One of the most attractive elements of Leftist thought is how they take up for the underdogs. Even when it seems impossible, Leftists will side with the less fortunate in their attempts to defeat The Man. But I never would have thought they would actively try to become the underdogs.
It’s hard for me to pinpoint exactly when Leftists went nuttier than squirrel shit, but it was between the 2022 midterms and the 2024 Presidential election, probably when they realized Donald Trump was not only going to be the Republican nominee, but that he had a good chance of defeating President Brick Tamland. To be fair, a cardboard cut-out of Trump could have beaten the President and been far more articulate in doing so, but the point is the same. Somehow Trump broke the Left to the point they would protest breathing if Trump said, “I love oxygen. Oxygen is the greatest thing.”
And I know you read that in his voice.
Regardless of what the sensible action would be, Leftists have decided to take the under in almost every hot button issue today. When it comes to trans women in biological female spaces, they went with the trans women, no matter how creepy they were. Illegal immigrants who just happened to be connected to gangs? They sided with the illegal gang members. Government waste? Pile it on, buddy!
Spoiler Alert: It’s shit like this that cost you the 2024 Presidential election.
Many people have attempted to figure out why the Left takes the losing side of issues lately with various conclusions, ranging from not wanting to give Trump a W to Leftists being utter dumbasses. And to be honest I keep going back and forth between these two extremes (although they’re probably both right). Personally, I think it’s because of how partisan the country is right now.
Not that long ago, Democrats and Republicans could disagree on how things got done, but could find common ground on issues that would benefit the entire country, like defeating the Soviet Union. Once the Soviets fell, we no longer had an outward enemy, so we turned our sights inward and found new enemies. Since then, we got consumed by the Left and the Right fighting like the US and Soviets, only without the possibility of Mutually Assured Destruction.
Nowadays, MAD would be getting off easy. With the rise of Internet and social media culture, both sides are looking for ways to “own” the other side. And this is one reason Trump is so popular among the Right: he is a master of owning the Left. The problem for the Left is they don’t have anybody who can do the same to the Right. Oh, they think they have people, but they suck at it, and if they’re being honest with themselves (which is a stretch, I know), they would admit it.
Since they can’t due to not wanting to give even a micron to Trump, they’re stuck being the party of Jesse Helms, who was notorious for often being the sole “No” vote on bills. Oh, and being racist pricks.
Hence, the reason Leftists are running for every unpopular position with the American people. (The not wanting to give Trump even a micron bit, not the being racist pricks bit.) As a result, Democrats are getting as popular as STDs in a brothel. So, how are they trying to right…or left the ship?
Swearing a lot more.
And I’m not even fucking kidding.
As someone who occasionally peppers his posts with adult language, I can appreciate a good cuss word and, when done correctly, it can add impact to a statement. The way the Left has been doing it, though, is like seeing your grandma curse: it’s unexpected and even a little off-putting. Even when some of the more junior members of Congress do it, it doesn’t feel natural to me. If anything, it feels more like a political calculation that came out of a focus group rather than any genuine emotion.
And what’s worse than the potty mouths on the Left is the fact they keep doubling, tripling, and quadrupling down on their unpopular positions because…well, I’m still trying to figure that out. One thing that comes to mind is the Left’s desire to be on “the right side of history.” As noble as that sounds, it’s bullshit that falls apart under its own weight when balanced with another saying, “History is written by the victors.” For the Left’s version of history to be the right one, they have to win.
Granted, with some issues like civil rights and gay marriage, they ultimately won, but only after a prolonged struggle where public opinion shifted to adopt the Left’s position. In a world of TikTok and entitlement, though, that window shrinks significantly leaving only two options: shame the opposition into supporting the cause, or abandoning it when it gets nowhere.
Take the recent kerfluffle over the Equal Rights Amendment caused when President Brick Tamland and Vice President Kamala the Appointed tried to get it “ratified” by saying “it’s ratified.” All it took for the Left to adopt the squawking point was for the aforementioned political figureheads to put it out there. Of course, these same idiots didn’t bother to bring it up for the decades since the ERA failed to be ratified through the existing process. If it were such an important issue, the Left would have made it a cornerstone issue. And it’s not like they haven’t had control of Congress and the White House since the 80s. They had their chance, and they decided it wasn’t important enough to fight for.
So, ladies, how do you feel about voting for Leftists now?
This is going to be a major problem for Leftists going forward. The more they let themselves get played into supporting causes on the losing end of the polls just to spite Trump, the more potential voters they’re going to give away, and no amount of demanding those voters support Leftist candidates because reasons is going to change that. At some point, the political leadership will have to set aside their swearing and figure this out or else it’s going to be the year 8020 before they get a whiff of the White House again.
Not that I have a problem with that, mind you…
Category: Guest Author
All Guests Authors use this Category in addition to others.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
In my 55 years of kicking around this ball of rock and water we call Planet Earth, I’ve seen some pretty amazing things. The first Space Shuttle flight. The Berlin Wall coming down. Internet porn…not that I know anything about that, mind you. But this past week, I saw something that caused me to almost swallow my face.
Leftists finally found asylum seekers they didn’t support.
President Donald Trump granted refugee status to white South Africans who were fleeing racial oppression at the hands of their government. So far a whopping 59 white South Africans came to America. And, predictably, the Left lost its collectivist shit over it trying to explain it away through cries of “racism” in lieu of “wolf” and whataboutism to the extent my Bullshit-O-Meter overloaded.
At the heart of this controversy is our asylum process. To put it mildly, it’s more fucked up than having Hunter Biden as an accountability buddy/crack dealer. So, naturally, it’s worth exploring further.
asylum
What the Left thinks it means – a means for oppressed people to come to America and seek a better life
What it really means – a process that needs a serious overhaul
To say our immigration policy is more fucked up than Sybil on LSD is an understatement, but we do try to set forth a semblance of a policy. In some cases, a situation is so dangerous or dire that we have to make exceptions to the normal immigration rules. That’s where the asylum process comes into play. Although it’s been abused…I mean used as a catch-all by previous Administrations that will remain nameless (but it rhymes with Slow Mindin’), there are certain criteria that have to be met before it can be granted. And even then, there’s the wonderful world of bureaucracy to deal with, which makes the process even more frustrating and/or dangerous.
This is where the Left gets things wrong when it comes to asylum. As much as “no one is above the law” has become a mantra when it comes to President Donald Trump, the Left believes the law can and should be circumvented for every Tomas, Ricardo, and Jaime that arrives at our southern border without even trying to seek asylum. Although it’s amazing elected officials are ignorant of the laws on the books and the concept that breaking these laws is a crime, it did lead to one of the most epic takedowns in Congressional history.
Oh, and a tip for the gamblers out there. If you ever bet on the number of fucks Tom Homan gives, always bet the under.
This brings us to the current situation involving the white South Africans. President Trump called what they experienced as a “genocide,” which is a gross overstatement and unnecessary given the conditions already in place. However, there are details that can move that needle one way or the other.
It started with a little thing the kids call apartheid. For almost 50 years, white South Africans treated the black population as second-class citizens at best. This was a bad idea, not just because it was racist and stupid, but because the whites were and still are vastly outnumbered. This practice got the boot in the 1990s due in no small part to Nelson Mandela.
Then, something predictable happened: the oppressed became the oppressors. Once black South Africans got into power, the urge to flip the script was too great, and the white South Africans found themselves on the wrong side of the apartheid stick.
