Category: Economics

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Scandal and politics go hand in hand like Dylan Mulvaney and the world’s worst Audrey Hepburn from “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” impersonator. Some, like the Somali fraud in Minnesota, are pretty substantial. Others…well, let’s just say they’re fucking stupid and should be mocked.

This week, Secretary of War (because Secretary of Killing the Enemy and Breaking Their Shit was too long to put on a t-shirt) Pete Hegseth found himself at the center of a controversy over…and I wish I were making this up…surf and turf. Seems Pete’s been going on a spending spree to the tune of $93.4 billion, including $15.1 million on ribeyes, $2 million on Alaskan king crab, over $7.4 million a month on lobster tails, and other items ranging from Apple products to a piano.

Now, Leftists who normally wouldn’t give one-one-millionth of a shit about spending are up in arms about it! Of course, the usual suspects like Senator Adam “I’m the Love Child of a Human Woman and a Galapagos Tortoise” Schiff, Jasmine “Stacey Abrams 2.0” Crockett, and Adam “Temu Adam Schiff” Kinzinger rushed to social media to lambast the spending, calling it a waste of taxpayer funds from the Administration that gave us DOGE.

Guess which kind of scandal I’m putting Lobstergate in.

Lobstergate

What the Left thinks it means – a waste of money for extravagant luxury items

What it really means – an opportunity for the Left to take all the seats

When it comes to government spending, I’m very much like my idol and spirit animal Ron Swanson. Government is too damn big, so trimming the fat with a chainsaw seems like a good first step. Naturally, when I saw the price tag and what the money was being spent on, my first instinct was to complain. Then, my second instinct was to take a whiz because I had drunk a lot of adult beverages just an hour before.

Eventually, though, the rational side of my mind (or at least the side that can at least appear rational to the untrained eye) started looking into the specifics. I started with the steak because, well, steak. In September 2025, the Department of War spent $22 million on steak and lobster, which makes for one hell of a cookout.

Now, those who know a thing or two about financial matters might take note of the month where this money was spent. For those of you who don’t (or who are Leftists, which is pretty much the same thing), September marks the end of the fiscal year, which in government circles means spend as much as you can even if you’re not going to lose it if it isn’t spent. That adds some perspective to the Leftists’ bullshit.

And, as the MAGA Right will tell you, the steak and lobster didn’t go to Pistol-Packin’-Pete. It was given to…our military, as it has been done repeatedly in the past. Given the state of MREs (famously called Meals Refused by Ethiopians per the late great P. J. O’Rourke), I can excuse splurging on surf and turf because a famous man once said, “an army travels on its belly.”

And that man? You guessed it, Frank Stallone.

Aside from the steak and seafood, something else that caught my eye was the $98,329 grand piano. And that’s not all! Once you drill down to some of the more…bizarre expenditures, it gets harder and harder to justify.

Welcome to government accounting 101, where the budgets are made up and fiscal responsibility doesn’t matter.

And before you go off saying this reporting is from a Soros-funded think tank, I decided to take a closer look at the organization that reported on the extravagant spending under Hegseth’s watch, a little group the kids like to call Open the Books. To put it simply, they were DOGE before DOGE was a thing. Unless Uncle George has gone into funding fiscal conservative groups (which given what bullshit he’s thrown his money towards is highly unlikely), these are some of the “good guys.”

I’ve long been a proponent of reining in excessive and stupid spending, and Lobstergate has a mix of understandable yet excessive spending and drunken sailors on shore leave have more fiscal restraint spending. This is the nature of federal government for most of my life: spend now, figure it out later. Regardless of which major party holds the purse strings, we constantly find out about expensive toilet seats and promoting pineapple juice, but we never do anything about it as voters. Even when politicians tell us they want to cut spending, it never fucking happens.

A big part of this is the “spend it or lose it” mentality within the government. In order to justify spending more next year, bureaucrats and politicians find ways to spend money before the end of the fiscal year showing they really need all that extra money next year. After all, we can’t expect our fighting men and women to be at their best if we don’t spend billions of dollars on furniture, can we?

Actually, I’m pretty sure we can. Last time I checked, a credenza can’t shoot worth a shit. Maybe it’s because, well, it’s a piece of fucking furniture.

One of the things I will always go on record in criticizing with the Trump Administration is the number of unforced errors they make on the regular. This is one of them. And, yes, I know it’s business as usual in DC, but from the jump the current Trump Administration focused on cutting waste. Lobstergate doesn’t help that image and makes the President seem as two-faced as the Swamp creatures he ran against.

This almost gives the Left a W here. I say almost because they’re not much better at fiscal responsibility as Republicans have been in recent decades. In no way does it excuse the Right, but it puts their critiques into context. They’re just anti-Trump at this point, so even if he does something they approved in the past, it’s horrible.

Yeah, you’re not beating the charges of being flaming hypocrites anytime soon, kids.

And you should really take a seat. In fact, take all the seats. After the Obamacare debacle, you should never be considered credible by anyone with two working brain cells. I mean, you guys kept parroting Paul Krugman’s bullshit and he’s as reliable as Miss Cleo hooked up to a lie detector. You’re just not good at economics, and it shows.

Meanwhile, Lobstergate is more about government spending than it is about the Left/Right debate, mainly because both sides are horrible at staying within a budget, or passing one for that matter. The national debt is an ongoing concern, and reckless spending on last minute items isn’t the way to address it. Just ask anyone who racks up a huge credit card bill over the holidays.

Instead, let me propose an idea that’s worked everywhere it’s been tried: if you don’t need it, don’t spend money on it. Sure, you may lose money next fiscal year because you didn’t use up everything you received this year, but when the national debt is higher than Hunter Biden at Crack-A-Palooza, it’s more important to make the money stretch farther than to secure more money for grand pianos and Sesame Street in Iraq.

Trust the free market on this, kids. If there’s a need, it will be filled as soon as someone finds a way to make money off it. And I’m not talking Congresscritters here. If there is a demand for a good or service, government doesn’t have to step in and fill it; a smart businessperson will step up and do it. Then, he or she will have to pay taxes on that investment, so you’ll get your money, just not deposited directly into your pockets like you normally get it. Government intervention in creating demand never works out well in the end, especially when you consider most politicians and bureaucrats wouldn’t know a ROI from a DUI.

The difference? Government types get a lot more of the latter on our tax dollars than they do the former.











_______________________________________________

Follow this blog on Mastodon or the Fediverse to receive updates directly in your feed.

Something About Everything
Something About Everything
@somethingabouteverything

a Blog about Faith, Politics, Technology, and everything.

529 posts
2 followers

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

In case you hadn’t heard (and, really, why would you care at this point), the Grammys were recently held and a lot of anti-ICE sentiments, including from pop star Billie Eilish who said “No one is illegal on stolen land.” I’m pretty sure she would feel differently if there were squatters on her property claiming ownership.

And if you don’t think that would actually happen, look up squatters rights in New York City. Just don’t try their salsa.

Now, someone is holding Ms. Eilish to her word because…her house is on stolen land! Oops.

Anyway, Ms. Eilish’s current squatterhood isn’t the subject of this week’s Lexicon, as humorous as it is. Instead, I’m going to focus on a related subject the Left seems to have problems understanding, property rights. (Granted, I could put in just about anything after the comma and it would still be correct, but work with me here.) I will warn you this stuff is gonna be dryer than Ben Shapiro listening to Cardi B, but I will try to make it entertaining.

property rights

What the Left thinks it means – an outdated concept that reinforces power structures, including racism and sexism

What it really means – a bedrock Constitutional right around which many others revolve

Say what you will about the Founding Fathers (and believe me Leftists have), but two of the things they were passionate about were protecting one’s person and property. In fact, Thomas “You Need It When?” Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence referenced “life, liberty, and property” which was kinda awkward when you consider he owned slaves at the time. Fortunately, cooler wigs prevailed and he changed it to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” which he most certainly did with Sally Hemmings, if you know what I mean.

