done primarily to spite President Donald Trump, but the motivations don’t negate the action itself. You own this one, Leftists.

Not that you’ll recognize the problem you created with your Fauci worship. One of the Left’s greatest faults is they can never admit when they are wrong no matter what. Remember President Trump’s “very fine people” comment? There are Leftists who still believe he called the white supremacists “very fine people” in spite of the volumes of context and actual text that they get sent whenever the topic arises. I’m not a Trump fan by any stretch, but even I will defend him on this point. He never said what the Left accused him of saying, but that memo either never got to the Leftist drones, or it did but it was already shredded into a fine powder by the time it got to them. Either way, their reality may not be on speaking terms with actual reality.

At the heart of the Left’s defense of the Fauci emails is this very concept. I’m not going to spend a lot of time on specific items because a) so many others have already done it, b) it wouldn’t affect my opinion, and c) my family wants to see me at some point. However, I will say what I’ve seen so far has shown Fauci to be interested in his personal star rising, giving orders to others to figure out what to do, and pawning off “lesser” tasks related to COVID-19 research to others. In other words, Dr. Fauci became Joe Biden in a lab coat.

Even now, I sense Leftists are already penning missives about how wrong I am and/or how I’m a brainwashed anti-science Trump lover with the same number of teeth as IQ points. And that’s if they’re being kind. Meanwhile, the actual emails reflect a man swept up in a wave of popularity, but in over his head. If we’re supposed to “Follow the Science,” that implies the science is worth following. Even the most hardcore Fauci fan who is being honest with himself or herself or themselves has to be concerned by his words and attitude during a global pandemic. He couldn’t be bothered with some of the mundane details because he was so busy…going on TV shows to impress upon the viewing public he was in control and knew what was going on.

After his flip-flops on whether masks did anything, that’s when Faucimania died for me, and it should have been the jumping off point for the science-minded folks out there. The fact it wasn’t for so many, including the “Party of Science,” signifies how much the Left have invested in making Fauci untouchable and how scared people were of the multiple question marks COVID-19 created, which made it easier for the Left to manipulate people into believing Fauci. Fear can be a great motivator, but it requires rational thought to go on vacation to be truly effective.

Let’s just say a lot of people’s rational thought found a great deal on AirBNB and stayed away for, oh, over a year. Eventually, though, it will start coming back, and the Fauci emails will be foremost on our minds for a while because the discrepancies between his acts and words are hard to ignore. Not to mention, they make it harder to take his suggestions seriously. Then again, after he said to wear multiple masks after saying masks didn’t work, only to say he lied so there wouldn’t be a run on masks, most people paying attention tapped out.

Which leaves Leftists to carry Fauci’s water, which they are more than willing to do because to drop out now would mean admitting they were wrong. The Fonz was more willing to admit being wrong than the Left are. At this point, the Left has forgotten “Follow the Science” in favor of “Follow the Scientist.” Namely, the now-discredited Anthony Fauci. And it’s starting to look like the tide is turning against him, now that Big Tech is allowing people to mention the idea that COVID-19 was manmade or originated in a lab without getting the ban hammer. The looser those restrictions get, the bigger the trouble the Fauci emails become.

Now, if only they could do something about that Nigerian prince who keeps emailing me…

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Since the events of January 6th, the Left has demanded there be a commission set up to review what happened, not unlike the 9/11 Commission. Let me save you a few million bucks: some stupid people did stupid and illegal things, and the Left hyperventilated over it. Yet, that hasn’t stopped House Democrats from passing a bill that would set up the January 6th Commission. Instead, the Senate stopped it.

