As a semi-popular blogger, pundit, and all around neat guy, I have a deep respect for freedom of speech. After all, without it, I’d just be some lunatic behind bars talking about how bad government sucks. As it stands, I’m just in a rubber room, so yay, I guess?
I wouldn’t bring this up unless it was relevant, and thanks to Queen Kamala the Appointed and the Left, it’s become very relevant, but not in a good way. Whether it’s The Social Media Site Formerly Known as Twitter getting banned in Brazil for alleged misinformation to Vice Presidential candidate Tim Walz and Presidential candidate Kamala Harris both in favor of some form of government intervention/regulation of social media, the topic is as relevant today as it was when the Bill of Rights was passed.
free speech
What the Left thinks it means – the right to express yourself without government interference, except when it crosses certain lines
What it really means – the right to express yourself without government interference, regardless of who you are and what you say
As with guns, cars, and movies like “The Room,” freedom of speech can be used for different ends. That’s why it’s important to consider the implications of their use prior to firing a gun, driving a car, or paying for a ticket to see “The Room.” Oh, and speaking out.
Yes, there are some limitations to free speech, and they’re established as a means of protecting people from physical or reputational damage. Some speech like “fighting words” aren’t considered free speech because a) they are designed to promote a violent response, and b) the person engaging in it is kinda asking for an ass-whuppin’. For those of you younger folks reading this, fighting words are what we old folks used to do in lieu of internet trolling because the Internet hadn’t been invented yet. (Thanks, Al Gore.)
Anyway, the Left has tried to apply the same approach used with fighting words with other forms of speech. Each one could be a Lexicon entry in and of itself, but here is a list of these speech forms the Left doesn’t like.
hate speech – Basically, any speech that makes Leftists look like assholes
misinformation – Basically, any speech that proves Leftists are assholes
election interference – Basically, any speech that shows Leftists losing
election misinformation – Basically, any speech that proves Leftist politicians are full of shit
I’m not sure, but I’m sensing a pattern here…
Although a case can be made for regulations on these, the case is pretty fucking bad. You can pass as many laws banning them, but they run smack in the face of the very thing Leftists claim to be all about: free speech. Yes, some speech is abhorrent and would make Gandhi want to grab a shotgun and start kicking ass, but the answer to it isn’t cracking down on the bad speech; it’s countering it with good speech. Dennis Miller put it best (and I’m paraphrasing it from here, so please don’t sue me, Mr. Miller): No free speech gives you Hitler. Healthy free speech gives you David Duke. There’s a big, big difference.
The problem is the Left doesn’t understand that difference. Either that, or they don’t get the reference, which isn’t all that uncommon with Miller’s work. Regardless, Leftists treat any speech that isn’t from their echo chamber as dangerous. And it’s not because it’s particularly threatening, dangerous to society as a whole, or offensive to society as a whole. It’s because it’s not something they can control with any degree of success.
Having said that, they aren’t going to stop trying. During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, information countering the official narrative got censored and social media accounts that spread that information got removed. Even as Mark “No, I’m Not Data” Zuckerberg had to admit the Brick Tamland Administration pressured Meta to crack down on certain content. And I’m guessing you know what content got the ban hammer.
But you know who didn’t get nailed for COVID misinformation? All the figureheads and media outlets who peddled the Administration’s bullshit. Seems “Trust the Science” didn’t include actual science. Then again, the “Trust the Science” people also believe men can be women just because they feel that way, so…
It’s bullshit like this (the censorship, not the men claiming to be women) that made Elon Musk take on the mantle of leadership when it comes to free speech online. He has rightly made it his cause, and given the lack of accountability for those who on the Left who violate the Left’s own rules (I’m looking at you, Rachel Maddow!), it’s clear we need someone who not only understands free speech, but also allows it.
Musk may not be the best person to do it, but at least he’s doing it. Since taking over the Social Media Site Formerly Known As Twitter, he has reversed many of the previous decisions made and reinstated accounts that he felt were terminated unjustly. Granted, that gave us back noted white nationalist and all around weirdo Nick Fuentes, but the upside is we can now keep better track of him and what he says. That’s something you don’t get with free speech crackdowns. Forcing people like Fuentes to go off the free speech grid makes it harder to track him down and combat whatever speech he’s spouting. With a healthy respect for free speech, he makes himself known, so we can do a little rhetorical White Supremacist Whack-A-Mole.
And if you know any of the scuttlebutt about him, the mole part might not be complete hyperbole.
Freedom of speech is one of the bedrock principles we should all strive to want. Without it, how would we redress grievances with the government (of which your humble correspondent has plenty), spread the message to others to gather peaceably, or print out flyers? And for those of you eagle-eyed readers out there, you might recognize the examples I just gave as rights covered under the First Amendment. If you didn’t, that’s okay. You’re still brighter than 100% of the dipshits who think free speech should be limited because fee-fees get hurt.
I don’t think free speech is going anywhere if Queen Kamala the Appointed and Vice Queen TIMMAH get into office because neither one has the brains necessary to make the case in favor of getting rid of it, but that doesn’t mean we can ease up protecting it. As Ronald Reagan put it:
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
And if you can’t trust a man who acted with a chimp, who can you trust?
Category: Guest Author
All Guests Authors use this Category in addition to others.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
In my years of being a Leftist and covering them, there is one rock-solid, take-it-to-the-bank statement that not even the most honest Leftists can deny: Leftists say some really weird shit. And I’m not just talking about prolonged discussions on the virtues of Drag Queen Story Hours or the actual number of genders (still two, by the way). Even when I’m prepared for the weird shit, there are times when even I have to take a step back and admire the nuttier-than-squirrel-shit take.
Like this one from The Hill website, “Are the Democrats Now the Party of Reagan?” Although the premise is as absurd as the media allowing a major party candidate to go unquestioned for more than a few minutes, let alone weeks (good thing that never happens, amirite?), it did get me to thinking. Which lead me to writing this week’s Lexicon, since that’s kinda what I do around here.
the party of Reagan
What the Left thinks it means – a by-gone era that should stay in the past because it was so horrible, except when it can be used to attract voters
What it really means – a by-gone era that the Left still doesn’t understand
The 1980s were a decade of dayglo oddities. The old excesses of the late 70s continued (including the coke habits) while new technologies started to take hold. Celebrities rose and empires fell. And at the core of it all was Ronald Reagan.