Anyway, the point is the Founding Fathers understood the importance of property rights as an extension of human rights. The Bill of Rights itself posed a number of restrictions on government fucking around with our property. Here are a few:

Second Amendment – government can’t take our guns (not that it stopped them before…)

Third Amendment – government can’t use our property to house soldiers without our permission

Fourth Amendment – we have the right for our person and property to be safe from government conducting unreasonable searches and seizures (not that it stopped them before…)

Fifth Amendment – government can’t take our shit without paying us for it (not that it stopped…hey, is there an echo?)

Eight Amendment – government can’t jack up fines, depriving us of money

You could even make an argument for the First Amendment being a limit on intellectual property, but even if you don’t, that’s half of the Bill of Rights dealing at least in part with personal property. Later Amendments also dipped their toes into the property rights waters with a little less fervor and frequency than the Founding Fathers.

Wow. I haven’t seen that many Fs since my last report card.

Anyway, the concept of property rights is woven into our country’s DNA, so it’s not something that we should take lightly. Which means, of course, the Left wants to change that. Yes, I know it’s shocking to think people who believe socialism can work see property ownership and the rights that come with it are a bad thing.

It stems from an economic concept I’ve discussed previously, so of course I’m going to repeat it, called a zero-sum game. Basically, it’s the idea that when someone else wins, you lose. It’s always explained in terms of a pie (mmmmm…piiiiiie), so if someone takes a bigger piece, it deprives others of a piece or an equivalent size of a piece, which the Left tells us is bad.

Here’s where shit gets really weird, kids. Imagine if you will an infinite pie, one where it’s impossible to run out because it’s so massive. Not only will you be able to get your initial slice, but you can go back and get more without negatively affecting others. Or, to put it another way, the economy keeps making pies at a rate that surpasses the desire for it, so there is never a loss for pie.

You know, I’m starting to get hungry for some reason…

Meanwhile, back at the non-pie related subject, the Left views property rights the same way, although with fewer bakery references. If someone owns land or a house, they think it somehow deprives someone else of owning said land or house. Of course, the problems with this line of thought are a) it doesn’t prevent the second person from owning land/housing somewhere else, b) it presumes the first person did something to harm the second person, and c) it’s fucking stupid.

Then again, so are the Leftists getting their collectivist panties in a bunch over a person with land and a house.

You know, like…oh, I don’t know…Billie Eilish?

But apparently that’s okay because she’s saying the right thing about stolen land and illegal immigration. That’s the best thing about being a Leftist: as long as you have the “right” position, all of your sins get forgiven. The caveat is you have to keep the “right” position at all times or else you get excommunicated. Just ask Nikki Minaj.

But while you wait for her to get some time in her schedule, keep in mind the Left have a low opinion of property owners in general, whether it be a landlord or a business owner, mainly because they don’t understand how property ownership is a thing. (I refer you back to the number of Leftists who think socialism can work as evidence.) They especially dislike anyone who owns property and attempts to make money from it, citing it’s greed.

To which I say, “No fucking duh!”

Like it or not, people find ways to make money. Some people try counterfeiting, but most use their tools or talents to satisfy a need. That includes providing housing to people who want to rent a place to live, or who…now get this…need a place to house their goods and services. That in and of itself isn’t evil or even morally gray. It just is.

Which makes it all the more humorous to me when the Left tries to guilt/shame people into feeling bad about making money. There is no shame in using what you have to make a buck. Well, except if you’re a social media influencer, that is. The point is the Left wants you to feel bad because of something you have that they don’t. That’s why they lean into the rhetoric they do. Whether it’s “property ownership is racist” or “companies can go through insurance to pay for damage done” to “no one should be a billionaire” the song remains the same, and it’s no better with autotune.

Expecting a Leftist to be consistent with property rights is like expecting Hunter Biden not to do drugs; it’s theoretically possible, but highly unlikely. That’s why I’ve come up with a handy-dandy little tool to defend yourself against Leftist emotional manipulation.

Okay, I didn’t invent it, but merely adopted it from my schoolyard days. It’s called, “So What?” Whenever a Leftist tries to make you feel guilty about your property rights, ask them “So what?” You can also use the, “And?” approach if you’d prefer. What that will do is confuse them to the point you can make your escape if you so choose. Of course, if you do that, you’ll miss out on their heads exploding, but it saves on dry cleaning bills.

The secret of its effectiveness is in the fact it challenges the Leftist mindset that you must feel bad about property rights. Not only do they not expect it because they’re usually around like-minded individuals who don’t question the bullshit they’re saying, but it forces them to confront the reality that it may not be as morally egregious as they think. They’ll never admit that, though, and will try to double down.

Then, hit ’em with it again.

Blather. Rinse. Repeat.

At some point, the Leftist will either have an emotional meltdown that would make most toddlers look stoic or give up and move on with their days of…wait, what is it Leftists actually do? Oh, yeah, bilk taxpayer money through NGOs or get generous donations from Uncle George Soros to sit on their activist asses and pretend to be doing something meaningful.

You know, like making money off property ownership?

While we wait for Ms. Eilish to give up her stolen land (safety tip: don’t hold your breath waiting), understand the Left will not give up the fight against property rights for you, and in favor of property rights for them. The best way to fight back is to not even acknowledge their version of reality and insert your own, which I guarantee is a lot closer to actual reality.

What else do you expect from people taking their ideological cues from a pop star?


Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

With the Democratic Party looking more like the Titanic, but with more holes in the hull, they are trying anything they can get their hands on as a cudgel to beat Republicans with in the midterm elections. And I’m hoping it’s just figuratively at this point. And they think they have a winner.

Affordability.

Yes, from the party that gave us “It’s the economy, stupid,” the Left is going back to the economic well to tell us how everything is more expensive, thus creating an affordability crisis that affects the most vulnerable. They say everything from groceries to health care is too damn high and it’s the Republicans’ fault.

But is it?

Let’s go spelunking into this topic, shall we?

affordability

What the Left thinks it means – an economic situation where Republicans are making things more expensive out of cruelty and greed

What it really means – the Left trying to pawn off their bad decisions onto the Right

Much like a Chinese restaurant next door to a cat hospital, I don’t necessarily trust the Left when it comes to economics, mainly because they don’t know shit about it. But instead of being hungry an hour later, if you follow Leftist economic theory, an hour later you’re poor again.

On the surface, though, they seem to have the right of this. As Senator Chris “Too Lame for a Nickname” Murphy pointed out, electricity costs have gone up, and that’s something that impacts everyone rich or poor. He even produced a graph! How can Republicans refute a graph, man????

Simple. By knowing how a calendar works.

Seems the Senator’s graph was missing some context, namely the fact the biggest increases for electricity costs came under President Brick Tamland. But I’m sure that’s just an oversight. I mean, being a Senator as well as a body double for a tackling dummy is a lot of work. It just slipped through the cracks. It’s not like Leftists would blame Republicans for making something else, like…oh I don’t know…health insurance, unaffordable. You would have to be a complete dumbass to link the end of Obamacare subsidies with skyrocketing health care costs.

Well, fuck me sideways, they did. And by they, I mean the aforementioned tackling dummy stand-in.

Of course, this would be worrisome, except for the fact Obamacare was passed without a single Republican vote. And who supported the legislation that put the Obamacare subsidies on a limited schedule? Why, that would be Congressional Democrats!

Even beyond the halls of Congress, the Left is showing their true colors by going after a YouTuber who keeps pulling the curtain back and showing how the Left sucks at budgeting. I’m referring to Caleb Hammer, the host of a series called Financial Audit where people come to him with financial problems and he offers…shall we say brutal honesty. Although he stays pretty apolitical, the Left has gone out of its way to paint him as a fascist and, thus, dagnasty evil.

Why? Because he pushes for personal responsibility rather than living in the moment and paying the piper, well, never..

Of course, there’s another big reason: he proves the Left can’t budget for shit. Actually, let me take that back. Excrement can budget better than Leftists.

That’s why I take their concerns about affordability with a healthy amount of skepticism. (The Left, not the scat.) Their concept of affordability is based less on dollars and cents and more on political opportunism with a dash of emotional manipulation. Remember, the Left said the flaming dumpster fire that was the economy under President Brick Tamland was great and the only people who thought otherwise weren’t smart enough to see how great it was. Now, they’re saying the economy is horrible and anyone who thinks otherwise is, well, not smart enough to see how horrible it is.