It seems like when there’s a major event like 9/11 or 1/6, the Left wants to set up commissions to “get to the bottom of it” with the hopes the findings can be used to prevent future events. Sometimes they’ll jazz it up by calling them “blue ribbon commissions,” but the principle, at least in theory, is the same. Yet, in practice…well, we’ll get to that after the obligatory Lexicon opening.

commission

What the Left thinks it means – a bipartisan group designed to look over the facts of a matter and devise proposals to prevent the matter from happening again

What it really means – an excuse to spend money to get utterly worthless results

My statement in the first paragraph about what happened 1/6 is only partially a joke, which is a higher percentage than my actual jokes, but not as big of a joke as the concept of a 1/6 Commission is. At this point, the events have been analyzed, reanalyzed, put through the various ideological spin cycles, and turned into everything but a Ken Burns documentary series on PBS. There might even be a Broadway musical, t-shirt, or sneaker deal in the process. And all with the same purpose: to squeeze out even more milk from the milked-dry cash cow that was the “insurrection.”

As much as I say more power to ‘em for trying it, the issue comes down to the use of tax dollars towards what is at this point a foregone conclusion. Nothing any commission, bipartisan or otherwise, could come up with would be shocking new information, and the suggestions they could come up with would either be common sense or an appeal for more money and bigger government. You want to know how I know this?

Check out the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. They were about as useless as Auto Tune for Yoko Ono, only much more painful to consider.

This goes back to one of my hard and fast universal truths of life: Government isn’t in the problem-solving business. This opens up a whole slew of follow-up questions, the primary one being why we need a commission to look into anything. It’s really pretty simple: the report becomes a cudgel to use against a particular person or political ideology. With the 9/11 Commission, it was George W. Bush (even though the original warnings he was supposed to act on were more vague than a Michael Bay storyline). And with a 1/6 Commission, the target would be Donald Trump because he helps them raise money indirectly.

There is a secondary reason I’m not even sure the Left recognizes. With both houses of Congress and the White House under Democrat control, Leftists should be able to get pretty much anything they want done. All they have to do is vote along party lines and it’s pretty much a done deal. Yet, if you’ve been paying attention (and I know you have), they can’t even organize a one-car accident, let alone advance an ideological agenda. What better way to avoid having to answer questions about why the Leftist agenda has stalled worse than a Yugo in a flood than to attack a common enemy in Trump? And because Democrats hold the White House and Congress, they can initiate whatever actions they feel are necessary to take the heat off them…I mean to hold Trump accountable.

The strategy in play here works in the long term as well. To put it mildly, the Democrats are skittish about 2022 when Republicans stand to gain seats as conventional political wisdom goes. Then again, conventional political wisdom never predicted we’d be saying President Donald Trump, but that’s neither here nor there. Commissions, like the 9/11 and the proposed 1/6 ones, tend not to move that fast. They make the sloth from “Zootopia” look like the Road Runner on energy drinks. In short, this means it’s a sure bet any commission set up for the January 6th “insurrection” will take a while to start, let alone conclude, which would easily take it into 2022 and beyond where Leftists can run against Trump instead of against their actual opponents. This could easily bleed over into the 2024 Presidential election, given the glacial nature of these commissions.

The problem the Left faces here is one of their own creation. Imagine that! One of their favorite talking points about 1/6 is how everything was caught on video so we could see what happened. Yet, out of that knowledge comes…the need for a commission to look into what happened? As most Leftist ideas do, this runs smackdab in the face of logic. Why would we need to dig deeper into the matter if we all know what happened?

Unless, of course, the commission is a Trojan Horse.

Let me explain as I adjust my tinfoil conspiracy theorist hat. If this commission is to be bipartisan and true to its intent, it will have to look into every aspect of the events of 1/6. Including a certain Speaker of the House who may have made it more difficult to contain the “insurgents.” It might also have to figure out how the protesters who got inside the Capitol were inspired by Donald Trump’s January 6th speech…before he gave it. It’s these little details that always trip up the best attempts of the Left to throw shade. Granted, a 1/6 commission might not have to look too deeply into matters like these, but they would have to explain why or have their work mocked by a certain Midwestern blogger who likes to come up with weekly words the Left love to use.

Here’s where the Trojan Horse aspect comes into play. The Left knows certain parties within their midst have dirty hands and a real commission designed to investigate the Leftist narrative for factual underpinnings might stumble across how those hands got dirty in the first place. To protect those individuals, it might be necessary to appear to support a commission but not follow through on it. Of course, this will enrage the Orange Man Bad crowd, but it’s a good CYA move.

