Although I know you guys love it when I talk COVID-19 and 2020 is more screwed up than Charlie Sheen on a coke bender (or, as he calls it, Tuesday), I did want to take a brief detour into a subject that is making the rounds this election year. The Left has been pushing for a one-size-fits-all-but-actually-fits-no-one approach to economics, especially as it pertains to the working class. In their efforts to sway voters, they’ve created the notion workers are entitled to a fair wage (and, of course, blamed the CEOs for not sharing the wealth). One of the ideas the Left has promoted is Universal Basic Income, or UBI for short. It was heavily promoted by former Democrat candidate for President Andrew Yang, and it’s picking up steam in Leftist circles due to COVID-19.
Now, just because it’s a Leftist idea doesn’t make it a bad idea. However, if you stick with me over the next several paragraphs, I’ll show you it’s a bad idea regardless of who promotes it.
Universal Basic Income
What the Left thinks it means – giving every citizen a certain amount of money on which to live regardless of their circumstances as a means to curtail poverty
What it really means – letting the government tell you what your time and effort are worth
Capitalism isn’t a perfect system by any stretch of the imagination. Any economic system that lets Gwyneth Paltrow sell candles that smell like her hoo-hah needs some work. However, out of all the other economic systems out there, it’s the best because it allows for the greatest amount of freedom, the greatest chance for mobility, and the best use of one’s talents. It’s the reason LeBron James gets millions of dollars while telling the world how oppressed he is. (By the way, King James, how much are you getting from China for not calling them out on their oppressive regime?)
What the Left gets wrong about capitalism has filled many a book and opinion piece, including blogs from your humble correspondent. With UBI, their track record is still perfect in that regard. As I’ve noted before, the Left believes all money is finite and those who have more have a moral obligation to share it with the rest of the world because “they can afford it.” Although Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and others have jumped on this bandwagon, it’s not necessarily one you should jump on because everyone else seems to be doing it.
Here’s what I mean. In a capitalist system, you are paid by how much the owner(s) think your time and labor are worth. You can quibble about the dollar figure when it comes time for your annual performance review, but by and large that’s what it boils down to. Under UBI, the decision of how much your time and labor are worth gets made by the people who run the DMV or pay $500 for a hammer because it’s not their money they’re spending; it’s yours in the form of taxes. Because of this, no consideration of the amount or quality of work getting done or the skills you bring to the table can be made. You are merely given X amount of money no matter if you dig ditches or trade internationally.
This problem goes beyond how much you get paid, too. As with any budget not written up by Arthur Andersen or the federal government, you have expenses as well as income. UBI advocates say these expenses would be covered as part of the UBI calculation, but they don’t consider other expenses that separate you from your neighbor.
Let’s say you’re a construction worker who has been on the job for 20 years. (Not the same job, mind you, but several jobs.) Not only have you amassed a considerable knowledge base in that time, but you may have accumulated health issues, like bad knees or high cholesterol, that require the outlay of more money to address. Then, there’s a kid fresh out of high school with a fraction of the experience and none of the health issues. UBI treats you both the same, which is a boon for the high school graduate and less of one for you. In short, UBI punishes you for being different.
Hmmm…now, where have I heard of that happening with other socioeconomic systems? Oh yeah, in socialism and its various offshoots.
UBI and socialism work great on paper where you can control the variables, but in practice they fail because you cannot force people to be uniform. We come out of the womb different and we will be that way for the rest of our lives. No matter what government program you propose or regulatory agency you create, no two people will be the same, period. And when the champions of diversity are the ones trying to force conformity, you know there’s something amiss. Or, for the feminists out there reading this, ams.
The biggest drawback to UBI is it stifles creativity and work ethic. The former Soviet Union saw this happen when workers who did better than their quotas were punished while those who underperformed weren’t. The reason? Everyone was getting the same pay regardless of what work they did. If you can make a guaranteed $15 an hour badly working the shake machine at Burger World, why bust your ass to get better?
Of course, this feeds into the current societal mindset where people want to make more money for doing less work. See any “YouTube celebrity” for proof of this. This also explains why so many Leftists support UBI. For the rest of us, though, it’s a mixed bag, especially for those of us who have a good work ethic. Although we might not mind making money without much effort, there will always be a part of us that doesn’t feel right about it. Why, it’s almost as if…we want to earn our pay!
But UBI doesn’t allow that. You get paid what the government says you get paid, no matter what. I know Leftists want us to be in a nanny state, but apparently they want us to pay for everyone to be wards of the state.