Say what you will about the man, but Ronald Reagan was a generational President in both good and bad ways. His strength when dealing with the former Soviet Union, his economic policies, and his undying love of America held us in good stead during a time when America’s self-opinion was lower than a snake’s codpiece. Yet, the way he handled Iran/Contra, his mental decline in his later years, and some of the policy decisions he made with AIDS and apartheid in South Africa were less than awesome.
In short, Reagan was just like the rest of us. Only with more access to the nuclear arsenal.
The Left’s hatred of the Reagan era stemmed from their unrequited love of the former Soviet Union. After decades of appeasing the Soviets, Reagan became an aggressor because he realized what the super-smart Leftists (just ask them) didn’t: communism doesn’t work. At some point, the communists run out of other people’s money, which creates either massive deficit spending, a greater reliance on those who are already carrying the bulk of the weight, or a combination of the two.
There’s that economics degree Reagan earned coming into play.
Once the Soviet Union went the way of the Atari 2600 “E.T.” video game, the Left’s hatred of Reagan intensified. Sure, they had other legit and semi-legit criticisms as noted above, but he proved them wrong. Appeasing the Soviets only allowed them to continue stockpiling weapons, making plans to conquer the rest of the world, and putting out shitty products under the auspices of everyone being equal (except for the party leaders, of course). Leftists at the time swore up and down Reagan would lead us into World War III, create a nuclear holocaust, and destroy the planet.
You know, like Leftists said Donald Trump would do?
When that didn’t happen, Leftists couldn’t handle it. And since they were the ones writing the history books at the time, they did their best to control the narrative. Once the Berlin Wall fell, though, they couldn’t get it done with those who actually lived and paid attention during that time. So, Leftists decided to wait a generation or two to get their version of events to become the primary timeline.
Which brings us to the party of Reagan. As much as I would like to say today’s Republican Party is an offshoot of the Reagan years, I can’t. Both major parties shed their skins some time ago and evolved into parties that no longer resemble their namesakes. Democrats and Republicans are both fans of big government at times, but only when they’re running it. And they’re not afraid to use force to get what they want. Remember the COVID lockdowns? President Trump and President Brick Tamland didn’t deviate that much policywise. Of course, much of that can be laid the feet of Saint Anthony of Fauci’s fault, Patron Saint of Scientific Bullshit, but both Trump and Tamland were reading from the same script.
Furthermore, the Republican “leadership” is as flaky as a croissant at times. Sure, they talk a great game about fiscal responsibility and conservative values, but they will sell those out in the name of compromising with people who think they’re the most evil people on the planet. And it happens time after time after time.
And the Democrats? They’re selling out to the lunatic fringe at every opportunity. From the Green New Boondoggle to the anti-Israel sentiment from The Squad, the Left has gone so far left Karl Marx looks like Milton Friedman, both in ideology and in economic knowledge. Today’s Left is turning off a lot more people than they’re attracting, or at the very least they’re turning off enough Leftists with actual jobs and money. This makes for an interesting internal civil war for the soul of the Left, and hopefully an even more interesting blog post later.
Meanwhile, it amazes me anybody with two brain cells to rub together would think Democrats are now the party of Reagan. Then again, this is an opinion writer from The Hill, so your intellectual mileage may vary. The way the author makes it sound, Republicans have abandoned the principles Reagan laid out, which they have for the most part. But he fails to make the connection that Democrats have taken up the mantle. The best he comes up with is Democrats’ undying support for Ukraine (which reflects not only a lack of understanding of Reagan’s foreign policy , but a fundamental lack of understanding of just how fucked up Ukraine’s leadership is).
His case isn’t exactly bolstered by self-professed Reaganites like Bill Kristol, Adam Kinslinger, and Liz Cheney, whose conservative bonafides are more questionable than three day old convenience store sushi. Or a freshly-made meal at Chipotle, for that matter. While the aforementioned Republicans (and many more like them who will remain nameless to protect the innocent and the dumbasses) tout how much closer they are to Reagan than any of the current crop of Republicans, the fact is they’re closer to Regan from “The Exorcist” than Reagan himself.
So, if the Republicans aren’t the party of Reagan anymore and the Democrats never have been and never will be if the current crop of fuckups have any say in the matter, who is the party of Reagan today? Unfortunately, there is no party that has it even remotely right. Either the fiscal policies are out of whack or the social and military policies are off, so there’s no real safe haven for those of us who have a fond memory of what Reagan stood for. So, we’re stuck either holding our noses for candidates who Reagan wouldn’t even acknowledge as Republicans, voting for a third party because we can’t hold our nose enough to vote for Republicans, or writing in candidates like your humble correspondent.
By the way, SMOD 24, baby!
Maybe it’s time we should stop thinking in terms of Reagan as far as political leadership is concerned, but not in terms of the grassroots. Even if our elected officials don’t hold Reagan in high esteem, we still can. American pride, appreciation of hard work, a love of the free market, all these things and much more are still within our power to use in our lives.
Plus, it will piss off Leftists, so win-win, baby!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
While Kamala Harris and Tim Walz continue their Happy Happy Joy Joy Tour, there is a term that has resurfaced unironically that I haven’t heard in a while: communism. And here I thought communism went the way of the Berlin Wall!
Anyway, Tim “Mirror Universe Dick Cheney” Walz described communism as it’s being forced…I mean practiced in China as, “It means that everyone is the same and everyone shares.” Granted, this was way back in 1991 when Walz hadn’t yet become Governor and was just a social studies teacher…wait, that makes it worse. Never mind.
Anyway, I figured it would be a good time to talk about communism since we have a VP candidate who thinks it’s neato.
communism
What the Left thinks it means – a socioeconomic system where everyone is treated equally, but one that has never been truly tried yet
What it really means – a socioeconomic system that only works on paper, as has been proven the times it’s been tried
At this point, I have to bring up communism’s stoner cousin, socialism. They share a similar lineage in that they both believe the government is the ultimate provider of all that is good and right in the world. Hmmm…I would say that sounds like the Harris/Walz platform except for the fact they really don’t have one.
Where they part company is in the use of violence and threats to maintain power. Socialism isn’t necessarily violent by nature. They just want everyone to voluntarily share with others. It’s a lot more peaceful than people think it is.