Then, there’s the Left’s recent obsession with eliminating the filibuster in the Senate. After decades of using it whenever possible, the Left has had enough of the filibuster and want to get rid of it because those evil nasty Republicans are threatening to use it to do the same thing the Left did! Who could have seen that coming, amirite? Anyway, the recent failure of the Senate to pass legislation that would create the 1/6 Commission breathed new life into the movement because the Left doesn’t like the fact they would have to get at least 60 votes to get it passed and avoid a filibuster. So, since they lost, they insist the rules need to be changed so they can win. With this defeat, the Left now has more ammunition to renew the call to remove the filibuster as an option. (Which, of course, is a bad idea, but try telling them that.)

Regardless, the idea of a 1/6 Commission may seem good and logical on the surface, but it’s a recipe for disaster, especially for those who have a genuine passion to get to the bottom of what happened. If you want to find out, do your own research. If you want to spend a lot of money and get nowhere, get a high-end treadmill. At least it will be less expensive than a government commission.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

I’ve been trying to avoid writing about this, but since the Left can’t stop talking about it for 2 microseconds, I suppose I’ll have to weigh in. After moments of tepid unrest (as opposed to the usual white hot variety), tensions between Israel and Palestine flared up, resulting in rockets being exchanged, and not in the white elephant kind of way. To put it mildly, they were putting some heat on those things.

As they typically do in situations like this, the Left has already taken sides with Palestine, with members of “The Squad” openly calling Israel an “apartheid state.” I’m sure that’s going to go over well with the white nationalists there, but that’s not important right now. What is important is the Left’s political gamble taking sides with Palestine, a gamble they’ve made before and won handily. In the grand scheme of things, does this matter?

Why, yes. Yes it does.

Palestine

What the Left thinks it means – a nation being oppressed by Israel merely for trying to get its land back

What it really means – a nation that no longer exists, due in no small part to its leaders

The biggest problem when discussing Palestine is agreeing on the basic facts that are not in play, mainly because there are so many people who disagree on them. However, there is one fact not even the staunchest of pro-Palestinian propagandists can spin away.

Palestine doesn’t exist today.

Oh, sure, they did at one time and the United Nations even recognize Palestine as a state, but that means nothing in 2021. Especially that second part. If your ace in the hole is a UN proclamation, you’re better off in admitting you got nothing. At least then you won’t have to worry about explaining away the UN’s noted anti-Israel bent. If anything, they should get bent.

The country that was once Palestine was comprised of a lot of land in the Middle East in what is now Jordan. Not Israel. Not the West Bank. Not even the Gaza Strip. Jordan. The fact Israel and Jordan are neighbors doesn’t help the situation any because they have easy access to each other and their respective populations and property. In short, this is a property line dispute with heavy artillery.

But as a former homeowner myself, I can tell you it’s hard to have a property line dispute when you don’t actually own the property. If the Palestinians had a valid claim to Israel, I would be one of the first to say so. As it stands, all they have are a UN proclamation and apparently nobody who knows how to read an ancient map. But what they do have is Leftists willing to carry their water for them. As it turns out, this is their default position on Palestine because a) they like to at least appear to support the underdog against the powerful, and b) they have a major anti-Semitism problem.

Let’s start with the first one since it’s first and all. The Left loves a good David vs. Goliath story, not because they necessarily want David to win, but because they love making Goliath look like a jerk in the process. Instead of fighting for the little guy, the Left tends to fight against the big guy because it’s easier to paint the big guy as the villain just like they did with the big banks. Of course, when it’s a big guy who agrees with them (I’m looking right at you, Jack Dorsey), the Left turns a blind eye…until it becomes convenient to throw you under the bus. Just ask Amazon.