Where things get really funky (and not in a Parliament Funkadelic way) is the passage of a law where white South African farmers had to give up portions of their land without compensation because racial justice or something. Even if you think it’s okay given how much property white South African farmers own, the civil libertarian in me (and hopefully in you) says that’s not right. If you own something and any entity takes it from you, you are due compensation of some kind, whether it be monetary, legal, or legislative.
Now, remember the criteria for asylum I referenced and linked earlier? One of them involves persecution or possible persecution on the basis of…race. And, surprise surprise, white South Africans have a pretty good case for that based on the aforementioned land law.
Oh, and there’s the “Kill the Boer. Kill the Farmer.” song popularized by anti-apartheid groups and more recently by Julius Malema, a political leader in South Africa. While Leftists swing between “it’s not about white genocide” and “it could be construed as being in favor of white genocide,” the simplest explanation is…fuck yeah it’s about white genocide, and only fucking dipshits would say it wasn’t!
Oddly enough, the Leftists who think it’s not about white genocide are the same people who take Donald Trump literally whenever he says anything even slightly controversial in a joking manner.
Regardless, the white South Africans have a legitimate case for asylum, so why is the Left complaining if following the law is so important to them? You know, aside from being hypocritical asshats. Fortunately for us, they’ve tipped their hands early and often. It’s all about racism. Sure, Leftists say it’s Trump being racist because he’s allowing white South Africans to get asylum, but it’s the other way around; Leftists want to deny them entry because of their skin color.
Simple enough, but there’s another reason related to the race issue. Leftists have tried to turn racism from hatred of another race (which it is) into hatred of another race with the inclusion of power (which is bullshit). Without going too far into the weeds, let’s just say the Left’s revised version of racism does more to create minority victims than actual racism does, which makes it racist by definition. Funny how that works out, isn’t it?
Why do I mention this? For one, it pads out the Lexicon entry a bit. But more to the point, the situation with the white South Africans puts the Left’s definition of racism on its head. They may own the vast majority of the land, but that in and of itself isn’t power. The power in South Africa is clearly on the side of the black population, so the Left’s dynamic doesn’t work. But since they can’t admit that, they pretend a) it doesn’t exist, b) it’s totes different because reasons, or c) Orange Man Bad!
The problem, of course, is the law itself. Racial persecution is clearly written and is hard to argue against in this case, but dammit the Left is going to try!
Which is why I think we need to overhaul the asylum process when we’re overhauling our immigration system. To the Left’s credit, they are correct that economic issues are a valid reason to consider offering asylum to others, especially if we want to be seen as a land of opportunity. The question becomes where do we draw the line. The way we’ve done it recently is not sustainable and creates a dangerous strain on our social safety net. If we demand these potential asylees bring something worthwhile to the table (i.e. marketable skills, a good work ethic, etc.), we run the risk of looking heartless or driven solely by materialism.
Beyond that, the current asylum process can take years. There’s tons of paperwork, red tape, and contradictory practices to overcome. So, we’re left with the challenge of streamlining the process while keeping as many relevant avenues to asylum open without stretching ourselves too thin.
Good luck with that.
Seriously, the best way I can figure out how to tick all of these boxes is to create a system to separate the different types of asylee claims to maximize the speed at which they can be processed. And with specialization, it’s going to create a stronger knowledge base overall. Instead of having to have 100 people looking at the full gamut of cases, you can have 10 people working on economic asylum requests, another 10 working on racial asylum claims, and so on. Through that process, the groups of 10 are going to gain an intimate understanding of that particular process. Then, if you have a case that covers more than one asylee area, they can be called in to offer their expert opinions.
With everything electronic these days, doing a background check and filling out paperwork can be quicker and easier. It shouldn’t take cutting down a forest for a mountain of paperwork to come here under dire circumstances. There are other reasons to cut down a forest, after all. (Just kidding, environmentalists!) And we can hire some of the Sallie Mae folks to do the background checks, which will guarantee the asylees can be found.
And finally, and this is the hardest part, we need to approach each claim the same: with a healthy mix of optimism and skepticism. Not every asylum claim is truthful, but we can’t assume they’re all fraudulent. It’s going to take some research and knowledge of world events to pick out the bad actors from the legitimately needy.
That eliminates TikTokers.
But it opens the door for people like me who are curious, compassionate, and cynical. In fact, Gen X is gonna be flush with job opportunities for decades to come, so win-win baby!
As far as the white South Africans, welcome to America, where most people will welcome you and those who don’t claim to be all about diversity. Ignore the latter and you’ll be fine. Most of us do, and those who don’t are getting something out of it, like content for a mildly successful weekly blog series written by a handsome, well hung, and incredibly sexy man.
And since you haven’t found that one yet, read mine!
My 2025 Commencement Address
Another spring has arrived, but a request to give a commencement address at a high school, college, tech school, hairdressing college, or even clown college hasn’t. So, once again a graduating class will be deprived of my words of…well, I wouldn’t call them wisdom so much as wise-assery, but the point is the same, as it the annual result. Enjoy!
Greetings, members of the Class of 2025. I know you were expecting someone like Robert Downey Jr., Katy Perry, or the San Diego Chicken, but their asking prices were a bit too steep. After a phone call full of begging and pleading, your high school/college/tech school/hairdressing college/clown college got me under one condition: that I stop begging and pleading.
Your typical commencement address tends to follow a standard formula: tell a few stories, offer some life advice, and conclude with some inspirational words that will make you feel like you can do anything. I know, because I’ve been through a few of these in my life, either sitting where you are now or out in the audience waiting for a friend or loved one to cross the stage and get a diploma or a reasonable facsimile. But if you are familiar with my work (and if you are, I’m so, so sorry), you know I’m not exactly a by-the-book guy. Which, now that I think of it, explains my grades…
What was I saying? Oh, yeah, the commencement thing.
One thing I always try to do in my speeches is give you a realistic view of the world you’re about to enter with all of your youthful enthusiasm, hope, and fearlessness. That way you’ll be prepared when the world grinds that out of you.
Not too inspiring, right? But it’s what will most likely happen unless you have a dream job waiting for you on the outside, and even then you might have to eat crap and learn to love the taste of it. That’s why they call it a dream job: if you get one, you’ll probably wake up and realize it isn’t real.
The daily grind has a tendency to make you shrink your aspirations to fix in a box of someone else’s creation. And these people are going to convince you not to aim high, but aim a little closer to medium. For most people, that’s high enough, but not everyone is like that. There are always outliers who will put their hearts and souls into a career, hoping their efforts will get noticed and rewarded accordingly.
And these people will be some of the first to get burnt out.
That shouldn’t stop you from dreaming big, though. It’s during these tough times that we get to see who we really are and what we truly believe. Not everyone handles pressure in the same way. Some rise to the occasion. Others will buckle under the pressure. And others will find a way to blame someone else for the tough times. The people in this last group are known as politicians.
Anyway, the best way to dream big is to not let your work define your life. Take up hobbies, meet people, catch a movie every once in a while, or just get out of your apartment, house, condo, or whatever you call home to see the world around you. The more your work/life balance leans towards the 9-to-5, the less of life you actually experience. So, the solution is simple: part-time or temp jobs!
Of course if you want silly things like a steady paycheck, health insurance, and, oh yeah, food, that strategy may not pan out so well.