Then, there’s communism. Violence and threats are the coin of the realm in communist countries (mainly because their actual currency is worth less than a plot in a Michael Bay movie). Any concept of thought outside of the party dogma is dangerous and must be considered the communist version of a heretic.
The best way I’ve come up with to describe the fundamental differences between communism and socialism is thus. Socialism is communism on pot. Communism is socialism on PCP. And if you know anything about what happens to people on PCP, you know the shit hits the fan in ways you would never think possible.
As we speak, there are Leftists starting to type, “But both of them are about sharing and equality! Why are you against that, you bigot?” The fact is neither socialism nor communism will get you to your desired utopia, thanks to a little thing the kids like to call reality. And, yes, I understand Leftists tend to have a restraining order requiring reality to stay at least 500 feet away from them at all times, but Leftists need to listen to this next part.
All people are created equal in the sense most of the time Dad had to park his pork submarine in Mom’s tuna cove, but beyond that we aren’t. We are born with traits and hindrances from the jump. In order for us be equal, we would have to deny these things exist. And we all know we can’t deny science, right Leftists? I mean aside from there being two genders and such…
Since God, Nature, C’thulu, or whomever you want to blame didn’t make us equal, some dipshits thought it would be a great idea for Man to force equality. And those dipshits created socialism, which begat communism. And it didn’t work.
We Americans need only to go back to the time of the Pilgrims to see how the ideas behind communism and socialism fail in a spectacular way. Yet, Leftists keep thinking if they just try it again, it will work or else it wasn’t “real” communism/socialism. But, the thing is…it doesn’t work on a wide scale because human beings are more complex than what the aforementioned dipshits understand.
Here’s an example to illustrate this point. Let’s say you have two employees, Bob and Doug. Bob is diligent, goes above and beyond with every task put in front of him, and is a high performer. Doug…is none of these. He’s lazy, not very productive, and does the bare minimum at best to take care of things. Under most circumstances (unless Doug is related to the owner or has compromising photos of the owner), Doug would be out on his ass before he could say “Take off, hoser!”
Oh, I forgot to mention, Bob and Doug are Canadian.
Anyway, under communism, Bob would get punished for excelling and Doug would get rewarded for his sloth because the government would take from Bob to make sure Doug is taken care of. At some point, Bob is going to stop working so hard because there’s no upside to it. So, instead of having one superb employee and one subpar former employee having to give hand-jobs in a Tim Horton’s bathroom, you have two equally mediocre employees.
And somehow that’s supposed to work better than capitalism.
By the way, the Underpants Gnomes have better business sense than people who think communism could still work.
And if you think the Bob and Doug example was bad, just consider what kinds of products such mediocrity cranks out. Like Vice Presidential candidates.
And speaking of which, here’s what Tim Walz wrote about Chinese communism:
The doctor and the construction worker make the same. The Chinese government and the place they work for provide housing and 14 kg or about 30 pounds of rice per month. They get food and housing.
Of course, Walz wrote this from a decorated and air conditioned apartment on a salary double that of his Chinese teacher counterparts. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say Walz had it way better than the average Chinese person. Unless he’s going with the George Orwell version of equality, that is.
By the way, Timmy, I think Orwell was kidding.
But I’m not sure Timmy is. It seems he has a penchant for communism and socialism, which explains the warm fuzzies he got from hanging out in China. It might also explain his recent statement, “One person’s socialism is another person’s neighborliness.” But there is a simpler explanation.
Tim Walz is dumber than Kamala Harris when it comes to economics, and Harris makes President Brick Tamland look like Milton Friedman. And all of them are smarter than Paul Krugman. No great feat, I grant you, but credit where credit is due.
Regardless of how you feel about Tim Walz and his socioeconomic hard-on for communism, the truth is communism is not a system that should be taken seriously. If anything, it should be dragged out of the flaming dumpster of history every once in a while to be mocked as a teachable moment for the children.
And for the dumbass politicians who think communism isn’t bullshit.
Desperation Now Caucus
Well, the Democratic National Convention just ended much like it began: without Kamala Harris saying anything of substance. Not that the media aren’t trying to give her the gravitas she earned in the same way she got the Presidential nomination.
And, no, that’s not a good thing.
When they aren’t gushing over the joy of the Harris/Walz ticket is allegedly bringing to the 2024 campaign, the media are doing their best to make it sound like Donald Trump is panicking due to the rise of Kamala. To their credit, they are making a persuasive case, as Harris has gone from unpopular Vice President to popular Presidential candidate rapidly.
The obvious question is what has changed. Harris hasn’t changed. She’s still the same person she was when many of the same people cheering her now were calling for President Brick Tamland to drop her from the ticket if he wanted to win. And now, we’re supposed to believe there’s this groundswell of support for her that was always there, but only now started to come forward and be known.
Yeah, I’m not buying it.
The Harris/Walz ticket has multiple problems, not the least of which being a lack of specificity in what they believe. As of the date of this missive, their campaign website has zero policy positions, but plenty of ways for you to donate money. Even delegates at their own coronation…I mean convention couldn’t name specific policies they support from the Harris/Walz campaign. Oh, they gave word salad answers (not unlike their candidate of choice), but there was no there there.
The media aren’t helping matters either. When they’re not jockeying for position to be her biggest cheerleader, they’re making excuses for why she doesn’t have to spell out a policy vision. And if you want to do any significant research on Harris and Walz, be prepared to use an Internet history website while you can because their pasts are getting scrubbed. Want to read up on how many prisoners Harris locked up in California for cheap labor? Have a desire to see what military people actually thought of Walz? Good luck! The media won’t tell you these things, but the Internet is forever.
At least until they bend the knee to Harris/Walz to erase their histories and create new narratives. Oh, and gaslight you for not believing the new lies they’re telling to cover up the old ones.
Where am I going with all this? Glad you asked!
What I’m seeing is a party that knows it has a crappy hand, but has all the gusto in the world to play it out like it’s a royal flush in the hopes others will fold. In some cases, like with Robert Kennedy Jr., they just didn’t recognize him as a candidate. Basically, the ostrich with its head in the ground approach: if you don’t see it, it doesn’t exist. With others, like Jill Stein, they’ve been marginalized to the point you could run Pat Paulsen and get the same result.