And that’s why Queen Kamala the Appointed is our President right now. Oh, wait…

It’s this kind of attitude that fuels so much of Leftist ideology; the (often unfounded) belief Leftists are the smartest people in any room. And, surprise surprise, it fuels the talk of affordability, too. The Left believes they know enough about how the economy really is to “educate” the rest of us about it, even when their observations are so divorced from reality they’re trying to get alimony. As a result, the Left comes off as tone deaf and out-of-touch to average Americans, not to mention pretentious, overbearing, and just fucking wrong.

This next part is going to be a little big-brained, so if you’re not into that sort of thing, skip past this part and we’ll get back to your regularly scheduled profanity-laden humor soon.

The fatal flaw with the Left’s affordability argument is the same one it faces with their arguments in favor of a living wage: it’s so nebulous it’s impractical and unwieldy to enact. Affordability varies from person to person. Elon Musk could lose $100 million in his couch cushions without it negatively affecting him (although it would make his housekeeper really happy), but it would break most people.

And don’t think I miss the irony of government officials talking about affordability when they themselves don’t have to worry about whether they can afford a night out or a tank of gas. These people can’t be bothered to think outside of their penthouse suites, expensive meals, and gated communities.

But they can be bothered to think about how they can get the average American to ignore their personal experience and listen to their bullshit. Unfortunately for us, there are a lot of fiscally illiterate people out there. And a lot of the time we’re electing them to Congress.

But more to the point, it’s easy to baffle people with bullshit if they don’t have a rudimentary understanding of the subject matter. That’s why Caleb Hammer has a steady stream of guests beating a path to his door; because they make worse financial decisions than Enron. And with accountability being a four-letter word (partially because of Common Core math), the Left has a ready-made audience for their “it’s not your fault you suck at budgeting, but it is the evil rich people’s fault” platform.

That’s the most perverse part of the affordability “crisis.” The people who caused the problems we face are the ones who claim to have all the answers on how to get out of them. And these assholes know it. Outside of having a great fiscal awakening where everyone suddenly understands economics, I don’t think we’re going to see things get better for a loooooong time.

In the meantime, though, understand affordability is just another Leftist buzzword designed to gaslight you into thinking what you’re experiencing is just a facade, just like they did with President Brick Tamland’s economy. The thing is they’re not very good at it, like hiding the ineptitude of the previous President and Vice President. But instead of trying to figure out a way to capitalize on the bread-and-butter issues, the Left would rather lie to your face, spit in it, and call you stupid.

Oh, and then beg for your votes and wonder why they lose elections.

They really aren’t sending their best, are they? Then again, maybe they are…

Thanks, But No Thanksgiving

One of the things that always got me in trouble in real life or online was noticing things. Patterns, dots that could be connected but weren’t, the mannerisms of different people of varying political ideologies, how my first serious online girlfriend was a 50 year old man named Frank with body hair that would make Bigfoot look like Vin Diesel.

I still wonder how Frank is doing…

Meanwhile back at the main point, I noticed something recently that I should have seen coming a couple of years ago. (Hey, I said I noticed things, not that I notice them in a timely fashion!) It seems Americans go right from Halloween to Christmas, skipping over Thanksgiving in the process. At first, it sneaked under my radar because I still recognize Thanksgiving as a holiday, but in recent years society has treated Thanksgiving like Pluto in that for a while it wasn’t recognized as legit. But Pluto was always real to me, dammit, and so is Thanksgiving.

This is where things get interesting if your into that kind of thing. I did some thinking about the why, mainly because there weren’t any good football games on yet. What I landed on was the nature of the three holidays in question: Halloween, Thanksgiving, and Christmas.

Halloween used to be about the fun of dressing up in costumes, some with uncomfortable masks, roaming the streets looking for houses to go trick-or-treating. Within the past decade or so, Halloween has really changed into a consumer-driven affair (with a side trip into Slutty Costume Land) where everyone has to have the best candy or costume to participate.

Similarly, Christmas had a different tone in the past than it does now. What was once a time to celebrate with family and friends with killer egg nog made with rum so strong it could double as paint thinner turned into a holiday where you hear “buy buy buy” more than N’Sync on an infinite loop. This is when stores, malls, gallerias, and other sources of yuletide commerce make most of their money. And if you’re not getting the hottest gifts for the people you love, you’re just a horrible human being.

Then, there’s Thanksgiving. Aside from being a professional and college football mecca, people just don’t pay as much attention to it as they used to, mainly because there’s no real commercialization that can be done. We’re already invested in buying turkey, ham, side dishes, and pies, so there’s no real kickback, as it were. Nothing that would make us want to go out and spend a lot of money.

And therein lies the problem.

It’s not that Thanksgiving is a bad holiday by any means. It’s just not as sexy, literally and figuratively. Thanksgiving is a time for self-reflection, appreciation for what we have, and a joy that can’t be bought with a gift receipt. The only real consumption going on involves food.

Which brings me to another discovery: we’re no longer a capitalist society. That may come as a shock to the capitalists out there, but we’ve moved into a consumerist society. Leftists will tell us this is an outgrowth of capitalism, but these are the same nozzleheads who consider Robert Reich and Paul Krugman respected economists, so I wouldn’t put much stock in their economic knowledge.

Capitalism has some rules to it, some of them right out of social Darwinism, others out of Ayn Rand’s objectivism. But one rule that is central is not to fuck with your potential customers in such a way they are unable or unwilling to buy your stuff. That’s the moral core of capitalism. After all, if your products or services cause people to die, not only is it going to reduce your customer base, but it’s going to cause bad PR and lead to the ruin of your business.

Where consumerism deviates from that is the companies will continue to nickel and dime you wherever they can, and people don’t consider that to be a deal-breaker. We’ve seen this (and by “we’ve” I mean “I’ve” because I really don’t have a life) in video games through microtransactions. Basically, microtransactions are way games convince people to buy their way to a chance at success or a cooler look, which totally looks good on a resume.

Although it’s easy to dismiss microtransactions as something only gamer nerds have to deal with, it’s gotten into the automotive market, where car companies are now selling subscriptions for automatic start capability. And that’s in addition to such things like OnStar and SiriusXM that are nice to have, but not absolutely necessary to drive a vehicle. And I say that as a guy who likes to listen to music and comedy while driving and being able to call someone if I get into an accident. More so the former than the latter, mind you.

And you know what? There are dipshits willing to pay for it! As much of a capitalist as I am, I draw the line at making people pay for stuff that should be standard issue or that will give people advantages others wouldn’t have. But there are people who only see the ends justifying the means and leave it at that. As long as they get ahead, fuck everyone else, right?

Yeah, about that. With this shift in morality (if you can call it that anymore), there’s been a corresponding shift in egotism, which makes the consumerism side of this matter even more troubling. When your self image is tied up in material goods or even the perception of material wealth, you’re willing to do anything to do better than anyone else so you get that dopamine hit.

Which explains the push for the best Halloween candy and costumes and the biggest, brightest Christmas tree and outdoor decorations, and the hottest gifts for under the tree. But you know one holiday that has nothing to do with any of those ego-driven pursuits?

Arbor Day. But also Thanksgiving.

When it comes to egotists, anything that doesn’t directly serve the “me” in a wide enough scale is not worth pursuing. And Thanksgiving tends to be more of an intimate affair, one where people think of others in some fashion or another either when feeding family, friends, or even the less fortunate. Aside from food selfies, there’s not a lot of traction to be gained on social media. In short, there’s nothing in it for them to think of someone else’s needs during this time of year.

And that’s what’s driving the “War on Thanksgiving.” Hey…that could be the name of a movement, maybe one that could generate millions of dollars.

Nah. Nobody would buy into it.

Anyway, the point I’m getting at (finally!) is we shouldn’t skip Thanksgiving to get an early jump on Christmas. I mean, stores are already prepping for Christmas while Halloween items are just hitting the shelves, so they’ve got that covered. Not to mention, they’re just putting out swimwear and putting all their winter coats on the clearance racks.