This isn’t to say you should slack off on the clock. When you have a job, whether it be delivering pizzas or writing code for a new AI program, put your best self forward. There’s a reason why people my age are always complaining about the work ethic of younger generations: we’re old. But a good number of us were brought up with a solid work ethic, so we have expectations. Granted, you’re not us, but at least meet us halfway. Show up and show out, as the kids (i.e. you) say. Or not. Either way, if you have a job, do it to the best of your ability. Failing that, try to fake it or get a Gen X mentor. You may not like what we have to say, but we’ll be honest.
And brutally so. Let’s just say Gen X’s filters got shot off in the war. Granted, it was the Cola Wars of the mid 80s, but those wounds still run pretty deep.
Something else I should mention that will help you in the long run is to learn when your emotions are overriding your intelligence. Not every battle has to be fought, no matter how much you feel it should. And I say this as someone who has run into more than a few brick walls because I let my feelings write checks my brain couldn’t cash, and it affected my personal brand.
For those of you not up on corporate speak, a personal brand is how your coworkers and superiors see you. So, if you come off as insufferable, that’s going to stick with you until you either rebuild it through a lot of work, time, and personal reflection or find a new job. Find a way to channel your emotions in a more constructive way while on the clock. When you’re at home and have a couple of adult beverages in you, then you can complain about how screwed up things are.
Or you could exercise or something. Whatever trips your trigger warning.
If you take nothing else from my speech, I hope you take this. You may not have control over everything in your lives, but you control what choices you make. The way you approach whatever obstacles get in your way will have more of an impact on your future than you realize. That requires a little less “live for the moment” and more “live so you can pay your rent so you don’t have to live in a cardboard box or with your parents in 6 months.” Or maybe live with your parents in a cardboard box the way the economy is going.
Regardless, you have a vested interest in your future, so act like it, for the love of Pete! Yes, that means you may have to work at a dead-end job for a while to make money until your ship comes in (Pro Tip: avoid having your ship be the Titanic), but that’s how you earn your break, coffee or big. If nothing else, keeping your nose to the proverbial grindstone shows potential employers and yourself that you can tough it out to make it to the other side. And, as someone who has done that, I can tell you how sweet the fruits of your labor are.
After all, I wouldn’t be here today without me begging and pleading!
Congratulations, Class of 2025!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Have you ever spent a ton of money on something you barely use and then wonder why you’re still spending money on it? Lately, the Trump Administration has been wondering about that in the area of public broadcasting. Thanks to a recent Executive Order, National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service may find their funding cut due to allegations of bias. Of course they deny it (using the same terminology, I might add), which leads us to the inevitable question: why do Republicans want to kill Big Bird?
Or, better yet, the inevitable Leftist Lexicon entry.
public broadcasting
What the Left thinks it means – a valuable service that provides balanced and factual reporting
What it really means – taxpayer-funded propaganda favoring the Left
Both NPR and PBS are under the umbrella of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a private non-profit. They describe themselves as:
the steward of the federal government’s investment in public broadcasting and the largest single source of funding for public radio, television, and related online and mobile services.
In other words, they handle the money once they get it from us. And with an operating budget of $545 million for Fiscal Year 2025, that’s ain’t petty cash. So, what are we getting for this investment?
That depends on who you ask. If you ask the heads of NPR and PBS (or their squawking heads), they’re providing a valuable service to society, the economy, and education. To someone who used to work there, it’s become a Leftist mouthpiece, which has negatively affected the public’s trust in it. To me, a consumer of what public broadcasting has put forth over the years, it’s a mixed bag.
Remember Slobodan Milosevic? Not only is it one hell of a Scrabble score, but he was the former leader of Kosovo, accused of ethnic cleansing. As it turns out, I first heard his name while listening to NPR’s “All Things Considered,” and at the time I thought their coverage was pretty balanced. Then, when Leftists decided ethnic cleansing was bad, that coverage changed and Milosevic became Public Enemy #1. Well, #2 after Rush Limbaugh.
I bring that up to a) show off the big brain on Thomas, and b) give you an idea of the subtle biases that was already involved in NPR’s reporting. The Left doesn’t come right out and say “We’re biased as fuck and we don’t care.” At least, outside of MSNBC, and they’re not really a news channel as much as a way for Al Sharpton to keep getting a steady paycheck. Their bias comes through through less obvious means. A turn of a phrase here, a descriptive word there, and before you know it, you’re being indoctrinated.
Just ask Bernard Goldberg.
Where PBS and NPR get more cover than the traditional media is in the idea they just present facts. Welllll…that’s subject to debate. Sometimes they present facts, and other times they suppress them, like they did with the Hunter Biden laptop story. Their now-infamous statement about why they didn’t cover it?
We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.
Yeah, because who would want to hear about what’s on the laptop of the President’s addict son during a Presidential election? That would be like…oh, I don’t know…covering when the Bush twins got busted for fake IDs when their dad was President.
Oh, wait…
Setting the bias aside for the time being, there is a serious question on the table: should we be funding public broadcasting using federal tax dollars? The artist in me says we should because it provides viewpoints and entertainment people might not get otherwise. Like reruns of “Are You Being Served?” or “The Red Green Show.” The capitalist in me says we shouldn’t because PBS and NPR should be able to stand or fall on its own merits like any other media outlet. Like reruns of “Are You Being Served?” or “The Red Green Show.”
Where I come down on the question is…kinda both options? I appreciate the fact public broadcasting exists and, when the product is closer to the lofty goals of the CPB, it’s pretty fucking good. When the product is tainted by biases, the image of public broadcasting suffers.
Although it would be easier to find a time when Adam Schiff hasn’t made himself look like a dumbass, I don’t think it’s impossible for public broadcasting to change its fortunes without costing taxpayers a fortune in the process. The first step (which is always the hardest, especially if you’re drunk) is to remove any pretense of moral and intellectual superiority. You may think you’re providing pure wisdom from the gods themselves, but you’re really just college radio and public access TV stations with a trust fund. Get off the Shetland Pony you call a high horse and just talk to us like we’re fellow human beings.
And while we’re here, let’s figure out a way to reduce dependence on donations and federal funding by spinning off popular intellectual properties. Take “Sesame Street,” for example. The nonprofit behind it struck a deal with HBO to run new episodes exclusively with those same episodes being shown on PBS after a few months. Now that this deal has reached its end, there’s a possibility of Disney buying it. And considering Disney already owns the Muppets, it’s not that much of a stretch.
Imagine being able to do that with other public broadcasting properties. Yes, I understand doing so would be hard for some people to take because they think selling a property is selling out. On the other hand, it’s really no different than what the CPB already does with different foundations and companies picking up the tab for programming. And, you might actually be able to get free of the federal influence, which will give you more freedom to thrive.
Unless, of course, you want to keep donating the GDP of small island nations to get a crappy tote bag. At least with a more capitalist approach, you might be able to get a crappy tote bag for a lot less.
Meanwhile, public broadcasting could use a few more encouraging voices to help them navigate the possibility of being without federal funding. When PBS and NPR do well, tell them and, if you’re so inclined, toss them a few bucks. When they fuck up, call them out and offer constructive feedback. They may not take it, but at least you tried in a way that doesn’t come off as automatically anti-public broadcasting.
When you really think about it (and I do because the Interwebs went out at Casa de Tomas recently), public broadcasting provides us with all sorts of programming that appeals to different audiences. And, aside from the amount we kick in unintentionally via taxes, it’s free-ish. You can do a lot worse than watching a nature documentary, period dramas, British sitcoms, and the occasional Doctor Who episode.
And given what DOGE has found so far, we’ve spent money on a lot worse.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Leftists love to tell us we should be more like Europe. And who wouldn’t? America does most of the fighting on their behalf, so they can spend their money on more popular things, like universal healthcare that sucks more than Stormy Daniels working straight commission. Or would that be cum-mission?