But Trump? He’s a different animal altogether. And as it turns out, Robert Kennedy Jr. is, too. With the latter dropping out of the race and throwing his support behind Trump, it’s easy to dismiss it as a fart in a wind tunnel, but it gives voters an option. The option may be between a dog poop sandwich and a cat poop sandwich, but the option is still there.
Something to keep an eye out for in the next week or so is whether Harris/Walz gets a post-convention bump in the polls. Then, watch for how long it lasts. There is a lot of happy talk right now with almost universal praise (from Leftists) at the heavy hitters that appeared at the DNC (0r were alleged to have appeared, but weren’t actually booked). But after the confetti and balloons are cleaned up, what’s left?
A campaign without specifics, and a lot of questions that need to be answered.
So far, the toughest question Harris has faced from the media is “How do you feel?” The media’s question about President Tamland’s favorite ice cream was tougher! And as a former journalism student, that bothers me. The media are supposed to be adversarial towards those in power, not sucking up to them in hopes of being picked for some low-level government job where they can do even less than they do now.
But at some point, tougher questions are going to be asked, either by the press (yeah, even I don’t believe that’s going to happen) or by people outside of the Mandatory Joy campaign. What are they going to do about inflation, supply chain issues, infrastructure, the war in Ukraine, the war in Gaza, climate change, and so on? And I think the party knows their ticket doesn’t have any answers, only the ability to try to blame Trump for the policies they supported.
And that has to scare the crap out of the party.
I’ve had an idea that I’ve been kicking around in the back of my mind, but I haven’t shared it before now. I get the feeling the party leaders know they have two empty suits at the top of the ticket, so they’re hyping the joy to avoid looking like they’re throwing the 2024 election so better candidates can run in 2028. Not that their bench is as deep as a mud puddle, mind you, but the fact is to date Harris has not been impressive as a candidate in the two times she’s run for the Presidency. All the joy in the world won’t make up for a lack of substance.
That’s why they’re trying to get people to believe Trump is scared and panicking right now. After years of telling people not to believe President Tamland wasn’t mentally well and getting them to believe it while projecting the same issues onto Trump, the media are now trying to hide Harris’s lack of a record by lying to us again.
If we take anything from the DNC last week, it’s how much the party is willing to lie to us, obscure facts that don’t play into the narrative, and turn Kamala Harris from zero to hero while not really changing who she is or what she’s accomplished. But, it’s not working as well as it did in 2020, and the Left can’t do anything but project its own desperation onto Trump.
But remember, my Leftist friends, you made this happen. And in November, we’ll see how much joy you have.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Every modern political campaign these days is fraught with scandal. The severity of the scandal depends on a number of factors, not the least of which being how the politician at the center of it reacts.
This year, the Vice Presidential candidates (or at least the one on the ticket that actually got votes at the convention) are battling over stolen valor. As the son of someone who served (and as someone who isn’t a complete asshole…although the jury’s still out on that one), I take this matter pretty seriously. And that’s why I try to do my homework so I’m not throwing out an accusation that I can’t back up, thus not looking like a complete asshole in that case.
There is a lot more behind stolen valor than the words themselves, and in today’s hyper-political environment, it’s especially important to be accurate.
But since the person responsible for accuracy is on vacation, it’s my job.
stolen valor
What the Left thinks it means – an unfounded accusation made against Tim Walz that makes JD Vance look stupid
What it really means – taking credit for unearned military achievements
When dealing with military matters, I try to look for authoritative sources. And I’m going to guess a website chronicling the Medal of Honor and other military honors might just fit the bill.
HomeofHeroes.com describes stolen valor thus:
“Stolen Valor” is a term applied to the phenomenon of people falsely claiming military awards or medals they did not earn, service they did not perform, Prisoner of War experiences that never happened, and other tales of military actions that exist only in their minds.
So, no matter your rank in Call of Duty, you aren’t really a military expert, nor should you talk to anyone outside of your gaming group about your rank. And given some of the video gamers I’ve known, their rank isn’t just a military term.
Regardless, the description above jibes with something I’ve experienced personally. Those who served don’t tend to talk about it very much, while those who didn’t or served lighter duty than Al Gore can’t stop talking about it. Those who practice stolen valor are usually trying to pull a scam, whether it be for a discount on a breakfast meal, bang a hot and dumb sexual conquest, or a few pity dollars along the roadway. Those who get away with it tend to keep pushing it until the time they’re exposed as frauds.
Which brings us to politics.
The war of words between JD Vance and Tim Walz began when Vance accused Walz of stolen valor. Since then, Walz has rhetorically fired back, stating Vance shouldn’t denigrate anyone’s service record, let alone his.
Now for the $64,000 Question: is Walz guilty of stolen valor? (It was either that or “Where are your pants, sir?”)
Wellll…that’s a really good question (the stolen valor one, not the pants one). A lot depends on who you ask. Leftists, of course, say Walz is innocent and that Vance served less time than Walz did. The Right, on the other hand, noted Walz claimed a rank he hadn’t really earned and made a claim he experienced war during a speech about the need for gun control.
The thing is…both sides are right to a point. Although Walz isn’t trying to scam people out of anything but votes, he did claim a rank he didn’t earn. And although he did that, it’s questionable whether it rises to the level of stolen valor. As such, I think Vance and Donald Trump should drop this line of attack sooner rather than later since they don’t have a Delorean and a flux capacitor. Also, it gives Walz a chance to appear to be a victim of “right wing attacks” which will make Trump/Vance look dishonest and mean by comparison.
Of course, the media lead us to believe they are already, so…it’s a wash, I guess?
This is one of the pitfalls of politicizing stolen valor: if you’re wrong, you’re likely fucked. Furthermore, it takes something serious and reduces it to a talking point. Republicans will continue to say Walz is guilty of stolen valor, Leftists will continue to dismiss the allegation and point to Trump’s less-than-existent military career. And in the end, nobody’s really going to be convinced or do the digging into the allegations to find the truth.
Well, except for me, and my excuse is I don’t have hobbies, so take that for what it’s worth.
There is one upside to this, for me at least. Leftists, who have spent decades decrying war and violence, now have a Vice Presidential candidate who thumps his chest with pride for…being involved in war. Granted, the most action Walz saw was a really big squirt gun fight, but the point stands. Maybe they’re too caught up in the joy the Harris/Walz campaign is bringing to the race (at least, that’s what the media keep telling us).