Outside of the stores, we can do a bit more about not letting consumerism take over our lives. Yes, I know we want to get out loved ones the best we can afford, but it doesn’t mean we have to overlook a major American holiday to get a head start on, well, consuming something other than turkey and dressing. There’s a reason Thanksgiving exists, people! For one, it’s to start political discussions so you can weed out your Christmas card lists. But more importantly, it’s to take a moment to appreciate humanity as a whole. Even if you don’t buy the Americanized story of Thanksgiving, just enjoy the food, fellowship, and football. We can all act like civil human beings for one day, right?

Well, considering I’m still banned from Boston Market for an incident my attorney has advised me not to explain, most of us can.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Well, the pre-midterm election results didn’t turn out so well for the Republicans, with Democrats making strides in several contests. One area of note is in the Big Apple, where voters overwhelmingly elected Zohran Mamdani to be the next Mayor. He ran as a democratic socialist, which is just a fancy term for a regular socialist who wants Democrat donations.

Anyway, this has sparked a discussion about socialism in general. The Left is crowing about how Mamdani represents a new way forward while simultaneously telling us we don’t know enough about socialism to appreciate it.

Challenge accepted.

socialism

What the Left thinks it means – a viable socioeconomic/political model that works time and time again

What it really means – an non-viable socioeconomic/political model that doesn’t work more often than it works

The most important place to start in this discussion is what socialism actually means. You know, aside from the definition I posed above. Our good friends at Dictionary.com define socialism thus:

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government.

2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

More on this third definition later.

What Leftists say is a key feature of socialism is fairness. Everything is fair, everyone contributes to the overall good, and everything is rainbows, unicorns, and unlimited trips to the salad bar with any meal purchase. Socialism’s PR has gotten so good these days, around two-thirds of Democrats see it in a positive light.

And I can understand the appeal, especially with younger voters. The current capitalist system doesn’t seem to work for anyone but the wealthy, leaving many people out in the cold. People having to take on multiple jobs just to keep their heads above water. Everything’s getting more expensive. Surely there has to be a better way forward.

There is, but socialism ain’t it, kids.

Let’s take a trip in the Wayback Machine to 1620 when the Pilgrims were making their way to what would be called America. Because there were squabbles among the Pilgrims, leaders created a little thing the kids like to call the Mayflower Compact. Although it sounded good on paper and advocated for such things as self-governance and no religious oppression, it was by and large a socialist approach.

And, surprise surprise, it didn’t work! Who could have seen this coming? (I mean aside from anyone who stayed awake in junior high American history from back in my day.)

If you think that was the only time we dabbled in socialism, there’s also Social Security. What started out with good intentions became a socialist nightmare that is running out of money, partially because of demographics, and partially because Congress has been taking money out of it for decades and not returning it.

Then, there’s public education, care through the VA, SNAP, public defenders, and other not-so-goods and service that fall under the socialist umbrella. Even when you have moderately successful concepts like public roads and fire departments, they still aren’t quite socialist because they serve a common good, while socialism just claims to serve. You can count on the remaining hand of the world’s worst shop teacher the number of socialist programs and ideas that have worked to everyone’s satisfaction.

That may be one of the underlying reasons younger voters are okay with socialism: they haven’t been taught shit about the failures of socialism, even on our shores. Sure, they learned all about how the Pilgrims were evil white colonizers who slaughtered Native Americans, but they just didn’t get to the part where they tried their hand at an early version of socialism and got their asses handed to them. But in the defense of public education, they just don’t have time to cover how fucked up socialism is because they have to make room for a deep dive into how Taylor Swift is such a cultural icon.

And I only wish I were half-kidding.

Educational standards going down like a starlet trying to get a movie deal from Harvey Weinstein aside, I don’t think capitalism has made a good enough argument to the past couple of generations, mainly because capitalists know it’s the best thing going today. Even so, it might not hurt to advertise a bit more. I mean, it’s easy to be a socialist when you have the latest iPhone, drink Starbucks on the regular, and make money posting TikTok videos. When the rubber meets the road, though, it’s a lot harder to live in a socialist society.

That’s because one of the dirty little secrets of socialism is it only works as long as they have OPM: Other People’s Money. It’s a pretty simple concept, really. If you’re spending your own money, you tend to be more frugal. If you’re spending someone else’s money, the sky’s the limit, baby!

Socialism works on the same principle. As long as they can take money from the wealthy, things can work. But then it runs into a brick wall called human nature. Even if you’re the most progressive guy or gal (gender count: still 2) out there, at some point you’re going to be confronted with the real possibility you’re putting in more than you’re getting back. Then, you have to make a value judgment: stay within the current system, or high-tail it out of there.

Then, socialism runs into the potential for income erosion. As the wealthier members of a socialist society die off or move on, that not only eliminates their protection money…I mean contributions, it puts more pressure on the next lowest wealth base. Then, if/when they’re off the books, it goes down to the next lowest wealth base.

Blather. Rinse. Repeat.

What most people who subscribe to socialism don’t understand is as long as their is wealth erosion, there will come a time when they’re the wealthiest because everyone else will be poorer than they are. Funny how that works out, isn’t it?

Even if you attempt to dress up socialism by giving it a cool name like Logan or democratic socialism, you’re still going to run into the same problems. And the reason is the same: socialism fucking sucks, man! Although if it were named Logan, it would be cool while it sucked.

Now, remember earlier when I mentioned the third definition of socialism? If not, read up a bit and you’ll see it.

Anyway, it’s interesting to note Marxists used socialism as a lead-in to communism. The way I describe it is this: socialism is communism on pot, and communism is socialism on PCP. By nature, I’ve found socialists by and large aren’t that into violence. You’ll get the occasional socialist with a bike lock and a bad attitude and tries to start something, but most of them are pretty calm. Their hearts are in the right place, as are their facial features because they’re not getting knocked the fuck out.

Communists, on the other hand…well, they’re not exactly the “live and let live” type. Violence is a part of their political brand. I can’t say for certain how many socialists would be okay with communism, but I have to think the number is higher than 1, especially when you consider the Left’s hunger for control. That’s pretty much right out of the communist playbook (or manifesto if you will). It’s almost as if communists knew socialism would fail and further steps would need to be taken.

You know, like cracking skulls and oppression?

I know I’ve shit on socialism worse than if I’d had a Triple Bean Burrito with a side order of salmonella from Taco Bell that’s been sitting in a van in the Mojave Desert since the last time Bon Jovi made a good album (which is never), but I don’t shit on socialists themselves very much. To me, they’re misguided, but have hearts of gold. Or at least would have hearts of gold until their socialist buddies found out and accused them of hoarding wealth.

Having said that, I can’t bring myself to join their ideology because I know too much. I’ve seen the fall of the Soviet Union, the crumbling of the Warsaw Pact countries, and the rise of a more egocentric approach to life in general, none of which bode well for socialism working in this country. Yet, I still wish Zohran Mamdani the best of luck in his attempt to create a socialistic utopia in a city weirder than I am. If he succeeds, I’ll admit freely. If he fails, I’ll mock him endlessly.

Let’s just say I’m betting the under on his success rate.



Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Remember the movie “Groundhog Day”? If not, it’s a great comedy worth a watch. The general idea is a TV weatherman repeats the same day over and over again until he figures out how to get things right.

Well, Bill Murray may have to take a back seat to…the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. In the midst of the government shutdown (which I am blissfully enjoying for the most part for the sheer comedy of Leftists trying to blame Republicans for not funding ACA subsidies for millions of Americans. Leftists tell us unless these subsidies are funded as part of the Continuing Resolution in the Senate, prices will skyrocket, making healthcare unaffordable.

We’ll get back to that in a bit.

Anyway, with the ACA/Obamacare coming back into the news, I figured we’d be good to reminisce about the days when men were men and women were men and everybody was really confused.

Affordable Care Act/Obamacare

What the Left thinks it means – a vital piece of legislation that made healthcare affordable for millions

What it really means – an unsustainable piece of legislation that Leftists sabotaged from the jump

The year was 2010 and President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law. Although it was greeted by fanfare and the efforts of Democrats (since zero Republicans voted for it). In fact, Leftists were quick to point out how former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney had a similar, if not exact duplicate, of the ACA in his state. Given what we know now about Romneycare and the mush of a man behind it, that’s not exactly something to brag about.