If you know someone who is convinced UBI is the way to go, ask them what figure the UBI should be and how they calculated it. If they give you an answer, ask them if they trust someone like President Donald Trump to distribute these funds. I guarantee you they won’t, but it will make the point that government isn’t the best entity to make the kind of financial decisions the Left wants them to make.
Plus, who wants to be governed under an idea whose abreviation sounds like a misspelled urinary tract infection?
Category: Guest Author
All Guests Authors use this Category in addition to others.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
If 2020 has taught me anything, it’s that inevitably everything bad can and will be pinned on race. Just within the past year or so, everything from chess to Dr. Seuss has been deemed racist by some member of the Left, and not ironically I might add. The reasons for this are simple: 1) it’s identity politics, and 2) they’re morons.
Yet, if someone like me were to try to push back, the Left would accuse me of “white fragility.” Personally, I’m more into blues, but I wasn’t aware fragility was color based these days. I did, however, know it may be Italian.
To keep everyone in the loop on this, let’s explore white fragility in all of its…I would say glory, but there’s nothing glorious about it.
white fragility
What the Left thinks it means – a negative reaction from whites in reaction to people of color pushing back against white-controlled entities
What it really means – racism against whites
The Left will disagree with my definition of white fragility because of their own definition of racism. To them, whites can’t be victims of racism because whites have power, while people of color don’t. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say the cities where Black Lives Matter members/supporters have burned and looted might have a different opinion of how powerless people of color are. Regardless, this notion is at the core of white fragility because it implies whites are scared of people who don’t look like them exercising the rights whites have been able to exercise themselves.
Which, of course, is crap fostered by the Left in their attempts to be the Great White Hope to people of color.
The Left truly believes they are the only ones who can speak for people of color, and too many people believe it even within the POC community. (Apparently a lack of irony is not just a Leftist phenomenon.) Yet, when it comes to white people like me who openly question why race is such a factor in these types of discussions, the strong white Leftists and their POC counterparts all assume it’s because we’re scared of the change they say is inevitable. Yes, whites will no longer control anything and will have to pay for the sins of systemic racism because…reasons.
And really that’s what it comes down to: reasons devoid of reason.
Any pushback against this sort of thinking is deemed as “white fragility,” but it’s not. In today’s society, taking a stand against racism is pretty much the current societal default setting. The issue is being against all racism, not just the acceptable racism against whites that is so pervasive on the Left. Although the Left has watered down racism to the point of Rep. Eric Swalwell’s Presidential aspirations this year, there is still a definition of racism that works pretty well: the idea that one race is superior or inferior to others. The entire concept of white fragility has its foundations in the notion whites are weak and incapable of adjusting to a situation where whites aren’t the majority.
Guess what, Leftists. You’re racists! Congratulations, and don’t forget to grab your racism starter kit before you leave. And since you believe only whites can be racist, you have no defense.
Once you get beyond the delicious irony of white Leftists being the actual racists in this situation, there is another level of delicious irony when you consider Leftists are the ones who say words are violence. Let that sink in for a moment. The people who love to use “white fragility” think words are violence. If that isn’t fragility, I don’t know what is, but it’s good to know I can use my vocabulary to bludgeon a Leftist figuratively and quite possibly literally.
At the end of the day, it’s night, but it’s also the height of white Leftist snobbery to use white fragility as a response to anyone who isn’t down with their imaginary struggle. If anything, it takes a strong person to stand up against the Left’s bullying these days, so fragility isn’t even in the equation. What is in the equation is the lengths the Left and their POC allies will go to protect the Leftist narrative at the expense of the very POCs white Leftists claim to support. Using racist terminology while proclaiming utterly unrelated things as racist weakens the concept of racism, thus making it harder for actual racism to be confronted. And using “white fragility” to dismiss concerns, legitimate or otherwise, doesn’t help. All it does is create divisions where there don’t need to be.
Granted, there are entitled white folks (Karens, Chads, etc.) who can be used as examples of white fragility, and rightly so. As a white (or if you prefer Honkey-American) man, I can tell you most of us are sick of these idiots, too. Not all of us are like that, though. And shouldn’t we avoid condemning an entire group of people because of the actions of a few?
Or does that standard only apply to Black Lives Matter? Asking for a friend.
Keeping the Faithless
The US Supreme Court has a long history of getting court cases right, but an equally long history of getting cases wrong. For every Brown v Board of Education, there seems to be a Plessey v Ferguson.