Joy overdose or not, the Left’s hypocrisy here is worth pointing out. And by “pointing out” I mean “mock mercilessly.” You want peace in Palestine, but back a veteran in the #2 slot of the ticket? If you can make that make sense without invoking “Orange Man Bad,” give it a go. Just know I will be laughing at your futility.
Regardless of how you feel about Walz’s retirement or Vance’s service, the point is they both signed up for something I couldn’t do because I was young and stupid. They served this country willingly, and for that they both have my deepest respect. The rest of the shit they’ve done, though…that’s fair game.
Before I close this out and await the slings and arrows of outrageous Internet comments, I do have to call out Walz for his response to Vance’s accusations of stolen valor. No matter how much you try to frame it as maligning your military service, the fact is it wasn’t that much of a slight, and certainly not so much of a slight that it required a response more than a so-what. By showing it bothers you, you have given Trump/Vance a means to needle you and make you look defensive.
You know, the way you made them look defensive when you called them “weird”?
And given the fact the head of your ticket is more vacant than a We Can’t Afford a Roof Inn during rainy season, you’re taking the focus away from the her. Then again, if I had a record like Kamala Harris’s, I’d be embarrassed to show my face in public, too. Nevertheless, your response gave the accusation oxygen, which allows people from all sides to weigh in on the topic.
Including some of the folks you served with.
Maybe you can get some tips from John “Swift Boat, Not Swift Thinker” Kerry about that. Provided, of course, you can sit through a James Taylor set.
Meanwhile, I urge my conservative brethren and sistren to knock off the stolen valor claims against Tim Walz. They’re not helping. Besides, I’m sure if you look hard enough, you can find way worse shit with which to rhetorically batter him.
The Joy Offensive
Since Kamala Harris picked Governor Tim Walz to be her running mate for the 2024 Presidential election (all without dealing with the silly little detail of getting actual delegates through the primary process), the Left and the media (but I repeat myself) have been working overtime to fluff up the ticket like it was on a porn set. Not that I know anything about that, mind you…
The result has been glowing reviews, lots of money being raised, and social media abuzz with talk of joy surrounding the ticket. Polls that showed Harris less popular than an STD have flipped, leaving the Trump/Vance ticket to scratch their heads in amazement. Either that or they need Head and Shoulders. Regardless, it’s the political equivalent of Lazarus being raised from the dead.
On the surface, it’s a mystery. How could a Vice President known more for word salads and failed initiatives than success get the upper hand on a former President known more for word salads and odd initiatives, but still can count successes on both hands? It starts with the framing of the Harris/Walz ticket. And for that, we can thank the Walzster. He had the bright idea of calling the Trump/Vance ticket “weird” which caught on like wildfire. Then again, TikTok videos catch on like wildfire, too, so it’s not exactly a high bar.
If you missed my tepid take on the “weird” controversy, I got your hookup. Although I have panned the notion, I can’t argue with the results. It’s become a Leftist squawking point and a clear point of irritation for Trump/Vance, which takes attention away from the issues, thanks in part to the media.
But that’s only the first part of the equation. Although Trump and Vance have been refuting the allegations they are “weird,” Harris/Walz have taken a step into another phase of the campaign: reimagining their ticket as the ticket of joy. Since being chosen, Walz has been seen as more of a father or grandfather figure, and Harris has been emphasizing how she represents hope and joy.
Hmmm…hope as a campaign platform. Nah, it would never work!
Harris has also tapped into the youth culture by adopting a “brat summer” approach. For those of you who don’t know what that means, be glad you’re uninformed because it’s just as stupid as it sounds. But, again, the results speak for themselves at least for now. Whether the young people inspired by the Harris/Walz joy offensive get inspired to vote is still in question, but I’m sure there’s a Kinko’s in Washington, DC, already working on printing up prefilled ballots for Harris/Walz.
So with all this joy and positivity going around, there can’t be a down side, can there? As your resident cynical curmudgeon, I can say there is, and it’s pretty easy to spot if you’re paying attention.
Which means Leftists are completely in the dark about it.
The first thing to point out about the joy offensive is it’s based on nothing. No policy statements, no real interviews or press conferences, not even an updated campaign website with policy positions (but more than a few ways you can donate to the campaign). Which, if you really think about it, is pretty on-brand for Kamala Harris, but that’s not important right now.
Now, compare the joy the Harris/Walz/media narrative spins to what’s actually going on right now. If you listen to the squawking heads like perpetually-wrong-but-never-in-doubt Paul Krugman, everything is fine and you’re just too dumb to realize it. (And, yes, that’s really what they’re suggesting/saying.) Yet, if you go to where the people really are, things aren’t good. Inflation is higher than Willie Nelson in Amsterdam on 4/20, goods and services are more expensive, and you need a third mortgage to get a tank of gas, mainly because you used your second mortgage to get groceries for the week. No amount of joy is going to make any of this go away, but by God, Harris/Walz is gonna try!
And there’s a good chance they may succeed, at least for now. But try paying your mortgage with joy. Just let me know what happens after the foreclosure sale.
The great irony of this approach is it’s policies like the ones Harris/Walz have advocated that has caused the pain. Appealing to people’s desire to be happy is designed to get people to ignore that little fact. Who cares if Harris was the Border Czar in spite of the media saying otherwise? Who cares if Walz made it okay to take away parents’ children if they didn’t want to mutilate the children if little Timmy feels like little Tammy for a hot minute? Who cares if the COVID lockdowns caused more problems than they allegedly solved? Just be happy, dammit!
I can’t deny there are times when we need diversions from the flaming dumpster fire that is America 2024. Video games, movies, writing semi-well-received blogs with marginal humor, those are all ways to tune out the world and plug in to your inner peace. Your mileage may vary, but the point’s the same. We shouldn’t expect politicians to provide us joy. Unless, of course, your joy comes from spending billions of dollars you don’t have on stuff that doesn’t work. That’s retail therapy on steroids, kids.
More to the point, if you think government has the ability to bring you the joy you seek in life, you’ve already succumbed to the trap. The more a government can “give” you, the less likely you are to find it yourselves. And that’s by design. Leftists believe Big Daddy Government is the sole provider of all things good, nice, and, well, joyous. The more Leftists get you to believe that, the more likely you are to support them, which helps them perpetuate their power and money bases.