Or we can just ask Israel. With the two terms of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and the first year of Joe Biden’s term, Israel knows full well what the Left thinks of them and how they will make nice to your face while helping the opposition. The Left has even sent political advisors to Israel to try to defeat Benjamin Netanyahu, all because he has this crazy idea that Israel should exist. That MONSTER! Out of Clinton, Obama, and Biden, only Clinton had Israel and Palestine try to work out some sort of agreement. Even when Israel was willing to give in to Palestine’s conditions, their leader at the time, Yasser Arafat walked away. Since then, the possibility of peace between the sides is more remote than a hermit at Ice Station Zero.

This is where the anti-Semitism comes into play. Yes, there are Leftist Jews who are on the “Free Palestine” bandwagon and will criticize Israel in the same breath they order brunch, but they are being used for votes and money, just like every other group the Left associates with. The Left loves the money and power the Leftist Jews give them, but nothing else beyond that. As long as the Israel-Palestine conflict continues, the Left will use it for their own ends without doing anything to help the situation.

Oh, and it should be pointed out, as the Left loves to do, the Palestinians are also Semites. So, what would you call a group of people who use the death of people they allegedly support to enhance their own political and fiscal power? Some could say they were…anti-Semites…

Amazing, but not unexpected from the Left.

Beyond that, some of the Left’s favorite hustlers…I mean figures have a history of out-and-out disdain for Israel and its people: Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Hillary Clinton, Louis Farrakhan, just to name a few. More recently, “The Squad” has shown it can flex with the best of them when it comes to attacking Israel. No matter how many times they get caught, however, the song never changes. Israel will always be bad, and Palestine will always be good. And as long as there’s money and votes to be had, the Left won’t care.

The larger question is whether Palestinians want peace. I can’t point to anything specific, but I get the feeling the majority of them do. Constant fighting without a reason to fight erodes your soul pretty fast, and the way many Palestinians have found a way to live without fighting is…by moving to Israel. Contrary to popular belief, Palestinians in Israel enjoy a modicum of power and respect so long as they don’t wreck anything. They even have a place at the table in Israel’s version of Congress, the Knesset. Hard to argue Israel is an apartheid state when they give more freedom to Palestinians than Palestine does.

And therein lies the real tragedy of it all. Palestinians really don’t have an ally on the Left, but Hamas does. That’s not an insignificant distinction to make, either. Hamas has been designated as a terrorist organization by the US and others, and currently holds all the power in Palestine. Oh, and they’re much more militant than Arafat was, and he was militant enough as it was for a guy who could pass for Ringo Starr in an off-Baghdad production of “Lawrence of Arabia.” The other option is to seek sanctuary with the ”enemy” or try to stay enough under the radar as to not attract attention. With fanatics like Hamas, though, neither option is good enough. You’re either in all the way or you’re a traitor.

Hmmm…I wonder if that attitude has anything to do with the religion Hamas members follow…naaaaaaah!

In the end, there will be more fighting, more death, and more heartache until both sides of the Palestine/Israel conflict decide enough is enough. Even then, the Left will find a way to paint Palestine as a victim instead of a participant, if only to secure more money and power for themselves. If only to try to stem the tide of eternal war (and, admittedly, make Leftists even madder than they are now), I will defend Israel’s right to exist.

And I will continue to act as an Israeli Chamber of Commerce for Palestinians looking to get out from the conflict.

Who Is That Masked Man?

By the time you read this, I will have gotten my second COVID-19 shot, mainly because of the screaming and crying I’ll be doing afterwards. As a result, I may not need to wear a mask all the time, provided the CDC doesn’t flip flop like John Kerry in cheap sandals working a VFW pancake breakfast. However, I’ve made up my mind to continue wearing a mask indoors.

This isn’t a decision I’ve taken lightly. On the one hand, I’ve spent a good chunk of change on cool-looking masks that show my appreciation for different fandoms. On the other, my glasses keep fogging up, so I have to readjust my masks on a regular basis. But there was one factor that tipped the scales for me.

Other people.

Now, I’m not just talking about making others feel more secure or giving them one less thing to worry about. I’m not even talking about being accused of being an anti-vaxer/conservative/Republican/Trump supporter/science denier/whatever new name the Left wants to call me today. I am, however, talking the people who have taken it upon themselves to be the Mask Police.