And now, we have the most 2020 USSC decision ever. Today, the High Court ruled “faithless electors” who defied the popular vote count of the state in which they are electors could be punished for not voting for the winner of the state popular vote. Two states, Washington and Colorado, successfully defended this stance due to the notion the popular vote should determine who wins the Presidency. I’ll get back to that in a bit, but it’s important to note what has happened since the decision.
The Left is overjoyed because this decision is another step closer to eliminating the Electoral College. To them, the Electoral College is outdated and unfairly allows states with less population to affect the outcome of Presidential elections more than the more populous states. (Of course, these same folks see nothing wrong with California getting more Representatives than, say, Montana, and that representation affecting national laws more than less populous states, but that’s neither here nor there.) In response, the Right is arguing in favor of the Electoral College for the right reason: it prevents larger states (namely California and New York) from overruling smaller states in Presidential elections.
Although the Left may ultimately be right…errr correct on this point, the argument is about the wrong topic. The issue isn’t the viability of the Electoral College; it’s whether electors have the option to vote for who they want. And, surprise surprise, the Left wants to deprive electors their choice when it suits their needs. Remember who brought the matter before the USSC: Washington and Colorado. Both are currently bluer than a choking victim at Ice Station Zebra, so the chances are any faithless elector would be voting against the winner of the popular vote. In other words, the ruling makes it possible for Leftists to punish people for voting against the Left’s candidate. Granted, the punishment may be monetary and easily paid for by the people who get to become electors in the first place. Having said that, it is a step in the wrong direction that can (and knowing Leftists, will) go far worse down the road.
The thing to remember about Leftists is they are more concerned with short term victories than long term consequences. This USSC decision will give them power to coerce electors into voting “the right way.” However, this doesn’t take into consideration the nature of current politics. As we’ve seen in our lifetimes, the balance of power changes from time to time so the party/ideology in power today becomes the Tamaguchi of politics tomorrow. And with each swing of the pendulum, the victories of today becomes the cudgels of tomorrow because, well, politics. Just ask former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid about the “nuclear option” for judicial nominees.
This USSC decision has all the makings of a Harry Reid-esque blunder because it doesn’t account for the current drift within the Left towards being more radical. Even kooks like Nancy Pelosi are being portrayed as sell-outs by the Socialist Socialite Squad because, now get this, Pelosi isn’t Leftist enough. It’s the same argument Leftists have used against Dianne Feinstein for years, all while holding their noses and voting for her because “she’s not as bad as a Republican.”
What makes this decision even more screwed up than a Joe Biden monologue is it underscores a fundamental lack of understanding of how the Electoral College works. The Left keep banging on about every vote counting (well, except if those votes are for Republicans) which is their fundamental argument against the Electoral College. The problem? The slate of electors who gets to vote for the President is determined by…wait for it…the popular vote. Granted, there are some states who apportion the electors based on the percentages each candidate wins, but for most states it’s winner-take-all. Yet, in either case, people still cast one vote, which in the Left’s own logic, means the current system is… exactly what they say they want.
Since each state has the power under the Constitution to choose how electors are chosen, I say we do away with the winner-takes-all approach and switch to a proportional system as to allow each candidate running a chance to have a say in the final Electoral College vote. Heck, this would also open up the possibility of third parties getting to the table for a chance, which means my candidate Pat Paulsen might actually get a vote for President. Sure, he’s dead, but if you’ve seen some of the people who ran for President in 2020, we could have done worse.
In either case, we are going to see the aftermath of this USSC decision sooner rather than later and, unfortunately, our leaders and media folks aren’t going to see it until much later.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
They say politics make strange bedfellows, but in 2020, strange is the new normal. Although President Donald Trump has a ton of support within the Republican Party, there are a number of Never Trumpers who think he’s not a “real Republican” and should be defeated in November. Out of that pushback came The Lincoln Project, an organization whose sole purpose seems to be just that.
And, not surprisingly, the Left loves The Lincoln Project.
Let’s delve into the Left’s new favorite Republicans, shall we?
The Lincoln Project
What the Left thinks it means – a group of Republicans who want to restore decency and honor to the White House
What it really means – a group of Republicans the Left can con into doing their work for them
To put it mildly, Donald Trump is not everyone’s cup of Earl Grey. He’s brash, confrontational, and not at all the kind of man who has occupied the Oval Office in our history. Yet, he’s still President and, at least according to his voter registration, he is a Republican, which gives him as much stake in being called one as, say, Mitt Romney whose Republican credentials are as strong as watery Tang. Not that it matters to The Lincoln Project, mind you. They feel they are the only ones who can keep Republican values alive.
Oh, and did I mention they’ve endorsed Joe Biden for President this year?