And the less likely anything really positive will get done. After all, government isn’t in the problem-solving businesses because a problem solved is a revenue and power source lost. But as long as they get you to believe the Left will fix things if given enough time, money, and power, they don’t care!
I’ll be interested to see how long the Harris/Walz joy offensive will work and if it will evolve or get tossed aside once Trump/Vance start landing rhetorical punches. At some point, Harris/Walz is going to have to stop talking about joy and start talking about policy, and that time is coming soon. With a matter of weeks left before Election Day, the joy offensive is going to have to give way to substance.
And no amount of joy can hold back the hands of time.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Since current Vice President and (hopefully) future unemployed politician Kamala Harris announced she would be running for President instead of President Brick Tamland, a lot of people got excited. Mostly…white Leftists. Using Zoom calls, white Leftists of both genders (and, yes, there are still only two) showed up to proclaim their love for the Vice President and urge others to join with them to make her the first female President of the United States.
For the sake of brevity and not to give these folks more traction than the Harris campaign…I mean the mainstream media have given them, I’m going to refer to them as Whites for Harris. And the more we dig into them, the weirder it gets. And hopefully the funnier it gets.
Whites for Harris
What the Left thinks it means – white people supporting Kamala Harris because they believe she is the best candidate for President
What it really means – Leftists whose motivations for supporting Kamala Harris are more personal than political
White Leftists are an odd bunch, and being a recovering one myself, I can attest to that. Of course, I was weird before then, but that’s not important right now. On the one hand, white Leftists see themselves as the only ones who really know what’s going on with minority populations. Not because they put in the effort to understand the struggles of people who don’t look like them. That would be too much work! Instead, they just feel they know what minority populations think and feel by virtue of…being Leftists.
Of course, this runs counter to the other hand: white Leftists are ashamed of being white. They bear it like a cross, which is odd when you consider how anti-religion some of these same asshats are. Regardless, they think they owe it to minorities to overcome their privilege and do whatever they can to accommodate these minorities.
And, yes, it’s just as cringy and ass-backwards as it sounds.
But not nearly as cringy as the Zoom conferences themselves. Yes, they did manage to raise a lot of money for the Harris campaign, but they also managed to make white women and white men look worse than they think they already look. I would say the jokes wrote themselves, but they were the jokes.
Although they think their hearts and wallets are in the right place, white Leftists have a more personal reason for playing second fiddle to Harris: they’re looking for absolution. To them, being white is an unforgivable sin. To those of us who actually think about this shit, it’s fucking stupid. Being ashamed of your skin color because you lack melanin is like being ashamed of having red hair and freckles in a family where both are commonplace. You can’t control what you’re born with, so it’s Socialist Socialite levels of dumbfuckery to feel one way or the other about it.
But it’s the guilt that makes white Leftists such easy prey for the Harris campaign. All they have to do is encourage white Leftists to open their wallets, canvas neighborhoods, and commit to doing whatever they can to get Harris into office, white Leftists get to feel like they’re erasing their racial debt. Of course, it’s only a fraction of what whites need to do to make up for past misdeeds, but it’s a start.
And here’s the funny part. Not funny for them because they don’t have a sense of humor, but funny for the rest of us. No matter how many hours or how much money they donate and raise, it will never be enough to absolve white Leftists for being, well, white Leftists. There will always be another atrocity to atone for, another injustice that must be made right, another sin to be forgiven.
But remember, kids, Leftists are super smart. Just ask them. And they’re totally not in a cult like those MAGA Trump supporters!
Yeah. And I have farmland in Antarctica I’d love to sell you.
What’s more, this approach isn’t new. Oprah Winfrey used to make white women feel bad about themselves only to have her swoop down like Black Jesus and “solve” all the problems she convinced them they had. It became like a cult of personality, only the personality in this case was of the media variety. And with the way the media is hyping up Harris it’s only a matter of time before history repeats itself and she becomes Oprah 2.0.
Only without a book club, unless you count coloring or comic books.
The Whites for Harris movement can best be described as using racial guilt as a means to get a vastly underqualified and unpopular woman into a job she was never elected to do. Remember, Harris has received zero votes in two Presidential races so far, and the only reason she’s a shoe-in for the nomination is because the Democratic National Convention appears to have decided to give her the nomination in spite of the lack of delegate votes for her.
The protectors of democracy, ladies and gentlemen.
If you happen to be a White for Harris and you’re reading this, you’re being played for a sucker by someone who will keep moving the goalposts so you will continue to get played. Even if you’re convinced Kamala Harris is the only person who can stop Donald Trump, you have to wonder if it’s because you actually believe that or if you think you do so you feel good about it. If it’s the former, more power to you. Just know I’m going to be mocking you for it with all the compassion of a honey badger on PCP. If it’s the latter, I’m still going to mock you, but with the added knowledge you’re a sucker. And since you are, I have farmland in Antarctica I would love to sell you.
But, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I have a catchier name for Whites for Harris, and it’s one that I’m sure will help foster good will between whites and minorities as well as acknowledge the role whites have in this election.
Try Honkies For Harris on for size!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Political attacks have been around since, well, pretty much since this country was founded. Whether you’re accusing your opponent of being a practicing homo sapien who consorts with thespians or the press of being nattering nabobs of negativity, the slings and arrows of outrageous soundbites are the country’s second favorite past time, with the first being wanting to speak to the manager.
This election cycle is no different. But this time, the big negative statement making the rounds is…”weird.” Donald Trump is weird. JD Vance is weird. Republicans are weird. Even Barron Trump is weird.
I didn’t say it was a good negative statement.
weird
What the Left thinks it means – an effective political slam that accurately describes the Right
What it really means – a lame-ass insult that is designed to create a false dichotemy
Recently, I got into a brief political discussion on Facebook (because I’m not cool enough to get on real social media) regarding Vice President and presumptive Presidential usurper…I mean candidate Kamala Harris being less possible than an STD. The Leftist who responded to me tried to convince me otherwise because she raised a bunch of money and got a bunch of people to register to vote. After I countered it with facts, she replied “You live in an alternate universe.”
And to Leftists, I do. And most likely, you do, too.
This is because the Left has it in their collectivist heads they are the normal ones. Of course, this flies in the face of, well, normality, but what do you expect from a group who thinks there are 948 genders, men can get pregnant, and they are protecting democracy from fascism by being fascists?