Even before COVID-19 was a thing, there were people who constantly wanted to get in other peoples’ business for one reason or another. Usually, it’s because they don’t have lives of their own and want to create drama so there is some excitement to talk about. Plus, it feeds a need in them to be righteous (even if it’s the self variety) and to virtue signal.

And neither one is worthy enough to warrant such people to act.

Good luck trying to tell them that, though. Judging from my thankfully few interactions with them, they don’t seem to be the most open-minded of folks. And as a male in a family where stubbornness is a feature instead of a bug, that’s saying something if I’m the one pointing it out. What sets these folks apart from a Gladys Kravitz type is the fact they feel justified in causing harm to others in the pursuit of their goals. If one of them sees you infringing upon what they think the rules should be, it isn’t that much of a stretch for him or her to figure out who you are, contact your employer, and advising them of the kind of scumbag you are (to them). If not that, they’ll publicly shame you, often with high pitched screaming that would make dogs turn their heads to the noise.

And that’s why I’ll keep wearing a mask, if only to save my hearing. The larger point, however, is why we’re allowing the self-professed Mask Police to dictate how we act, whether it be indirect action like me wearing a mask to avoid confrontation or direct action like punching them in the nose. They are nothing short of bullies, and I’ll bet more than a few of them talk at length about online bullying because, well, zero self-awareness.

But it’s all about personal responsibility, right? To a point, yes, but not to the point the Mask Police take it. With the Internet, we have access to tons of information we might not otherwise have, and a good chunk of that is personal. A post on Facebook here, a mildly controversial statement there, and before you know it, you’re worse than Hitler. And if you think I’m exaggerating to make a point, I only wish I were. There are news reports by the thousands of people being harassed offline for actions and sentiments taken online, and it’s not just the Trump fans, either. We have reached a point where we run right for the nukes when all we need is a fly-swatter all because we think we’re right to do it.

But here’s where I part ways. In some cases, it’s necessary to expose a scumbag so others know about it and can take or demand action be taken to rectify it. But not everyone is a scumbag. Yes, not your BLM-loving sister-in-law or your Trump-loving cousin, and certainly not a complete stranger you ran into at the Shop-N-Save. You have to know your boundaries, and I’m afraid the Karens and Kevins of the world don’t.

That’s where we come in. As much as I don’t like to start conflict, it’s come to the point where I feel I have to step in to deescalate these situations or at least take the heat off the person being targeted. Because even though I wear a mask, it doesn’t mean I’m excused from duty when a situation gets heated. If I want to live my life without harming others, I have to allow others to do the same and stand up when someone is harming someone else.

That includes you, Mask Police. Nobody appointed you to this task, so you have no authority unless I give it to you. I’m masking up so you won’t have to find out what happens when I dig in for a fight, but don’t think I’ll knuckle under if you overstep your authority. Let me put it this way, in the words of a great philosopher.

Don’t start none, won’t be none.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

If you’re a news junkie, last week was a coke-fueled Charlie Sheen-esque bender. Between the ongoing hostilities between Israel and Narnia…I mean Palestine, hackers halting production and causing a gas shortage on the East Coast, and Caitlyn Jenner being, well, Caitlyn Jenner, one man rose to the top of my list of topics to cover: Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Dr. Fauci is a divisive figure in the field of medicine, but with the Left he is a golden boy who can do no wrong. (I’ll get into the reason why later, so stay tuned.) Sure, he has his critics, but the Left is able to excuse the alleged transgressions and treat him as the most credible person on Earth regarding COVID-19. Whether the rest of us should put as much faith in him…well, let’s just say there’s enough material to craft a Leftist Lexicon entry.