This past week, we saw yet another way Europe is outpacing America. Not only has it adopted green energy in lieu of fossil fuels, but it has already seen a major catastrophic failure of said green energy. Spain, Portugal, and parts of France experienced blackouts (or if you don’t want to be racist, African-American-outs), putting quite a damper on things. While they’re sifting through the proverbial rubble to figure out what happened and how to prevent it from happening again, green energy has been targeted as a possible culprit.
So, naturally (see what I did there?), it makes good sense to talk about it in this week’s Leftist Lexicon.
green energy
What the Left thinks it means – renewable energy sources that should be put into practice now to save the planet
What it really means – an unreliable source of energy now that has the potential to be used more once the kinks get worked out
When you look at what green energy encompasses, you’ll notice it covers a lot of ground. In the case of solar energy, this is quite literal. The key feature to green energy is the fact it’s renewable. That, and Leftists can’t stop talking about it like it’s the Rosetta Stone for future power generation.
I know what some of you out there are saying, mainly because I’ve had your houses bugged. You’re saying, “Thomas is just going to shit on green energy again.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Well, not counting all the media folks and Leftists (one in the same) who said President Brick Tamland was as sharp as ever, that is.
As an unapologetic science geek, I love the potential green energy has to revolutionize power generation in this country and the world. The operative word, dear reader, is “potential.” Just because we can use the sun, wind, water, and other natural elements to generate power doesn’t mean we’re very good at it yet. Right now, we’re at Hunter Biden painting level, but the Left wants us to believe we’re at Bob Ross level.
So, why are Leftists promoting green energy more heavily than they’re using vulgarity to seem edgy? It’s all about control. The Left has taken upon itself to be the primary, secondary, and tertiary voices on all things science, so they have a vested interest in maintaining that level of control over what is considered science and what is considered crackpottery.
That’s how we got scientists saying there are more genders than there are people in the world. And anyone who says there are just two is just wrong!
Meanwhile in the real world, there are actual consequences to believing the hype surrounding green energy. Namely, making an ass of yourself on the Social Media Platform Formerly Known As Twitter. Take this post from former military woman and loser to Mitch “Turtle Boy” McConnell, Amy McGrath. In an attempt to get one up on Secretary of Defense Pete “Keep ‘Em Coming, Barkeep” Hegseth by suggesting green energy would save lives on the battlefield by not needing supply lines for fossil fuels.
Of course, this doesn’t mean there wouldn’t be supply lines for other things, like ammunition, equipment, and, oh yeah, food. But what do I know? I’m just a civilian whose military experience is limited to playing “Battlefield 2042.” Then again, I’m not a fucking dumbass, so there’s that.
McGrath’s sentiment reflects how the Left sees green energy as a cure-all that we should have adopted yesterday because we only have less than 10 years before the environment goes tits-up. And if I had a nickel for every ecological apocalypse that happened since I’ve been alive, I’d still be waiting on my first nickel. See, that’s another tactic they use to get us to buy into green energy: fear of a dying planet. By tapping into fear, Leftists try to override the logical side of our brains. You know, the side that usually tells us when something doesn’t make sense?
I see that’s an alien concept to you Leftists out there. Just trust me on this.
What you don’t have to trust me on, though, is the list of hurdles we have to overcome to get to better green energy.
Batteries: Green energy relies on Mother Nature cooperating with the energy generation process. What happens when Mother Nature is a stone cold bitch and doesn’t cooperate? Welllll…that’s where the need for storage comes into play. That requires batteries, batteries that will involve chemicals and minerals that can negatively impact the environment. Because nothing says “green energy” like tearing up the earth to get minerals!
Infrastructure: Since we’re not at the stage where we can implement green energy on a wide scale yet, we will have to build it from scratch. That requires a lot of start-up capital for not a lot of results in the short run. And if we have less than 10 years (according to the Socialist Socialite herself), we might not be able to see any benefits from such an investment in green energy. Not to mention, we have to keep funding really stupid shit, like Solyndra.
Government Involvement: Green energy is a workable idea, but it’s one that requires a lot of green to make happen. Enter the federal government whose idea of fiscal responsibility is only fucking over the taxpayers for $4 billion instead of $5 billion. With the kind of capital the federal government “invests” in green energy, it creates a whole new list of problems that prevents green energy from coming into its own. Bureaucracy, no real benchmarks, and the obligatory political kickbacks add to the cost and time to turn a green energy project from promising to a bigger failure than the recent “Snow White” movie.
Inconsistent Energy Production: Consistency is key to energy prodution, especially when you consider how much energy America uses. Nobody wants to see the lights flicker when you’re having open heart surgery, let alone when you’re watching a YouTube video of it. That means we need a steady stream of electricity. And that’s something green energy can’t provide yet. Like waiting for Jasmine Crockett to make a salient point, it’s hit or miss, mostly miss.
Recycling Issues: The term “green energy” implies it’s eco-friendly. Wellll…that’s not quite true. Aside from the battery issue I referenced earlier, there’s also the matter of the lifespan and disposal of the technology used in green energy. Right now, things like solar panels and windmill blades can only be used for a limited time, which means they have to be replaced eventually. And when you consider these items aren’t as biodegradable as they could be, green energy starts looking a lot less green.
People Being Dumbfucks: Although this one isn’t limited to Leftists, the vast majority of dumbfucks seem to reside on the Left. I’m looking at all of you protesting Tesla because Elon Musk and Orange Man Bad. Unlike Al Gore, Musk is actually walking the walk by addressing the battery issue I referenced earlier and initiating efforts to use more green energy. And what do Leftists do? Burn vehicles and charging stations, which puts pollutants into the air, thus fucking up the environment further than if they just had a Coke and a smile and shut the fuck up.
All that being said, I still have faith green energy can be a thing, but it’s going to take a lot of work. First, we need to level set appropriately, meaning we have to ignore the Leftist hype about it. We’re not going to see solar powered tanks within our lifetimes (mainly because it’s a dumb fucking idea), but we can take smaller steps that fall under the green energy umbrella like using biodiesel. South America has taken the lead on this with some degree of success, and I don’t see green energy taking off here without following their lead. One of the coolest things about their biodiesel is it’s not just renewable, but they’re finding ways to use more plant matter than we do with ethanol. The more we can use to produce biodiesel and other fuels, the greater the yield.
Additionally, we need to be a lot more careful with federal involvement in green energy to make sure the companies getting our money are getting results. We need the best and brightest figuring out how to address potential issues now and anticipate future issues so they can be resolved sooner rather than later. If the companies are just money laundering outlets for Leftist politicians, they’re interested in a different kind of green and I ain’t talking about ecology. (Although, I could be talkin’ ’bout Shaft because he’s a bad mutha…)
Finally, we need to call out the bad actors pushing green energy, especially if they’re burning jet fuel to attend international conventions about it. There’s this thing the kids use these days called a Zoom Meeting where you can get a lot of people together without making a Godzilla-sized carbon footprint. Granted, you won’t get to stay in fancy hotels, run up a bar tab that makes the GDP of China look like a “Take A Penny” dish, and have gourmet dinners with fellow eco-hypocrites, but you can be naked from the waist down and no one would know. Just ask Jeffrey Toobin!
While we wait for green energy to take its place as a potential alternative to fossil fuels, we must do so from a position of facts, not of doomsday scenarios that have been right as often as Kamala Harris has won a primary. Also, we need to take care of the energy sources we have and innovate to make them as good and efficient as we can.