Although it’s fun to mock the idea of the Left shitting on the weird, there’s actually a purpose behind it. By painting the Right as weird, they are subtly trying to paint themselves (and consequentially their viewpoints) as normal. And they’re serious about it, if the 6’8″ man in high heels and gaudy makeup who wants to be called Loretta G. Hotpants is any indication. To the Left, the weird shit is their normal and they want everyone to agree…or else!
Yep. Totes normal.
The problem is what the Left is trying to pass off as normal really isn’t. And I’m not saying this as someone who mocks the Left with the regularity of someone on a Metamucil and Colon Blow diet. All politics and humorous asides, well, aside, the Left is into some really freaky shit and it’s getting harder to lay a guilt trip on us for not dancing to their tune. At some point, you freak out the normies to the point they say “Enough.” Or “Get the fuck away from me!” You know, whichever.
Guess what, Leftists. You’ve reached that point and gone well beyond it. And no matter how you try to dress it up as normal, it ain’t.
That’s why the move to paint the Right as weird isn’t going to work. Yes, there are things Donald Trump, JD Vance, and others say that make me cringe, but more often than not, they represent what most Americans believe. Read that again. Americans, not just Republicans.
In case you Leftists are confused, let me spell it out for you. If you freak out normies, you tend not to win their votes, no matter how much you try to convince them the other side is the weird one. How do you plan to save democracy if you can’t win more votes?
I mean aside from fabricating more votes than humanly possible, that is.
But that would be election denial, and we can’t have that. It’s not like I’m Stacey Abrams, after all…
To their credit, the Trump/Vance campaign is striking back at being called weird by pointing out the obvious. Although it does have the potential to come off as deflection, which is what the Left wants us to believe is happening, it doesn’t completely work on that level. I mean, it’s hard to call the Trump/Vance ticket weird when your side looks like freak show rejects, but if you think you can pull it off, go for it.
Where I think the Trump/Vance campaign could handle the “weird” label better is with a tactic Trump has used in the past: savage mockery. Point out how juvenile the label is. Come out and say, “Is that the best you can do? I’ve been insulted better by worse people.” (And, Mr. Trump, if you wish to use that line, call me and we can work out a deal. I might even throw in a few more pointed zingers since I think I’m pretty good at them.)
And that’s really all you need to do. Leftists hate to be mocked, and taking their “weird” declarations with all the seriousness of a dedication in a coloring book would stick in their craws like nothing else. Or make it a two-fer and ask them if they’ve exhausted their “fascist” budget for the campaign and have to resort to weak-sauce shit that went out of fashion in elementary school. And, believe me, calling Trump/Vance “weird” is the mixed-drink-at-a-really-cheap-strip-club of political insults. It’s the mayonnaise of digs. It’s unremarkable, grating, and generally underwhelming.
Or, to put it another way, it’s the Kamala Harris of negative campaign messages.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With President Brick Tamland announcing he was not limping…I mean running for reelection, the eyes of the world turned to Vice President Kamala Harris as the heiress apparent. And that means we get to do a deep dive into her accomplishments so far.
Fortunately for us, that deep dive doesn’t take that long since she’s accomplished what other Vice Presidents before her did: Jack Shit, and Jack left town.
But one role she had was Border Czar. Or not, depending on who you ask. In true Tamland fashion, she was put in charge of looking into the reason why so many illegal immigrants are coming here. (Spoiler Alert: it’s because we have the best free shit in the world.) And in true Harris fashion, she visited El Paso and called it a day. But she hadn’t been to Europe, either, so it’s totes cool, guys!
While the Left tries to figure out what excuse to use to try to cover up Harris’s ineptitude on the border, it gives us a chance to wade into the wonderful world of what a Border Czar even is.
Border Czar
What the Left thinks it means – a title bestowed upon Vice President Harris by evil Republicans to try to connect her to the border crisis (which doesn’t exist, by the way)
What it really means – a meaningless title given to a meaningless figurehead
The concept of policy czars has been around for a while. The first ones came about during the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Presidency to address certain aspects of World War II and the economy, but later expanded into areas like combating drug abuse, reading, and weatherizing. (And I wish I was kidding about those last two.)
Put bluntly, being a policy czar today is like being salutatorian of summer school: only a few people actually care about it and even fewer will remember it. And in the end nothing gets done, really.
Which means it’s a perfect gig for someone with a lot of time on his or her hands and who isn’t expected to succeed in any meaningful way. You know, like the Vice President.
It also means it shouldn’t be done just to put a body in a seat when it come to addressing a high profile issue like illegal immigration. Depending on which lie you want to believe, our southern border is either perfectly secure (but Republicans are totally to blame for record-breaking crossings) or less secure than an unlocked Ferrari in South Central LA. And for your eagle-eyed readers out there who click on the links, you’ll notice these statements come from two different members…of the same Administration. But you know who didn’t weigh in on the border situation?
The fucking Border Czar herself.
Now, I’m no policy wonk, but I would think one of the most important elements of being a Border Czar is presenting a consistent, fact-based message. Unfortunately for us, the Tamland Administration’s consistency is in denying the problem exists until it gets to a point where they have to do something to make it look like they’re doing something. Meanwhile, illegal immigration is still very much an issue, despite Harris’s brilliant message to some looking to enter the country illegally: do not come.
Well, Kams, they’re not listening. Or maybe they’re trying to figure out your message amidst the vomited word salads you frequently put out there as cogent statements.
Maybe that’s why the Left is trying to scrub the collective memories of the general public by denying she was the Border Czar. After all, Kamala Harris has to beat Donald Trump, even though she’s never won a national election by herself yet. The last time she tried to win the Presidency she pulled out of the race before the Iowa Caucuses after Tulsi Gabbard bitch-slapped her into oblivion.
It also means I got the same number of delegates Harris did and I didn’t even run.
It’s clear Harris’s role as Border Czar has been a dismal failure (and I’m being verrrrrrrrrrrrry generous here). This begs the question of why we need one in the first place, especially considering we already have one: the President. If you remember your civics homework (or in the case of Leftists if you’re hearing this for the first time since you blew off civics to protest), the Executive Branch is responsible for enforcing the laws of his country. That means the President and his staff are the Czars and they’re not doing a good job.