Dr. Anthony Fauci

What the Left thinks it means – a world-renowned infectious disease expert, a man of science

What it really means – an indecisive medical expert who loves the limelight more than the science

I know I’m speaking heresy here, but I’ve been following Dr. Fauci’s advice about COVID-19 from the start. As a fan of science myself, I paid attention to his briefings and really tried to digest what he said. That is, of course, until the advice he gave started flying in the face, or rather mask, of common sense. At first, he said masks weren’t effective. Then, he said they were. Now, he’s even suggesting wearing double masks. As much as I like to follow the science, it’s hard when the science careens in wild directions like a drunk Super Ball.

Of course, the Left chalks this up to the science changing rapidly. They have a point, but only to a point. With something as tricky as COVID-19, the science is bound to change rapidly as new data become available. Having said that, these changes typically don’t happen from one speech to the next…in the same day…and without alerting people (namely, the audience) to the change. An inflexible boilerplate speech regarding a global pandemic isn’t a good look.

That’s where the Left comes in. No matter what Dr. Fauci says that contradicts himself or other scientific sources, the Left treats it as gospel. Ironic, given how hostile the Left is to organized religion…or is it?

Ever since global warming became a thing back in the 1990s thanks to Al Gore, the Left has deified science to the point it cannot be challenged without being called a non-believer. What do they call people who question the “science” of global climate change? Aside from “people who didn’t flunk science like the climate change cultists did,” they’re called “science-deniers.” Now, I’ve always found this to be a misnomer because I know of very few people who deny science. Maybe they have a different opinion or place a different value on it, but not too many people out-and-out deny science.

By the same token, though, it’s also a pretty big tell that the Left has turned science into a religion, if not a cult that would make L. Ron Hubbard salivate. You know, if he were alive and stuff. But it’s funny to me to watch Leftists mock people of faith for believing what they consider to be silly and unfounded ideas while these same Leftists hang on every word Dr. Fauci says like it’s manna from Heaven.

And that’s where the “Party of Science” goes off the rails. The major problem with putting science on a pedestal is the fact…now hear me out here…it can be wrong and/or corrupted. Science at its best is bound by human understanding, and a lot of the time our understanding lags well behind the science, causing a lot of bad ideas under the guise of scientific fact. World history and more than a few graveyards are full of examples of what can happen if we’re not putting on our thinking caps and our morality pants before trying something we think will be cool.

And I think we’re on the verge of making that mistake again. Not that I think Dr. Fauci is a quack, mind you. The problem I have is putting so much faith (and, yes, it is faith, possibly of the blind variety) in what he says that we stop thinking for ourselves and questioning ideas that don’t seem to make sense. At worst, we raise questions that get answered honestly and factually, which pretty much eliminates much of the “Party of Science.” Anything beyond that is gravy. Hard science is built on the foundation of challenging ideas and finding a better understanding of the world around us. Anyone who professes love for science but hates to have it questioned when it doesn’t make sense may be entrenched in the Cult of Science or covering up for mistakes they know they’ve made.

I’m looking right at you, Michael “Hockey Stick Graph” Mann.

But let’s give Dr. Fauci the benefit of the doubt and not paint him with the same brush as Al Gore’s number-fudging buddy. Let’s look at his track record with COVID-19.

On second thought, I’m sure his acolytes and he would appreciate that we not do that because it shows he wasn’t always following the science. Instead, it seemed like he was following the politics. When the Left said we didn’t need to wear masks, he said we didn’t need to wear masks. When the Left said COVID-19 wasn’t that big a deal, Fauci agreed. Once the Left’s tune changed (i.e. when they figured out how to blame Donald Trump for their incompetence while trying to memory-hole their own statements), Fauci’s did, too. And let’s be clear, the Left wasn’t following the science; they were following their typical political mantra, “Orange Man Bad.” We can criticize the way President Trump handled the COVID-19 situation, but we will be doing a grave disservice if we don’t include those who contributed to the lack of trust in the science.

And that includes Dr. Fauci.