If we don’t, you might have to read this blog by candle light.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
It wasn’t that long ago that I graduated from college. Okay, maybe it has been, considering I graduated with a Masters in 1994.
Excuse me for a moment while I weep to myself and apply Ben Gay to my aching body.
Anyway, one of the aspects of graduating was having to pay back all the money I borrowed to go to college and get a degree I barely use. But, for what it’s worth, I’ve read a lot of books. Okay, now I have to weep again…
These days, the crying isn’t just limited to me. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon announced the department would start collection attempts on outstanding student loan debt in default. As you might expect, students impacted by this aren’t happy. After all, President Brick Tamland tried to forgive student loan debt through various means, the most obvious one being “I’m the President, or am I?”
This has become a political issue, so naturally politicians are going to get involved. And when they do, I am here to give commentary. Oh, and to mock the appropriate parties.
student loans
What the Left thinks it means – an oppressive economic burden placed on the backs of those least capable of paying it
What it really means – loans taken out to pay for a college degree that more often than not doesn’t translate to the real world
I will warn you at this point things may get tangental because there is a lot of ground to cover. Of course, if you’ve read me for any length of time, you’re asking, “So what’s different?”
Not that long ago, going to college was somewhat of an achievement. You either had to be really smart or really rich to go. Then, someone (probably someone in the admissions department) came up with the idea that more people needed to go to college. From there, the notion was put in the minds of young people (and their parents) that you had to go to college or else you wouldn’t be successful.
Then, someone else (probably someone in the accounting department) came up with the idea that more students meant more money. And what’s a great way to raise a bunch of money in a short period of time? I mean aside from stealing it. You raise tuition! That way even if your institute of higher learning has an enrollment drought you might be able to make a pretty penny. That, and the textbook prices.
There is a downside to this approach, namely pricing yourself out of the market. Then, a third person (probably someone in the government) decided the best way to address this is to offer student loans. Then, even more young people could go to college, which made everyone happy.
At least until the kids graduated and they had to pay back the money they borrowed.
See, the thing about the government getting involved in the student loan game is it allowed colleges and universities to jack up tuition costs, which meant prospective students had to borrow even more just to go to a 7 AM Color Theory in American Literature class three times a week. Or, more likely, not attend that class and crib notes off a classmate without a life. After all, there was drinking and drugs to do!
Not that I know anything about that, mind you.
The Left is on the right side of the student loan debt issue, at least superficially. The amount of debt that has to be run up just to attend college these days is astronomical, and with a job market that can be softer than Taylor Lorenz’s feefees, being able to pay back the money owed can be tough. Not impossible, mind you, but harder than it needs to be, just like the language in the loan application.
Where the Left goes banana-shaped on the issue is in figuring out who’s responsible, mainly because some of the finger-pointing would have to go towards some of their allies. Since student loans have come under the auspices of the federal government, it’s easy to think there is a Mount Everest-sized mountain of unending money just waiting for people to take without consequence. And that group of people includes…drumroll please…college administrators and Boards of Regents. These are the people who evaluate tuition costs, and in recent years they’ve refused tuition increases as often as I’ve refused to eat medium rare steaks: it’s never come up.
And when you consider a significant percentage of administrators lean to the Left, it’s Leftists who are making the student loan debt issue worse.
To borrow a phrase from Philip Joseph Watson, “Imagine my shock.”
But the damage goes even further. With the rising cost of tuition, are students getting the bang for Uncle Sam’s buck? Well…let’s just say a lot of the banging going on is limited to the coeds. Students and parents alike believe tuition is too high and can create economic anxiety with students, which negatively affects their ability to learn.
Not that the curricula may have that much value anymore. Sure, you’ll have the hard sciences and more business-focused courses, but most of the time the courses being offered will help you in the job market as much as tattooing “I’m Unhireable” on your forehead. And I’m saying that as someone with an English Language and Literature degree! So, if you’re looking for a cushy corner office job with your Non-Binary Native American Tap Dance degree, you’re shit out of luck.
Unless, of course, you decide to go into teaching. You may not get a corner office, but being a professor can be lucrative and, aside from doing scholarly research to keep up on the trends in the field of study, it’s not too bad of a gig. Of course, this doesn’t help the student loan situation any, but hey.
Another area of agreement I have with the Left on the student loan issue is the expectations being put upon young adults. The documentation necessary to apply for a student loan is enough to make the Sierra Club cry like the Native American from that commercial. There’s a lot of legalese and verbiage to wade through and even then you may not know enough of the details to know what’s expected of you. To help with this, I have a simplified student loan process.
1. Tell the borrower how much they owe.
2. Tell the borrower when and how to make payments.
3. Tell the borrower what happens if/when payments can’t be made.
That’s it. And really that’s as complicated as it needs to be. Cut out the “party of the first part” jazz and get to the point. It’s going to make everyone a lot happier.
There’s another level to the student loan issue where the Left is at cross purposes. One of the squawking points is it’s impossible for 18 year olds to understand the terms of a student loan, so it’s irresponsible for lenders to hold them responsible for the debt. Yet, they also believe a child can know whether he or she is trans as early as 3 or 4.
So let me get this straight (or whatever sexual orientation you are). A preschooler can know he or she is trans, but an 18 year old can’t figure out that if you borrow money you have to pay it back at some point? If you flip the ages, it makes more sense, but as it stands in Leftist circles, it doesn’t, and I can’t make it make sense.
The reason for this contradiction is simple: Leftists aren’t known for making sense. But more to the point, treating young adults as though they’re children creates victims in search of an oppressor. And, surprise surprise, the oppressor tends to be the nameless, faceless monolith of whatever Boogieman the Left wants to blame for it this microsecond. Combine that with the ideological instruction these students are getting, and you have a ready-made army willing to go to the wall for a cause.
And a bunch of underinformed foot soldiers looking for direction.
This piece of advice may be a little late for some, but it needs to be said. Before you apply for any loan, look over the terms. This is Common Sense 101, but far too often people sign the documents before they think about the consequences. That’s one big reason so many people ran into problems during the mortgage industry implosion of the late 2000s: they assumed the good times would keep rolling. Then when shit went sideways, they weren’t prepared.
And that brings up another piece of advice. If you have a child or teenager in your lives, teach them about fiscal responsibility early and often. (Like voting in Chicago!) Taking a few hours to teach them about budgeting, saving, and smart spending will save them years of having to deal with the negative repercussions of overspending and underearning. If you want a quick course, tell them about the national debt and how both major parties spend like drunken sailors.
And if you’re in the group of young adults coming to the realization those loans you took out are coming due, you won’t get anywhere by complaining on TikTok, nor looking for Big Daddy Government to bail you out. After I graduated college, there were more than a few lean years as I tried to find my footing in the corporate world. That’s normal, but it’s not impossible to overcome if you plan accordingly.
This isn’t to give the Right a pass when they suggest graduates stop eating avocado toast to make ends meet. That’s a simplistic viewpoint that doesn’t help the problem. If you want to help, offer your knowledge on how to budget and determine how to recognize needs versus wants.*
*Offer void to anyone in government right now
Student loans have become a necessary evil (emphasis on “evil”) due to forces outside of the borrowers’ control. Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, we should strive to address the core issues and bring them under control so college students and their families don’t spend restless nights worrying how to pay for an education and focus on ore important activities.
Like heavy drinking!