That means anybody who is called a Czar becomes a lightning rod to absorb any criticism for when they fuck up their one jobs. But, as with so many government jobs, you can’t be fired for being incompetent. If anything, it’s a career enhancer. (See the current President and Vice President for two examples.) Plus, you get a nice stipend and a government pension, and that much capital goes a long way to fix any hurt feefees.
But the immigration problem is still there. Pretty soon we’ll have to throw the concept of the Border Czar on top of the pile of other well-meaning, but poorly-executed government ideas, like the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, and making the Socialist Socialite a Congresswoman. Yet, there isn’t really much of a will to do anything about the problem from the Czar on down because there’s too much to be gained by both sides of the issue. The Left use illegal immigration to help their candidates win and create a “humanitarian crisis” that only Big Daddy Government can fix. The Right use illegal immigration to create scary scenarios where all the jobs are taken, only violent criminals make it across, and no one but them can fix the problem.
But where the Right gets it right (see what I did there?) is in pointing out the national security aspect of illegal immigration. Open borders, such as the kind promoted by the Tamland Administration, create gaps in our security network. And with Leftist dipshits on record as not wanting to even look for illegal immigrants let alone deport them, those gaps are going to get wider and harder to close. Worse yet, we don’t have much of a strategy for dealing with the implications.
Certainly this is something a President (or a prospective President) should take seriously enough to do more than appoint some toadie to do nothing and get paid for doing it. The last guy who even attempted that got called all sorts of names, ironically by some of the people currently in charge of the failed border policy but are now trying to copy what Donald Trump did. See, President Tamland can’t help but plagiarize!
Ultimately, though, we don’t need a Border Czar in the same way we don’t need an extended warranty for a beater from Uncle Sleazy’s It Was Like That When We Got It Used Car Emporium where their motto is “No Refunds.” It’s a worthless position that should already be covered by the existing leadership structure.
Then again, this is the federal government we’re talking about here. Expecting leadership in Washington is like expecting the hooker to fall in love with you after you pay her. Not that I know anything about that, mind you…
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
This past week has been a bit on the wild side. I’m not talking 80s Motley Crue backstage party wild, either. I’m talking Alex Jones debating Art Bell while doing mushrooms and truck stop speed with Gary Busey wild. Or as Mr. Busey calls it, Tuesday.
Former President and current Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump was wounded by an attempted assassin’s bullet while at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. As events unfolded, questions arose surrounding how such a security clusterfuck could have happened, and a lot of fingers pointed at the Secret Service. You know, the people who are supposed to protect the President and Presidential candidates?
Well, Leftists are starting to call criticisms of the Secret Service (especially of the female Secret Service agents at the scene) “right wing attacks,” which caused my Spidey-Sense to tingle. It was either that or my dandruff shampoo, but I’m going with the Spidey-Sense angle. And it also gave me the inspiration to dig a bit deeper.
the Secret Service
What the Left thinks it means – a band of men and women devoted to protecting the President under any circumstances
What it really means – a group of men and women who may be politically compromised
The Secret Service started in 1865 as a means to curtail counterfeiting after the Civil War. Originally under the umbrella of the Treasury Department because, well, counterfeiting, it was moved into the Department of Homeland Security in 2003, which isn’t a good thing in this humble blogger’s opinion. Regardless, the Secret Service’s role has evolved into what we know today and into a few areas we don’t consider.
When it comes to protecting the President, they succeed far more than they fail, even investigating threats or potential threats before they can escalate. So, it’s thankfully rare when they err. When the Secret Service does its job well, we don’t see them. When they fuck up, we do because it’s not exactly easy to hide when the President gets shot at.
Or in this case, a former President and potential future President.
Whenever there’s a high profile scandal, one of the first things people do is look at those in leadership to see if there are any decisions that affected the outcome. For the Trump assassination attempt, we can look to Kimberly Cheatle. And, Lucy, you got some ‘splainin’ to do!
In the aftermath, politicians are taking a closer look at the failures and what could have caused them. Based on what is coming out right now, there appear to have been staffing issues that spread the protection thinner than it should have been. Even though the Secret Service is pushing back against allegations the Trump campaign were denied additional security, it’s kinda hard to take it seriously after they initially blamed local police for the failures and noted safety concerns for Secret Service agents because of…get this…sloped roofs.
Yeah. These assholes are totally cereal, guys.
And, as with most things in Washington, DC, demands will be made, but nothing will get done. Yes, I realize this is both cynical and jumping the gun, but given how previous fuck-ups have been swept under the rug, I have more faith in 3 day old gas station sushi than in anybody involved being held accountable, least of all Ms. Cheatle who may have gotten her job because of Dr. Jill Biden, wife of President Brick Tamland.
If this is even remotely true, it would explain a lot when it comes to the failures. With President Tamland looking weaker than Joy Ann Reid’s grasp on reality, the possibility of Vice President Kamala Harris having to take up the reins and making President Tamland look lucid in the process, and Donald Trump picking up steam, there is a vested interest in letting things slip a bit to keep the current Administration in power. Not to mention, the Left has ramped up the hate, making Trump sound more and more like a real threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of TikTok videos.
Of course, I’m sure the super-heated rhetoric from the Left has nothing to do with someone wanting to shoot Trump. That would just be silly! I mean, it would take a really dumb person to believe saying mean things about a politician and his or her party would lead to violence.
Oh, by the way, Steve Scalise is on line 1.
Either way, the Left is circling the wagons (as well as the drain) around the Secret Service, using the same playbook they used when it was the FBI caught screwing up in the Left’s favor. They paint the criticism of the female Secret Service agents attempting to protect Trump as misogynistic, even after footage came out showing such an agent struggling to put a gun back in a holster. They brush off calls for Ms. Cheatle to step down, instead presenting her as a defiant leader.
All to protect the agency responsible for nearly bungling their way into the history books as the ones who let a major party Presidential candidate get whacked. Fucking brilliant!
Regrettably, I can’t help but feel the Secret Service has been infected with the same ideological biases that still fester in the FBI’s ranks. Support who you want, but don’t let it affect your job. When you let your hatred of a man overrule your better judgment, it’s time you hang up your black suit and tie, kids. On the other hand, if incompetence instead of hatred caused you to make mistakes that could have cost a candidate his life and actually cost two people theirs, you shouldn’t wait to get fired. You should resign in shame.
But that would require having shame, wouldn’t it?