Regardless, Leftists were aglow with pride at getting it passed. Finally, the federal government, the purveyor of all that is good and right in the world, would be able to ensure people got health insurance by…let me read my notes…taking away options they didn’t like. That’s right, kids, Big Brother was watching you make health insurance decisions and removed your ability to choose what you wanted in favor of policies they demanded…I mean recommended through their new portal.

On a side note, why didn’t the Mafia sue the Obama Administration for copyright infringement over the Obamacare shakedown? Not that I would impugn the good name of the members of our waste management communities across this great land of ours, mind you.

Meanwhile as I attempt to avoid having my legs broken, the results of Obamacare weren’t exactly that great. In fact, it lead to spikes in costs, worse deductibles, and overall worse care. They couldn’t even get the Obamacare website to work right at launch! They made the demands to get people to use the website to sign up for their mandatory health insurance plans, but the website couldn’t meet the demand.

If that’s not the perfect metaphor for how fucked up Obamacare is, I don’t know what would be…except for the current situation where Leftists are demanding the Affordable Care Act’s subsidies be funded…so the policies through the Affordable Care Act could be…affordable?

The thing about the Affordable Care Act is that it was never meant to be affordable, per se, but rather it was an attempt to fuck things up to the point people would start demanding single-payer healthcare. And as we’ve seen with VA hospitals, it tends to wind up with worse care. Oh, and the misappropriation of funds! Oh, and the sexual harassment and sexual assault allegations! Oh, and the absurd wait times on their suicide hotline.

You know, I seem to remember a lot of Democrats getting their collectivist panties in a bunch over this…but I’m sure these little issues won’t dissuade anyone from jumping on the single-payer bandwagon!

And, really, that was the point of the Affordable Care Act. Well, that, and forcing the federal government into a business it knew less about than the Car Czar did with automobiles. Not that insurance companies minded, mind you. Thanks to the ACA, they made out like bandits. Or would have if they raised their ethical standards by a factor of, oh, five gazillion.

And as we’ve seen with military spending, whenever the federal government subsidize anything, costs are no object because the government can just print more money. Or pretend to for the purposes of tricking people into thinking we’re operating under a budget. But that’s a blog post for another time…

Meanwhile back at the main point, we’ve dumped money into Obamacare for the better part of 15 years, and I’ll be the first to admit it’s helped some people. The larger issue is it didn’t help enough people to make it worthwhile. The very fact they had to keep funding it through the American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act should make even Stevie Wonder see it wasn’t economically feasible to keep the printing presses rolling.

Guess who controlled both houses of Congress after these two pieces of dog shit legislation got to the Auto Pen of President Brick Tamland? The Democrats.

And they were the ones who put the impending deadline into play.

Yeah, but it’s the Republicans who are the assholes.

Much more concerning to your humble correspondent than the ever-expanding fiscal sinkhole that is Obamacare is the fact it was coerced capitalism. As a free market and libertarian kinda guy, I don’t want to be forced to buy a product or service from anyone. Car and house insurance I get, but it’s not like the federal government is going to penalize me for not having either. That comes with the next bill after Logan or Kayleigh runs into the back of a school bus at 20 miles per hour because they just had to post something on TikTok, or after they cause hundreds of thousands of dollars in property damage because they wanted to see if they could turn their last Taco Bell meal into an ass flamethrower.

The Affordable Care Act, on the other hand, forced you to have health insurance. On the surface, it’s not that bad an idea, until you realize you would get penalized for not carrying any health insurance. And that’s even on top of the fact you may not even be able to afford the policies the federal government offered you. For many Americans, the choice came down to either paying the fine or paying for insurance.

Yeah, that’s not gonna work for me, brother.

The beauty of the free market system is you get to choose your path. If you decide to insure your car with Uncle Swifty’s Fly-By-Night Insurance Company and Used Tire Lot, it was your choice. A fucking stupid choice, but a choice nonetheless. Through the Affordable Care Act, your choices were limited by what they allowed you to have and what they believed you should pay for the coverage offered. Sure, you might have to go without luxuries like food and shelter, but at least you have health insurance, right?

Yeah, about that. As much shit as insurance companies get for denying claims, there’s one entity that is the absolute worst at it. I’m talking definite double digit denials here, kids. That entity, the lowest of the low, the scummiest of the scummy, the heartlessest of the heartless?

The federal government.

The same group of assholes who brought you Obamacare.

But don’t worry! The insurance companies who worked with the ACA had a plan! The Obama Administration had these things called Risk Corridors built into the Affordable Care Act to cover losses incurred due to the Affordable Care Act. Thank God they were spared, right?

Perhaps the most lasting legacy of the ACA is how the Left managed to conflate healthcare with health insurance, like they’re doing right now. The two aren’t the same and shouldn’t be considered to be so under any rational conditions.

Let me explain the difference this way. You cut your finger making dinner. Healthcare involves putting a bandage on the cut. Health insurance involves who is paying for the bandage and the care. You can get the former without involving the latter, as last time I checked, doctors like money. In fact, if you can pay for your treatment directly, many doctors appreciate that because it saves them the headache of dealing with insurance providers and determining what is covered and what isn’t.

That’s not to say Obamacare isn’t complete dog shit. Mostly, yes, but not completely. I’m referring to the concept of preexisting conditions. Prior to the ACA, insurance providers could deny coverage for any reason if they could link it back to something you already head. Obamacare put the kibosh on that practice, but it’s still being done. If I could make one suggestion to anyone trying to build the better health insurance mousetrap, it would be to keep a tighter lid on preexisting conditions, or at least make it eligible for appeal from a non-governmental and non-insurance company entity.

Failing that, go on social media and tell your stories about how your health insurance provider fucked you over over preexisting condition bullshit unrelated to the malady in question. Their CEOs will pay attention to that shit because it affects their bottom lines. And by bottom lines, I mean their salaries. Enough bad press and they might not be able to afford to spend the holidays in Aruba.

As far as the subsidies are concerned, the very fact they exist to make the Affordable Care Act affordable is a sign of its utter failure. If I had my druthers (and people knew what druthers were in the first place), I would reset the board to the way things were prior to the ACA being signed into law. It may be too late for some health insurance providers who were able to provide low cost policies to people, but at the very least we could try to revitalize that market and make health insurance affordable again.

Say, that could be a slogan of some kind…nahhhhh. No one would ever take up the Make Anything Great Again idea with any degree of success.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

In case you missed it (and why wouldn’t you since you all have lives), there was another No Kings march recently. And I am happy to report the only kings left standing after this march are of the burger variety.

In the aftermath of the march, the Left announced a new initiative called Mass Blackout. First off, it should be Mass African-Americanout. Second, the idea behind it is to stick it to The Man, with The Man being megacorporations.

And now it’s my turn to stick it to the Mass Blackout.

Mass Blackout

What the Left thinks it means – not spending any money during the busiest shopping days of the year

What it really means – another example of Leftists not knowing shit about economics

Financial boycotts have been a thing for a while now, whether it be conservatives boycotting national department store chains for daring to put a same-sex couple in an advertisement or Leftists boycotting Chik-fil-A for allegedly being anti-gay. Their effectiveness varies. Sometimes the boycotts work, other times they drive more business towards the business being boycotted. But at the end of the day, the same force drives decisions one way or the other.

You guessed it. Frank Stallone.

Actually, that force is money. (Sorry, Frank.) Money is a powerful motivator and can make the difference between keeping the doors open and going the way of many government employees these days. With everything, there is a risk/reward argument to be had. Sure, it may feel good to tell the local HOA board member wine mom Karen to go fuck a duck when she’s making unreasonable demands, but that comes at a cost that other HOA board member wine mom Karens will rally around the Alpha Karen and counterattack.

It would be at this point I would use the taser, but that’s just me.