Extremist Makeover- Harvard Edition
It’s been a rough few years for the good folks at Harvard University. Controversies ranging from alleged plagiarism by one of the administrators to, well, a whole lotta antisemitism on campus have turned the faces of alumni and administrators…crimson.
I’ll see myself out.
Okay, I’m back. Now, I may not have an Ivy League education, but I have a few ideas to help Harvard out of its current situation.
First off, you have a Code of Conduct that everyone is supposed to follow, but it’s not. When you have a set of rules and you ignore them, it doesn’t end well. You might wind up like Congress!
Seriously, though, the Code of Conduct shouldn’t just be a good idea that occasionally gets enforced depending on the situation (or more specifically the ideology of the offenders). Either have it or don’t. And if you have it, use it!
Along with this, you might want to tone down the tone-deafness when it comes to the anti-Jewish sentiment. I know things in Gaza are as unsteady as Britney Spears these days, but there is a fine line between protesting and menacing a certain segment of students who may or may not agree with Israel’s actions. Not to mention, you might have a few Jewish lawyers lining up to sue Harvard if you don’t turn the anti-Jewish sentiment from an 11 (because it’s one higher) to, oh, a -43.
Now, for the administration to accomplish these two initial steps, they have to stop trying to act like the “cool parents” and start acting more like Red Foreman from “That 70s Show.” Take control of the situation, hand out punishments appropriate to the offenses, and stick to your proverbial guns. Don’t try to reason with the offenders. Don’t coddle them or encourage them. Lay down the law, or in this case the Code of Conduct. And if some of the student body doesn’t like it, call them dumbasses (if you’ll pardon the vulgarity) like Mr. Foreman would do.
Also, and I hate to bring this up, but an Ivy League education isn’t as prestigious as it used to be. Granted, the quality of higher education has gotten a lot lower in recent decades, but Moose Knuckle Community College, Tire and Lube, Hairdressing Salon, and Mini Mart is no Harvard. It used to be an honor to attend Harvard, Yale, or any other Ivy League school. Now, it’s a pit stop for rich kids before they get a nepotism hire or a role in a company that looks more at where you went to school than whether you can actually do the job.
You know, like Congress!
Yes, I know I used that joke earlier. What can I say? I like recycling!
To stem the tide, at least where Harvard is concerned, the administration needs to take academics seriously. That means attracting the best and brightest, not just to attend, but to teach. And that means finding people who want to teach, not just pawn off work to TAs so they don’t have to teach an 8 AM Advanced Bisexual Chinese Poetry About Dwarfs class.
And while we’re here, can we do something about the useless classes and majors that permeate colleges and universities these days? I’m sure there’s a market for The Philosophy of Katy Perry’s Pseudo-Space Launch, but that doesn’t mean Harvard has to offer it. Be a bit more picky than Taylor Swift when tracking down another ex-boyfriend to write songs about for a future album. Strive for the highest quality of curricula and the teachers for them. Sure, you may not get as much money by not offering the aforementioned Katy Perry course, but you won’t also get called out for offering such a vapid course in the first place, so it’s a win-win.
This next bit may be harder to address, but you won’t know if you don’t try. Find professors whose politics are closer to, say, the middle than to the freaky outer limits of the Left. This is going back a few decades, but the best professors I’ve ever had were ones who taught the coursework without interjecting politics, like, at all. I’m sure they had their ideological beliefs, but it was hard to pick out from the material being taught. Professors shouldn’t be punished for having political opinions (that’s what tenure is supposed to prevent), but it shouldn’t be the core of their teaching style, either.
Finally, have a real commitment to free speech on campus. And, yes, that means hearing from all sides, not just the ones you agree with because, believe it or not, there are some intelligent people out there on the Right. Imagine learning economics from Dr. Thomas Sowell, for example. Not only would you get a high-level education on the subject, but it would be in a manner that is engaging, challenging, and thorough.
And given the number of champagne socialists running around on campus these days, they could use an economics course or fifty.
Although it’s going to take a while for Harvard to go from laughingstock to leading the academic world, I don’t think it’s a lost cause just yet. Making a few changes will make the Harvard experience worth chasing again. The alternative is to become the academic equivalent of the “Snow White” live-action movie: underwhelming, over budget, and more sparsely populated than the hairs on Vin Diesel’s head.
Extremist Makeover – Disney Edition
To put it mildly, the current state of Disney is looking bleak, and this is the same company that gave us “The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes.” After getting two of the biggest intellectual properties in pop culture history in Star Wars and Marvel, it was assumed the House of Mouse would be churning out profitable movies and TV shows.
Yeah, about that…
Instead of making money, Disney started making enemies of its core audience. Sure, you had the Avengers movies which raked in tons of money, but live action versions of “The Little Mermaid” and more recently “Snow White” made less money than I did working for a fly-by-night three-day-old sushi franchise called “Still Better than Chipotle.” The fan bases that would normally flock to these movies flocked to the Interwebs to trash Disney’s offerings as “woke garbage.”
And those are the good reviews!
Granted, Disney hasn’t helped matters by putting out woke garbage under the guise of entertainment. Whether it was Kathleen Kennedy stinking up the Star Wars franchise (with the help of J.J. “I Haven’t Seen a Lens Flare I Haven’t Loved” Abrams) or the third wave of Marvel movies and TV shows that have focused more on diversity than, you know, coming up with good stories, it seems Disney has lost its way.
Well, I’m here to help in my own unique way. And considering I’m more of a Bugs Bunny than a Mickey Mouse fan, you know things are bad.
Let’s deal with the elephant in the room, and I’m not talking about Dumbo: you’re driving away potential fans with what you’re doing. I get that you want to grow your base while recognizing the diversity that’s out there, but you’re going about it all wrong. Your approach so far has been to inject the diversity you want to see in the world, wrap it in a half-baked plot, and claim whatever ism you want to blame for the inevitable poor performance. But here’s a little secret.
Not everyone who criticizes the flaming dumpster fires you call entertainment is a bigot. Yes, there are people like that in every group, but you have to try to sift through the hate and trolling to find the kernel of truth. And considering there seems to be a consistent theme of “this is bad and you should feel bad,” you might want to pay attention.
Here’s an example from my own experience. After hearing all sorts of bad things about “Captain Marvel,” I decided to give it a watch. After all, I didn’t want to judge it unfairly and I have an affinity for bad movies. I turned it off after 10 minutes because Brie Larson was so unbearable as a “girl boss” character. I didn’t get any sense of the character she was playing (and I place a good chunk of the blame for that on Larson herself) and I didn’t really care to learn anything more about her. She was just…annoying.
This is one of the things Disney capitalizes on, yet fails to understand in any discernible way: girls want to be princesses, too. Not every girl wants to be a girl boss, and not every female character has to be one to be interesting, or in Larson’s case, not be repulsive to potential fans. Even making Captain Marvel a Disney Princess in “The Marvels” falls flat because she lacks one of the major parts of being one: we like the character.
Compare this to Merida from “Brave.” Although she may be overlooked as compared to the others, she is both determined without being, well, Brie Larson-levels of annoying. And she is, now listen carefully, relatable. We can see ourselves in Merida because she goes through many of the emotions and experiences we do or have. She’s the everyman…er girl…er Princess.
Are you starting to see why “Snow White” flopped more than a drunk fat fratboy jumping into a pool during Spring Break? I’m sure Rachel Zegler is talented, but she didn’t exactly endear herself to the potential audience by putting herself over the Disney cartoon on which her role was based. Even if you wanted to do an updated version, you don’t have to dump all over the source material.