The fact such a prominent medical figure can be so publicly contradictory without his credibility taking a bigger hit than the aforementioned Mr. Sheen at the aforementioned coke binge is a mystery to me, but remember the Left doesn’t think about the long term, just what they can get away with in the short term. With Dr. Fauci, they got a walking contradiction that they could spin into an appeal to authority complete with a doctor’s coat and a semi-impressive CV. The fact he could be turned into an anti-Trump cudgel was a bonus. And with grown adults fawning over him like teenagers at a BTS concert, I’m guessing the good doctor doesn’t mind the attention because he typically works under thankless conditions.

At what cost, however? Sure, the action figures and the “Fauci Ouchie” Twitter posts are neat, but at some point, that attention is going to fade and Dr. Fauci will become just another old white man in a lab coat that the Left will pretend not to know. If you’re reading this, Dr. Fauci (and I know you are because, why not), remember Cindy Sheehan? That could be you in a few months.

I hope you like ditches, Doc…

My 2021 Commencement Address

We’ve reached that time of year when high schools, colleges, community colleges, clown and barber colleges, etc., look for speakers to address their respective graduating classes of 2021. Although I have put out feelers, I haven’t gotten any responses about whether I could join the ranks of such luminaries as Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush, and Honker, the Horny Clown. (Granted, that last one is quite a get.) Even so, I am pleased to share the commencement address I would have given.

To the Class of 2021

Congratulations on making it this far in your lives. It’s only a matter of time before you begin new chapters in your lives, but before then, the kind folks at [insert name of academic institution] here asked me to share a bit of whimsy and wisdom. Plus, the money they offered was really nice.

Then again, why should you listen to me? After 2020, conventional wisdom and honest whimsy are both as endangered as the 14-Toed Albino Antarctic Snow Sloth. In fact, the last one got slaughtered while I was telling you about it. To be fair, though, I should have lead with that, so my bad!

And by now I’m sure someone out there already bored with my speech has Googled it and found out there is no such animal as the 14-Toed Albino Antarctic Snow Sloth and is already Tweeting it to their friends and family, as well as posting it on Instagram to tell people how dumb and dishonest I am. Well, remember what I said about the lack of whimsy? Yeah, that’s what I mean.

For all of the information we have at our fingertips, we have lost some of the most important data about how to survive in the modern world. In my line of work, there are three things you need to learn to take: a joke, criticism, and a punch. So far, I haven’t had to deal with that third one yet, but I have had plenty of opportunities to take a joke and criticism, sometimes from the same people.

First, let’s talk about taking a joke. I know the definition of comedy these days has been expanded to include unfunny socially-conscious material and revised to exclude funny not-so-socially-conscious material. But that’s not the point of comedy at all. The point was, is, and should be to make people laugh, thus…entertaining them. Even if the joke is the worst Dad Joke you’ve ever heard, it’s going to make someone else happy. And last time I checked, happy people tend not to do bad things, like shoot up schools, do or deal drugs, or, God forbid, buy another Nickelback album.

Don’t feel bad about laughing at a joke, especially one at your own expense, because it’s good for you! Science has shown when we laugh, the brain produces chemicals to help us relieve tension and feel good. And who am I to deny science, right?

Seriously, though, there are more than a few of you out there who need to lighten up, like, a lot! You have a lot on your plates worrying about the future of the planet, trying to prevent racism, sexism, et cetera-ism, and even finding a job right now, but it’s not healthy to worry all the time. Let’s face it, your generation’s role model, Greta Thunberg, is a slightly cheerier Scandinavian Sylvia Plath. Now, before you “How Dare You” me into oblivion, let me point out it doesn’t look like she’s having much fun protecting the planet. Surely there’s a happy medium between being super-concerned about the environment and being more laid back than Matthew McConaughey. And part of it starts when you realize one of Greta’s middle names is Tintin, which is also the name of a cartoon character. Believe me, I’ve been laughing my butt off since I found that out, and it also makes her serious policy statements a lot more entertaining.

But comedy isn’t just about entertainment. Great humor can also be informative, as we can see through the works of Mark Twain, George Carlin, and the opinion section of the New York Times. Granted, the Times’ humor is mostly unintentional, but we can still learn a lot from reading it. Namely, how being “woke” doesn’t make your opinions any less crappy or uninformed. And if you’ll notice, I didn’t mention “The Daily Show” in the mix of great humor, which is because it is neither funny nor informative. I firmly believe Trevor Noah is a giant Sominex that has gained sentience and a network contract.