The same principle is at work with the Mass Blackout. (The power of money, not the taser thing. That last one’s just my go-to.) The goal is to make the big stores feel the pinch as the Left goes shopping at smaller local vendors. On the surface, it’s a great way to stick it to the big box chain stores that dominate the retail landscape. Brilliant plan, right?

Yeah, that’s where the Leftists don’t know shit about economics comes into play.

Whether you shop of Mom and Pop’s Cheese Store or Best Buy, the money is still going into the economy. You’re just directing where the money goes. Even if you follow the directives of Mass Blackout and not buying goods or services between November 25 and December 2 from any major retailers, you’re buying something before and after, which means…it’s not really a boycott, per se. That’s practicing capitalism, boys and girls!

Also, there’s the problem of scarcity to consider. For example, I’m sure your local coffee shop has some great blends that you love, but if you’re craving a Starbucks Pumpkin Spice Latte (known as the Money Maker by 4 out of 5 dentists), you won’t be able to get it at your local coffee shop. They may have something close, but it won’t be exactly the same.

What the Left doesn’t understand is local stores and services may not have the exact thing consumers are looking for, so they will either have to order online or stand in line for the big chain distributors to fulfill those special orders. It pains me to say it, but the local businesses can’t always keep up. The sentiment behind the Mass Blackout is there, but the execution leaves a lot to be desired.

Then, there’s the unintended consequences of the Mass Blackout, namely the impact it may have on seasonal workers. Granted, Target and WalMart aren’t going to go under if they lose a few dollars here and there, but what about the employees? These are the ones who always get hurt during boycotts because they’re not the megacorporations; they’re the cogs in the machine.

I remember Leftists going after BP after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. They decided they would stop buying BP gasoline to stick it to the big wigs. What they didn’t know or bother to find out is many BP stations are employee-owned, meaning the boycotts hurt them the most.

Way to stick it to The Man, Leftists. That time, you stuck it to the working man.

Just like you’re doing here.

The problem (among many) is the Left doesn’t seem to care that much about the people they claim to represent. Working class people have been suffering for a decade or two because the Left values self-worth over the common good. To them, it’s always about putting up a good front and feeling good about what they’re doing (or “doing” as the case may be because their actions tend to be more ethereal than practical). And if people they don’t like or know get hurt in the process, so be it! Their fee-fees must be protected at all costs!

And that’s the heart of the Mass Blackout. It’s not about fighting anything they list on their website, which includes a lot of Leftist bullshit that has nothing to do with economics, per se, but can be wedged into the protest with jackhammers, chicken wire, bubble gum, and a lot of duct tape because intersectionality. (For those of you playing along at home, intersectionality is the idea that everything is interconnected, even if it’s complete bullshit.)

Yet, when trying to fit everything into a movement, Leftists never seem to get the idea you can have too much of anything, which ultimately hurts the movement.

You know what else hurts a movement? Apathy. For all the good the movement intends to do, it means jack shit if they’re the only ones playing along. So far, I haven’t seen too many arguments to consider joining the Mass Blackout, just that we should totally do it, yanno. That’s how stupid this is: they can’t even make an argument to the normies out there to join in. Everything they’re doing is Leftist buzzwords and emotion. No real calls to action outside their hivemind, who are already a) invested, or b) too damn poor to spend any real money on anything more expensive than avocado toast, hold the avocado.

And even that might be pushing it.

What is bound to happen because Murka is the general public will ignore the Mass Blackout and go about their days without a first thought, let alone a second one. They’ll spend their money as they see fit and that will be the end of it. And the people behind the Mass Blackout will invariably claim victory or blame the evil Trump Administration/corporations/billionaires/stupid people for a lack of participation.

And the best part? The Left has done this shit more than a few times this year, and not even your perpetually online favorite blogger knew about it. And I didn’t know about it either!

So, if anyone who is supporting the Mass Blackout is reading this, take the L now and save yourself a lot of pain. You’re not going to change the system by doing the same shit you’ve done earlier this year. Switch it up a bit! Maybe, just maybe, participate in the capitalist system like you’re already doing and know your role.

Shutting your mouth would also be a big help.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

This week the Left was all abuzz about mail in ballots after President Donald “South Park Is Irrelevant” Trump announced he would “lead a movement” to ban the use of them for the 2026 midterm elections. As easy as it would be to whip out an occasionally funny, yet bitingly accurate blog post about it, I wanted to focus on an issue that hasn’t had a lot of play, but is more disturbing than a Jeffrey Epstein snuff film.

Too soon?

The issue is a little something the kids like to call debanking. It’s been a definite issue within conservative circles, but the Left has defended it, citing how dangerous those being debanked really are. So, is it an ideologically-based system of discrimination or is it the exercise of freedom of association, or lack thereof? Let’s find out!

debanking

What the Left thinks it means – banks deciding not to deal with problematic customers

What it really means – the Left using regulatory pressure to deny customers access to banking systems

Yes, I know this isn’t as sexy as mail in ballots, so I’ll try to keep things entertaining. And, yes, I will actually try this time.

Having worked in the mortgage industry for 15 years (15 long, grueling, thankless, and not mentally healthy years), I know about banking regulations. Probably a lot more than you would care to know. Contrary to popular Leftist belief, banks are heavily regulated with a multitude of government agencies that will fine you if you sneeze too loudly in their general vicinity. (Obviously, I’m exaggerating here, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the government didn’t have regulations for just such a purpose.)

Why do I bring this up? First, to pad out this piece a bit. But second, to give you a glimpse into the various factors that can drive a bank to do anything. You know, like giving out mortgage loans to people who couldn’t afford a cardboard box let alone a home because racism or something. And who cares if they’re a bigger credit risk than Charlie Sheen on a coke bender with a black American Express card? Get those people into homes and fuck fiscal responsibility!

We saw how well that turned out during the 2008 mortgage crisis.

That’s the pervasive power of the federal government at work. If any bank wants to stay in business, they’re pretty much stuck into having to do what the government says. That’s like letting a room full of monkeys write Shakespeare: you may get the desired result, but there will definitely be shit all over the walls.

This brings us to the Leftist perspective on government regulation. To them, regulation is the great equalizer for the injustice they see in their tiny little hivemind. If you can’t persuade someone to act the way the Left wants you to act, the force of law will do just fine. I wonder if there’s been a recent President who could weigh in on this…

And in this case, it’s not the one you’re thinking of, probably.

For this one, we need to go all the way back to 2013 with a little thing I’d like to call Operation Choke Point. Back in the days when “Hope” and “Change” were akin to brilliant political strategy, the Department of Justice started cracking down on banks for doing business with certain accounts that allegedly had high probability of fraud or money laundering. Some of these naughty vendors were ammunition sellers, firearms sellers, and “racist materials,” among other more likely fraudulent vendors.

Now, riddle me this, Batman! What do those three types of vendors in particular have in common, at least to the Left? They all lean to the right more than a runner trying to steal second base. By putting these groups into such a list, it punished them by forcing banks not to do business with them. Although Operation Choke Hold ended in 2017, the damage had already been done.

This is the end result of debanking: not just to punish wrongthink, but to make the targets suffer for their wrongthink. Granted, I won’t shed a tear for some of those people who were debanked like Nick Fuentes (who is a total piece of racist disingenuous shit), but I can still call out how wrong it was for the government to do that to him and so many others. As long as what they were doing was legal, the federal government had no business interfering in the business of others.

Of course, that never stops the federal government.

And what about President Brick Tamland? He was Vice President when this shit went down before, but surely he didn’t have a role in it this time…oh, wait, he did. This time, the Trump family were some of the ones being debanked. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that may be the reason why the President put out an Executive Order outlawing the practice. And that may be why the heads of major banks are snitching on the Obama and Tamblin Administrations saying they were forced into it due to political pressure.

Now, I’m not the first person to jump in front of a metaphorical bullet for the big banks, but in this case I’m inclined to believe them. Not that it lets them off the hook, mind you. Even if your business is threatened by government agencies, you do have the right to say “no.” Oh, and blab to whomever will listen about how the federal government is forcing you to do something against your will that would negatively impact law-abiding citizens.