Especially when it’s one of the best animated films Disney has ever done, one that has been beloved for almost 90 flipping years!
This is Marketing 101 stuff, folks. Know your brand and protect it at all costs. In short, don’t use a major IP for an outhouse. In fact, this may be the first step towards Disney regaining its footing: require Disney execs to take a marketing class for an actual grade, minimum grade of a C+ or they get booted. I’ll even allow them to take it at an institute of higher learning suited to what appears to be their intellectual level, Greendale Community College.
By the way, #sixseasonsandamovie.
While the current execs are busy at school, find talent within the company who have an actual passion for storytelling, film-making, acting, et cetera, because these are the folks who will rebuild the foundation of the House of Mouse. Much of the pushback against Disney right now is based on the notion they’re more interested in pushing agendas than producing movies and shows people want to see. And on some level, they’re right.
You have to decide whether the agenda or the final product is more important. Look at it this way. If you want to spread an agenda, you need an audience, and nobody’s going to pay to see your agenda-driven passion project if you’re not making people want to see it. Tone down the agenda and weave it into a good story with characters we feel for. Sure, that means acting roles for the aforementioned Ms. Larson and Ms. Ziegler are going to be few and far between, but I think it will be better for everyone involved. And by everyone, I mean the audience.
Another possible option is to spin off a section of the company that will specifically work on the agenda-driven shows and movies. It will still be part of Disney, just under a different part of the company umbrella. That way you can tell the stories you want to tell without having to worry about having to make money. In short, you’re going to become the brother-in-law who moves in, sleeps on the couch, and eats all the food in the house without chipping in.
As part of this spin-off, you will need people who know about the IPs you’re bastardizing…I mean using. For that, you kinda need the fans you’ve been crapping on to help guide you. For all their faults, they care about the source material and can bring insights into the process that you might not have thought of in your dream to bring an albino quadriplegic gender-queer otherkin Jedi order into the Star Wars universe. Or at the very least, they can devise a canonical reason why such an order exists instead of relying on “muh fee-fees.”
Ditto for the Marvel IPs. Your decisions have turned a guaranteed money-making machine into a product that is lucky to recoup its money. Sure, they hit all the ideological marks you wanted, but that doesn’t mean anything if you’re not getting eyes on the product and driving away potential fans. For example, “She-Hulk: Attorney at Law” has gotten middling reviews and gotten more than its fair share of hatred, some by people who would complain about anything (basically 99% of people online), but some who have a legitimate love of the character.
Of course, when the star of said show goes out of her way to attack the fan base to this very day…yeah, not a good look.
The best way to navigate your way out of this situation is similar to that with the Star Wars franchise: come up with good stories and engaging characters and let them do the talking. And as a Marvel fan, I can tell you there are a lot of characters that haven’t been tapped, but certainly can be with the right approach and with people who actually care about them. And if you can’t find a great story during the entire history of Marvel to adapt, you’re not looking hard enough.
So, Disney, you’re not out of the woods yet, but you’re not a completely lost cause. Let me give you a piece of advice to get you back on track. Take everything you’ve done over the past few years, all the advice you’ve gotten, all the direction you’ve been given, and the like. Then, do the exact opposite. Before you know it, the House of Mouse will be back on a solid foundation.
Of a lot of money.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
The Leftist world was all atwitter (or if you prefer all aX) recently with the story of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a poor illegal alien soul who was deported back to his home country of El Salvador, allegedly without due process. Without going too far into the weeds, let’s just say you’re more likely to catch Bernie Sanders flying on a private plane than you are to understanding the ins-and-outs of this case.
Wait. Scratch that.
So, to borrow a phrase from hack comedians, what’s the deal with deportation? It’s a complicated issue that deserves sober thinking to understand the gravitas of the subject. But since I’m already a few beers into this, you’ll have to put up with me.
deportation
What the Left thinks it means – a practice that needs to be done by the book, no matter how long it takes
What it really means – the legal consequence for illegal immigration
Contrary to what Rep. Jasmine Crockett says, illegal immigration is a crime. The law in question is the Immigration and Nationality Act which, along with other laws and regulations, provides direction for the immigration and deportation processes. Seems everything should be in order, right?
Not so much.
Much like Disney with negative reviews of “Snow White,” our political class loves to ignore the laws on the books when they’re inconvenient. And let’s just say the immigration laws are mighty inconvenient to the Left. After all, that’s the use of following immigration laws if they prevent you from ensuring Democrat control? You know, aside from those laws being the fucking laws.
That’s not to say Leftists don’t follow the laws all the time. In fact, one area where they demand the laws be followed to the letter is in…you guessed it, Frank Stallone. Actually, it’s deportation, which is really convenient considering it’s our topic for this Lexicon entry. After allowing people to enter the country through our southern border like wine moms going to a Taylor Swift concert, it’s funny to watch Leftists be such sticklers to the letter of the law.
And by “funny,” I mean calculated.
I know I’ve mentioned our good friend Saul Alinsky so often I could be his agent, but one of his Rules for Radicals applies here: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” Since Republicans believe in the rule of law (unless they find the laws inconvenient for political gain), the Left knows it has them in a box when it comes to immigration. If we have to follow the laws when it comes to stopping illegal immigration, we have to follow the laws when it comes to deportation.
And that’s where Constitutional law comes into play. The US Supreme Court previously ruled all aliens are entitled to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. So, that means regardless of the way they come into the country, they get their day in court.
A noble gesture in theory, but a burden in current practice, thanks to a little thing the Leftist kids like to call the Cloward-Piven Strategy. In short, this strategy is designed to achieve Leftist goals related to poverty by forcing the system to get overwhelmed. And guess how that gets accomplished: illegal immigration.
“But wait, Thomas. Wouldn’t illegal immigrants be ineligible for federal benefits?” you might ask. Or “Are you aware you’re not wearing pants?” The answer to the former is they should be, but thanks to loopholes in the law and soft-hearted and soft-brained politicians (I’m looking at you, Gavin Newsom), they gain access.
So, what does this have to do with deportation? By having to follow due process and the delays caused by so many illegal immigrants being processed over the past few years, the strain to the social safety net continues unabated.
That is, until President Trump got back into the Oval Office and decided to start enforcing immigration law. In the first six weeks, the Trump Administration deported 27,772 illegal immigrants, which is a step in the right direction. Where I think they’ve gone wrong is through fast-tracking the process. Yes, I know this plays into the Cloward-Piven and Alinsky playbooks, but it’s necessary to ensure the Left has no room to bitch. Not that it will stop them, mind you…
Nor will it stop the Left from lying. With the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case alone, we’ve seen attempts from the Left to paint him as an innocent victim denied due process and attempts from the Right to paint him as a gang-banger terrorist who has been legally deported back to his home country of El Salvador. Well, the truth is a bit murkier than these extremes are letting on.
First off, Kilmar Abrego Garcia freely admits he entered the country illegally, but has received a court order preventing him from being deported back to El Salvador out of fear of being attacked by a rival gang. So, not only have we confirmed he’s a member of a gang (MS-13 to be exactly, and I ain’t talking about Microsoft) and that he’s not supposed to be here, but he’s already had due process. But he also has a court order that should have protected him from deportation, as well as a questionable designation as a terrorist.
That means…well, a whole lotta shit, to be honest. If we deport him, we run afoul of the legal process. If we don’t deport him, he will still be affiliated with MS-13 which could put us in mortal danger.
Congratulations. We’re now in Kobayashi Maru territory.