And that brings us to one more aspect of taking a joke: humor is subjective. Everyone’s sense of humor is different, so just because you don’t find it funny doesn’t make it unfunny. That’s why “Friends” was on the air for so long, and it’s why I stopped watching it after I got bored. Who is wrong in that situation? No one. It simply means there is room for debate, as there is in most cases. And it doesn’t mean our opinions won’t change over time and we might enjoy the humor we missed in our younger days. Dismissing a person for not having the same sense of humor we have is like…oh, I don’t know…disowning relatives for not voting for a candidate we like.

The second take we need to consider is taking criticism. The first thing to remember when taking criticism is to figure out the intent of the criticism. From there, you can determine whether to take it seriously or toss it aside like a Jonas Brothers CD. The second thing to remember, and I’m going to say this with as much emphasis as I can…WORDS ARE NOT VIOLENCE. Just because someone doesn’t agree with your statement doesn’t mean they’re punching you in the face. It simply means they think your ideas are crap.

And if you’re even twice as smart as I was when I was your age, it definitely means your ideas are crap.

Now, before you “Okay Boomer” me into oblivion, let me point out a couple of things. First, I’m a Gen Xer, which means the only Apple products we got started on were of the IIE variety. That’s not an iPhone, iPad, or laptop. That was a computer they used to put on a metal shelf with rollers so it could be transported without anyone getting a hernia. If you think things are horrible now, try lugging around an actual boom box longer than the distance between your shoulder blades.

Second, everybody’s ideas at this age are crap. It’s a rite of passage that comes with being book smart (or at least YouTube smart) without being life smart. After a couple of years outside the protective bubble of academia, you start to learn how the world works and where you fit in the grand scheme of things. And, no matter how many TikTok videos you make and how many likes they get, you will probably be a cog in the machine for a while.

So, you have that to look forward to.

To be fair, there may be one or two of you out there who will make a go of it, so you’re not all doomed to a fate of permanent mediocrity; just most of you. And that’s okay! It doesn’t mean you will be mediocre all of your lives. It just means you have to get and keep realistic expectations. There will be a number of years when you’re going to live paycheck to paycheck and student loan payment to student loan payment, and that is when your life education truly begins. You will screw up and fail a lot, but if you didn’t, the education you’re getting wouldn’t be worth much. The ones who have an easy time of it are usually the ones you find out die of a drug overdose after graduation or whose lives go right down the crapper once they lose the protection school gives them.

Okay, enough of the doom and gloom. Let’s get to the uplifting, inspirational part of the speech, okay?

At least you don’t have leprosy.  And if you do have leprosy…you’ll get better? So, yay, I guess?

The best advice I can give you as you work your way to the middle is to find your own joy in your world. It doesn’t have to be monumental or mind-blowingly awesome, either. Something as simple as a barista getting your latte order right or making all the lights on your way home can bring you immense joy if you’re willing to allow yourselves to be happy. That’s right, kids. There are times you have to allow yourself to be happy because the world is going to heck in a handbag. Yes, I know, that’s incredibly selfish to do, but it’s important for your mental health. You don’t have to solve the world’s problems 25/8. You are allowed to take a break to recharge and get back into the fight, and a little joy never hurt anyone, while a lack of joy hurts plenty.

Who do you think is having more fun in their lives, Greta Thunberg or Matthew McConaughey? Let me give you a hint: it’s the one who appears to smoke weed like Willie Nelson at Weed-A-Palooza on 4/20 in Amsterdam. Granted, that’s an easier choice than Coke or Pepsi, but it’s not without a reason. If you take yourselves too seriously, you will wind up like Greta, and for all the wrong reasons. If you learn to chill, you will wind up like Matthew, and for all the right reasons.

And if you really want to make a positive impact on the world, introduce the former to the latter’s stash.

Thank you and congratulations!