“But don’t they have a social responsibility not to associate with bad people, you racist bastard” the Left might ask. To address that, let me point out the concept of freedom of association. In short, people are free to associate or not associate with whomever they want, and the same applies to groups. In the case of debanking, the freedom of association gets beat down by a perceived mob outside our doors.

People are social animals by nature. We have a need to belong to something, and those in power know that. So, when our sense of belonging gets threatened by, say, an 800 pound gorilla known as the federal government, our natural instinct is to comply, even if we know it’s not the right thing to do. And when the Left has cornered the market on calling anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders a Nazi, it’s easy to give in and save ourselves the headaches.

Of course, this comes with a catch. The Left will continue to monitor you and raise the red flag whenever they think you deviate from their version of the right thing to do. Social media platforms are full of keyboard warriors and harassment networks designed to keep things Leftist whenever possible. That kind of pressure can be hard to ignore, let alone overcome.

But, more and more people and companies are giving Leftist complainers the one finger salute, and sometimes even two if they’re feeling generous. And just between you and me, I tend to be very generous, if you know what I mean.

And if you do, could you let me know? Kthanks!

The power the Left has tends to be more imaginary than actual. They’re like wild animals who puff themselves up to look bigger to scare off predators, but all it takes is for one predator to say “fuck that shit” and the illusion goes away faster than Queen Kamala the Appointed’s chances of winning back the White House in my lifetime.

That’s the way to handle the Left’s mob mentality: pay it no mind. The Left hates it when you live your life without their meddling and it only makes them madder and shriller which ultimately makes you look better because you’re unfazed by their antics.

However, I understand where the banks are coming from. Even with a new President and new appointees in different roles, the rank and file don’t change and may dig in even more to hold onto what little power they actually have. That means the same assholes who participated in Operation Choke Hold are likely still in their positions and will continue to cause whatever pain they can to the big banks because reasons.

This is where debanking is at its most insidious. To end the practice, you must remove the practitioners. As long as there’s one asshole in a position to make debanking a thing, it will be a thing.

And to my Leftists readers out there, this is not a call to violence. The people who made debanking a thing need to be removed and prosecuted, civilly or criminally, for violating people’s and group’s rights to access services when engaged in lawful activities. Only when those activities get into the illegal category does the government have any business getting involved. That’s the way it’s worked for centuries in this country, and it worked pretty well until Leftists got involved.

We’ll see if President Trump’s Executive Order on debanking has any teeth in time, but I’m not popping the champagne yet. There are too many entrenched interests involved to make them stop the practice, and given the President’s first round of draining the swamp, I’m not confident debanking will be done away with anytime soon.

Not to worry, though. I’m still generous with my one finger salutes.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The previous week or two has been filled with the shrieking of Leftist harpies. Granted this isn’t an unusual occurrence in the Age of Trump 2.0, but this time it had nothing to do with the President.

This week it was all about blue jeans.

Or, more specifically who was wearing them. I’m talking about the current it-girl, Sydney Sweeney, and her ads for American Eagle jeans. The tagline is “Sydney Sweeney has good jeans,” which is a clever play on words. Well, apparently if you think that way, you’ve heard a dog whistle about racism, Nazis, another Nickelback album…you know, all the horrible things wrapped into one denim-covered box.

Since I’ve heard the phrase “dog whistle” more times than Michael Moore goes back for more food at an All-You-Can-Eat Buffet paid for by Bernie Sanders, I figured it might be a good time to update the Lexicon with a new entry.

dog whistle

What the Left thinks it means – subtle coding for extremist views

What it really means – a well-worn phrase that doesn’t mean what the Left thinks it means

When there’s a new term I need to get the details on, I go to where all the hip kids go for definitions, Urban Dictionary. Although there are numerous definitions of the term, they tend to have a common theme: it’s secret code. You know, like the secret codes you would find on the back of the fun cereal boxes, only edgier? I mean, that is unless you were eating Sugar Frosted Fascists cereal.

Anyway, the suggestion is once a certain segment of the population hears these secret messages it encourages the ones in the know to take certain actions to further whatever cause the dog whistle is geared towards. A racist dog whistle might cause some people to burn a cross, scrawl graffiti in certain neighborhoods, or, horror of horrors, vote Republican. A fascist dog whistle might cause some people to hate Jewish people, scrawl graffiti on synagogues, or…

No, wait. That last one tends to lean more Left these days. Never mind.

The key here is the message only gets to certain people. Others won’t be affected by it because they’re not in the target group, not unlike an actual dog whistle. Time to put on my lab coat and pretend to be more of a scientist than Bill Nye.

When you blow into a dog whistle, it emits a high-pitched sound that humans can’t hear, but your pupper Spot can. Or whatever your dog’s name is. Dog whistles don’t discriminate, which is more than I can say for the Democratic National Committee, who seems to discriminate against competent and sane people.

In other words, in order for your dog to respond to a dog whistle, he or she has to hear it in the first place. Which means if Leftists keep calling out all of these dog whistles they hear but no one else can…

The Party of Science, kids!

Seriously, though, the use of metaphorical dog whistles is a tactic of the Left to get you to think of something in certain terms. With the American Eagle jeans ads, the Left wants you to conflate jeans with genes since they sound the same. From there, the Left extrapolates having good jeans is akin to wanting good genes, which leads right into white supremacy and Nazis because, well, those seem to be the only words Leftists know these days.

Meanwhile in the not-bat-shit-insane portion of the world, it’s neither. As with many things Leftists get upset about, you have to read a lot of context and sub-context and sub-sub-context and Voyage-To-the-Bottom-of-the-Sea- context to get anywhere close to what the Left wants us to think/feel about a matter.

And it’s never a positive thing. No matter what, the dog whistles only go in a negative direction. Leftists never talk about a dog whistle that inspires people to buy ice cream when it’s hot. That’s because a) they can’t frame ice cream in racial terms (no, not even vanilla), b) they are joyless fucks, and c) they’re too busy bitching about climate change to enjoy ice cream.

When you look at the world through the Leftist perspective, you’re going to be sad and/or pissed. That means even the most innocuous thing will have evil intent in the Leftist hivemind, even if it’s more imaginary than actual. That’s how George W. Bush and Mitt Romney became Nazis in spite of exhibiting zero fascist tendencies, only to have them become the elder statesmen of the anti-Trump right that even Leftists can stomach. Which makes them Nazi sympathizers when you really think about it.

Sorry, Leftists. You made the rules. I’m just here to apply them evenly.

There’s an old saying: “If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” Not only does that make shop class a lot more interesting, but it definitely applies to the Left calling everything from Tesla to American Eagle jeans “Nazi.” And that goes double for the “dog whistles” the Left keeps hearing. The more you have to explain how something is racist, sexist, homophobic, Nazi, etc., the less likely it is to be that.

The audience at my last stand up show can tell you that. That’s the last time I do a gig in a coma ward.

Even if you allow the current sociopolitical climate is ripe for Nazi rhetoric (which I do to an extent), you’d still have a pretty rough task ahead of you trying to explain how the tagline and Sydney Sweeney herself is even close to being literal Nazis. Mainly because they’re not. It’s a clever slogan, and as the advertising and prostitution industries know all too well, sex sells. Sure, I’m sure there is a jean market for pansexual paraplegic albino Alaskan amputees, but if that’s your entire focus, you’re going to lose money faster than Hunter Biden loses his crack. You have to appeal to the larger market, and for now Sydney Sweeney is what brings boys (or at least their mothers and sisters) to the yard.

So, if you’re a Leftist reading this, just drop the dog whistle rhetoric on this one. You’re making yourselves look like fucking idiots, and I say that as one. All this complaining is drawing more attention to the ads and the product and has already caused American Eagle’s stock prices to rise. In other words, the same thing that happened to albums and CDs with the content warning labels from the 1980s. You could have just learned the lesson Tipper Gore did, but nooooooo. You just had to turn an innocuous tagline into a giant rake you keep stepping on and getting smacked in the head. Brilliant fucking work, kids.