The only way forward is being transparent, follow the law, and, oh yeah, stem the flow of illegal immigration to give the system time to catch up. And guess what the Trump Administration is doing? They’re cracking down, and that’s resulted in reduced encounters at the US/Mexico border. It’s a start, but there’s still a lot more to do.
First of all, let’s stop treating gang members like terrorists. Not only does it set a bad precedent for future Presidents, but it gives Leftists ammunition to call the deportation process into question. And, let’s face it, it’s not exactly the swiftest nor the clearest process in government. Plus, it elevates gang members, which only feeds their egos and gives them enough bravado to commit bigger, more audacious crimes. That, in turn, may cause other gangs to try to play catch-up, making the gang problem even worse.
Second, as much as the Trump Administration wants to rush through the deportation process to get results, we have to play it by the book. It won’t stop Leftists from lying or making gang-bangers look sympathetic figures, but it cuts the due process complaint they have off at the knees. And at the very least, it will make Leftists look like Cotton Hill, which will never fail to make me laugh.
Lastly, it’s long past time we overhaul our immigration and deportation policies. And that requires taking a hard look at our border policies. We can’t keep letting anyone with a sob story (and without paperwork) walk in unexamined while others jump through bureaucratic flaming hoops to gain legal entry. As draconian as Leftists think Trump’s border enforcement may be, it’s working. That gives us time to get our house in order.
If you really think about it (and I have because I’m as boring as an Amish rave), the deportation issues we’re seeing now are an outgrowth from the immigration issue. The more illegal immigrants come into the country, the more deportation orders have to be made once they’re caught. Of course, Leftists will continue to push for sanctuary cities and sanctuary states because, well, they don’t have to deal with the aftermath since they live more in the suburbs than where the illegal immigrants are.
So, let me float this idea, one that I’ve modified from Governors Ron Desantis and Greg Abbott. While they flew illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities and states, I want to send them to the residences of those who insist on being sanctuary cities and states. Preferably, to the houses of those politicians who made those things possible. Maybe that will drive home the point that illegal immigration isn’t something we should encourage.
Or, at the very least, we can point and laugh as we give Leftists exactly what they said they wanted.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Election integrity has been a pretty hot topic in recent years. (Candidate integrity, on the other hand, not so much.) To address this, the House of Representatives voted on the SAVE Act, or as the kids like to call it the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act. The short version is it updates existing legislation and includes ways for people to prove their citizenship so they can vote.
Which means Leftists are upset over it. Of course, it’s a day ending in “day” so they’re already upset about something. But this time, they’re pulling out all of their favorite shits…I mean hits. It’s sexist, racist, anti-trans, and, this is a new one, a poll tax because people might have to pay to get documentation.
So, is the SAVE Act the second coming of racist voting laws or a step towards more secure elections? And is this another lame segue into a Lexicon entry? The answers are coming up!
the SAVE Act
What the Left thinks it means – a Republican bill that disenfranchises voters by making it more difficult for people to vote
What it really means – a Republican bill that requires voting adults to be, well, adults
According to the bill itself, there are a number of methods of identification that will work to prove citizenship for the purposes of voting, ranging from a drivers’ license with REAL ID to a birth certificate to a marriage certificate and so many others. And even if you don’t have that documentation handy (which, realistically, you should, kids), the bill provides for a way to attest to your citizenship so you can vote. Should be a slam dunk, right?
Not quite.
The Left have been able to convince some of our fellow talking meatbags that requiring identification to vote is a bridge too far. It’s just way too complicated, expensive, and inconvenient to get identification, let alone use it to vote. And as Leftists love to tell us, voter fraud isn’t a thing. Until it is. Then, it’s not that big of a deal because it’s so rare.
That’s what we call “moving the goalposts,” kids.
The fact there’s voter fraud at all concerns me, regardless of who does it. One of the bedrock principles America has is we get to vote for our leaders. Granted, the last few Presidents don’t really speak highly of our ability to find good leaders, but the point remains. Voter fraud erodes that bedrock to the point we don’t even know if the candidate with the most votes will be the winner after the dust settles.
And no, Mrs. Clinton, you don’t fall into this category. No matter how hard you protest, you lost the Presidency because the popular vote isn’t what decides who gets to be President. Now, put on your Make America Great Again hat and shut the fuck up.
At the core of the Left’s assertion regarding voter identification is a belief some people are incapable of fulfilling the task of obtaining the necessary documentation for a myriad of reasons: age, inconvenience, cost, and so on. And, yes, these can be barriers, but they aren’t insurmountable if you’re willing to put in the work.
Cue Maynard G. Krebs.
And I’m only half-joking about that. Leftists are always down for making it easier to vote, mainly because that’s how they can game the system. When you set expectations higher than “must be solid matter,” it irks the Left because it makes them have to do actual stuff to overcome it. You know, like farming out voter fraud efforts to a Leftist organization with ties to our good friend Uncle George Soros.
But I’m sure that would never happen, amirite?
Although they’d be hard pressed to admit it, underneath the Left’s efforts to beat back anything even remotely related to election security is a very bigoted assumption: the less fortunate can’t advocate for themselves. To the the Left, these folks are incapable of much, so they need champions to speak for them. Enter the Leftists! Only they can defend the rights of those poor souls to do nothing constructive for themselves!
That’s mighty white of them! Often, quite literally!
However, by doing this, the Left treats the less fortunate as lessers in every aspect. This reduces these adults to children, incapable of doing anything without Leftists. And what confuses me more is there are people willing to be treated like children because it’s easier than being a ward of the state than a participant of it. I guess I’m just wired differently, what with me being a fan of Atlas Shrugged, “The Prisoner,” and personal freedom.
And, oddly enough, freedom is one of the ways the Left tries to convince people the SAVE Act will curtail theirs. That’s by design. By pumping up the fear, the Left whips up a frenzy, albeit an incredibly uninformed one. There’s a good possibility those who think they’re going to be negatively impacted already have all they need already. If they don’t, there are options that may or may not involve money and aren’t that inconvenient.
But the Left doesn’t want you to know that. They want you to be afraid.
And what’s more, the SAVE Act has only just passed in the House. The Senate still has to take it up, so if you’re affected by it or think you are, you have time to get that documentation or help someone else get it.
But the Left doesn’t want you to know that. They want you to be angry.
Is it just me, or does anyone else see a pattern forming here? It’s almost as if the Left want people not to learn about the SAVE Act and would rather gas up a mob because…well, that’s a good question. Purposely misleading people typically doesn’t end well once the people find out. And with the favorability ratings of the Democrat Party hovering just above that of STDs, they’d better hope people don’t find out anytime soon.
That’s not to say I’m completely happy with the SAVE Act. There are some unintended (or possibly intended) consequences that will affect women, trans people, and anyone else who has had to deal with name changes. It’s already a hassle to get even basic information and documentation updated (thank you, bureaucracy), but to add that hurdle to a Constitutionally protected right? That’s a Bridge to Nowhere too far.
The solution is somewhere in the middle. To balance out the need for election integrity and the need to protect the rights of eligible voters, there should be a way to identify eligible voters that can be cross-referenced with a database that can be updated regularly. Maybe a card of some kind, one that confirms a voter is registered…
Nah, nobody would be dumb enough to invent that. Forget I said it.
All that said, the SAVE Act has good intentions and is attempting to solidify trust in our elections. Maybe the Senate can make some adjustments to address the concerns I raised. Only time will tell if the SAVE Act will be an asset or a liability.
Oh, and before I forget, the answer to my second question is yes.