I paraphrase Sigmund Freud: sometimes a hot woman in jeans is just a hot woman in jeans.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Capitol Hill was all abuzz this week, unfortunately not because a swarm of bees got into the Capitol Building and started stinging our Congresscritters. No, this buzz was because of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that President Donald Trump pushed. With prospects looking shakier than Rosie O’Donnell eating Jello on the San Andreas Fault during a 6.9 on the Richter Scale, the Act was finally passed by the House and Senate following close vote counts and a lot of bitching.

Mostly from the Left, as it turns out.

As we watch Leftist’s heads explode, maybe we should take a more sober approach to figuring out what the Act is all about. Then again, in order to make sense of some of this shit, you might need a stiff drink or fifty.

One Big Beautiful Bill Act

What the Left thinks it means – a horrible bill that ultimately hurts the American people

What it really means – a Frankenstein’s Monster of a bill that should piss off everybody

After years of being a Leftist and a recovering Leftist, I’ve learned whenever they lose their collectivist shit over anything it’s worth double checking to see what they get right and what they pull out of their asses. Call it Don’t Trust But Verify, if you will.

The best place to start in reviewing the Act is, well, the Act itself. As you might expect, it’s about as sexy as Kathy Griffin without makeup. Or Carrot Top, in other words. Tucked into the sections and subsections are some pretty big items, like increasing funding for ICE and Medicare reform, that have had Leftists up in arms for weeks. On the plus side, at least the firebombing of Teslas has slowed down enough because of the outrage over the One Big Beautiful Bill.

Not that you could tell from the quality of said outrage. Aside from House Minority Leader Hakeem “the Nightmare” Jeffries talking for 8+ hours to delay the House vote on the Act and claims the Medicare cuts would kill tens of thousands a year, the best they could come up with is calling it…the Big Ugly Bill. What’s next? Calling Trump a doody-head?

Actually, that might be a compliment coming from Leftists, given they’re invested in calling him the next Hitler.

Anyway, the opposition to the Big Beautiful Bill Act didn’t accomplish its presumed goals and only served to throw some red meat (or would that be white tofu) to its ideological base. The “leaders” had to pretend like they were fighting for the American people because…let’s face it, they’re more interested in keeping power than anything else, so they had to put on some political Kabuki theater to give the impression they were doing something. Now, we’re being treated to “you MAGAs are gonna regret this” rhetoric.

After all, they’re so much smarter than us smooth-brained non-Leftists, right? And they were so right about President Brick Tamlin’s mental faculties, Queen Kamala the Appointed’s Presidential campaign, and Hunter Biden’s laptop!

The thing is there is a lot in the Act that the Left could have talked about in lieu of resorting to meaningless theatrics, fearmongering, and taunting that would get them mocked by preschoolers for being immature. For one, it’s over 900 fucking pages! After Congressional Republicans bitched about not being able to read bills before a vote when the Democrats ran Congress, cramming the shoe on the other foot doesn’t help matters any. Not to mention, it gave Leftists like Elizabeth “Chief Running Mouth” Warren a PR opportunity. Granted, it wasn’t all that effective in the grand scheme of things, but you never want to give your opponents any room to operate. Trump and his party faithful have to hit their knees and pray every night for the Left to continue to be ineffective.

And speaking of ineffective, one of the Act’s provisions would raise the debt ceiling by $5 trillion. Now, this is bad enough as it is, but it’s made even worse because of President Trump’s recent history flip-flopping on the issue. I know you have to spend money to make money in the business world, but this ain’t the business world. The money Trump wants to spend is ours. Just like the money President Brick Tamland and Queen Kamala the Appointed wanted to spend was ours. I didn’t like it then, and I don’t like it now for the same reason: it doesn’t address the spending problem. All it does is extend our federal credit card. And who’s gonna tell Congress they can’t spend anymore?

Nobody. Not even the President.

And with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, it’s estimated the deficit will increase by over $3 trillion over the next decade. Remember when President Trump swore he would balance the budget? Yeah, that didn’t fucking happen and it’s not happening now.

Then, there’s the military spending. Sure, there’s provisions to help service members and build ships, but there’s also $25 billion for our own version of Israel’s “Iron Dome” missile defense system called the “Golden Dome.” Although it’s a good idea in theory and practice, it makes more sense in Israel than it does in the good ole US of A. Israel is surrounded by people who want to kill them and will use any military hardware they can get their hands on to do it. America doesn’t have that problem yet, and unless Canada and Mexico decide to start shit, we won’t need any dome. After all, what good is a missile defense dome against enemies already under it?

Which brings us back to illegal immigration. The Act also beefs up ICE and the Border Patrol to the tune of $100 billion. And that’s not counting the additional funds for detention centers, hiring more agents, the border wall, and, oh yeah, turning ICE into the largest law enforcement department in the country. The Left is already calling ICE the Gestapo, so why not give them more opportunities to make that point?

I see where the President and his staff are coming from with this spending, but I see it much like I see the rollout of DOGE: a good idea implemented badly. The hard work is going to be overhauling the immigration system, but it’s not even a concept in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Imagine what we could do if we spent some of the money going towards ICE towards revamping the current immigration and asylum process.

But at least the wall is getting more money, right?

As a small government kinda guy, my bullshit meter goes off whenever there’s a need to expand government even a little bit. Granted, hiring more ICE and Border Patrol agents makes more sense than hiring more IRS agents (and arming them) like President Brick Tamland wanted, I still have to call bullshit on the spending. We are running a $37 trillion national debt as of the writing of this Lexicon entry (check local listings for the time and spending debacle in your area). We don’t need to spend more; we need to find ways to do what we can with what we have. Right now, the government is spending money like a rich kid who buys a new car to match his/her outfit for the day, and until someone with some stroke tells us the spending spree is over, we’re going to keep looking for a hot pink and teal Ferrari for our trip to the day spa.

Any of these topics would have been an infinitely better discussion than the drivel the Left gave us about the Act, but even when they may have a point with some of the Act’s provisions, I still have to throw the brown bullshit flag. The claims being made around millions of Americans losing health care and food assistance may be omitting some key details.

Let’s take the “Americans are losing their health care” line. The Left is leaving out some details with this claim, namely some of the entities that get Medicaid funding. They want you to believe it’s your Grandma Oma getting shafted more than Richard Roundtree at a gay orgy, but the proposed funding cuts to Medicaid are designed to close up an oft-overlooked loophole that the Left has used for decades.

See, there’s this little thing the kids like to call the Hyde Amendment. The Cliff’s Notes explanation is federal funding is not to be used to fund abortions, a point the Left keeps bringing up when needed. The problem is…the Hyde Amendment isn’t being followed. Want proof?

Planned Parenthood gets over 40% of its funding from government entities including…drum roll please…Medicaid. And that’s not according to some right wing rumor mongering website. That’s from Planned Parenthood itself.

The Left will immediately fire back with “that’s not all Planned Parenthood does” and they’re right. However, my retort is to ask for a full accounting of where those government funds went, right down to the penny. And, funny thing, no one’s ever taken me up on that. Makes me wonder if Planned Parenthood might have something to hide…

With the food assistance angle, the Left is painting a false picture by using poor mothers and children as rhetorical human shields. Federal law states illegal immigrants aren’t supposed to get food assistance, but that may not be the case. During Fiscal Year 2023, the USDA made $10.5 billion in erroneous SNAP benefit payments. Although I’m not sure the Act directly addresses this in its more restrictive SNAP qualifications, it would be foolish not to tackle this issue, especially since it dovetails nicely with President Trump’s illegal immigration crackdown.

If only we had a federal agency that could look into that and root out government inefficiencies and waste. Nah, that would never fly, especially not if it’s named after an internet meme.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act isn’t all bad, though. Tax cuts, decreased spending on alternative energy boondoggles…I mean grants, and boosts in tax credits are always welcome sights in any spending bill. Plus, it makes Leftists scream like Trigglypuff, so it can’t be all bad.

But that doesn’t make it all good, either. It’s a damn good thing Leftists don’t know how to make a cogent argument when it counts (or ever) or else the Act would have been in serious trouble and might not have gotten passed. I urge you to read up on it like I did and pick it apart before cheering or deriding it. A famous philosopher once said, “You take the good, you take the bad, you take them both and there you have…”

Wait. That’s the theme song from “The Facts of Life.” Never mind.