The Lincoln Project’s entire mindset is based on a logical fallacy known as “No True Scotsman.” The fallacy involves stating what a true believer of a particular idea would or would not think, say, or do under a particular set of circumstances. That assumes the person invoking this notion has a clue what a true believer would think, say, or do. And although I’m sure they think they’re the last bastion of Republican thinking, they’re out of phase with the bulk of the party right now. Contrary to what the Left and The Lincoln Project think, the Republican Party is diverse, at least ideologically. That’s how people from Susan Collins to Ted Cruz can all be under the same political tent even though their personal politics are light years apart.
Although it’s easy to pass them off as dissatisfied Republicans, The Lincoln Project touts some insider clout, including the husband of Kellyanne Conway, George. Although she’s risen to prominence in recent years, Ms. Conway has been known in conservative circles for years, which means she has more than likely made some Washington insider friends. And that means powerful people looking to curry favor for political gain, people used to getting what they want from the politicians they pay.
What happens when they can’t buy off a politician? They turn on him or her. I can’t say for certain because the most inside I get is my belly button, but I get the feeling more than a few of The Lincoln Project’s members are playing the spurned lovers in this political telenovela. That makes them the perfect foils for the Left. They both hate Donald Trump, support Joe Biden for President, and want to remake the country in their own image where only elites matter. Patty Duke couldn’t have asked for a better identical cousin.
With every new attack ad against the President, the Left doesn’t have to spend money producing the same content, which works out great for them. As of April 2020, the DNC was getting trounced like Justin Bieber at Sturgis in campaign donations and even though they love to spend other people’s money, they had to find ways to cut costs. Not to mention, it helps them politically because, let’s face it, they’re trying to turn Joe Biden into a viable Presidential candidate after his first two failed attempts. Then again, they thought Hillary “What Difference Does It Make?” Clinton was viable after losing to Barack Obama, so their judgment is as questionable as the quality of truck stop sushi. When The Lincoln Project came about, the Left knew they had the pigeons they needed to do their bidding, save money in the process, and continue to do a major rehab job on Joe Biden. Brilliant!
“But aren’t the Left and the Right on opposite sides?” you might ask. Well, yes and no. There are members of both ideological camps who will cross the aisle and collaborate to achieve power. Whether The Lincoln Project knows they are helping the Left isn’t known at this time, but knowing politics like I do, it’s not outside the realm of possibility. Of course, if they don’t know they’re being used by the Left, they shouldn’t be anywhere near the reins of power of a convenience store, let alone America.
Although I empathize with The Lincoln Project’s stated purpose (returning class and maturity to the White House, not the getting rid of Trump part), I cannot abide by how they’re trying to get it done. Not only does its foundation rest on a flawed premise, the people involved with it are seemingly acting out of personal gain rather than national gain. I’m not President Trump’s #1 fan by any stretch, but I’m not going out there proclaiming myself to be the Alpha Republican by which all other Republicans are to be measured because a) I’m not that egotistical/delusional, and b) I’m not a Republican. I would have more respect for The Lincoln Project if they were straight with us about why they exist: they hate Trump. As it stands, I see them as either unwitting tools of the Left or knowing conspirators with delusions of adequacy. The fact these folks call themselves real Republicans while openly supporting Joe Biden for President should tell you how committed they are to Republican values.
In the meantime, keep an eye on The Lincoln Project for no other reason than to see what tactics the Left will be using against President Trump in the upcoming Presidential election. And to see how the left-leaning fringes of the GOP react to the latest Trump “scandals.” Take their advise with a salt lick because a grain of salt just won’t cut it.
CHOPped Short
If you had the under in the CHAZ/CHOP betting pool, go to the window to pick up your winnings.
After three weeks of murder, mayhem, and general government incompetence, the Seattle Police Department spent a few minutes of their morning today to retake the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest compound. And I do mean minutes. If they had retreated any faster, the French would have sued for copyright infringement.
The funny thing is their failure was not only imminent, but predictable. In order to be autonomous as CHOP claimed to be, there is a need for personal discipline and a respect for others. Needless to say the Left doesn’t subscribe to either of those. They want what they want when they want it and they don’t care how they get it, but once the bill comes to pay for what they want, the only thing you see of them is the cloud of dust as they leave as quickly as possible.
This is in contrast to the way libertarians (small and capital L) and some conservatives approach the idea of self-governance/autonomy. Although they passionately believe in Man’s natural desire to be free, they also understand the necessity of not infringing on other people’s desires to be free as well. Without the latter, any society built on the former will not succeed.
Although I would hope we would see more of the right-leaning philosophy on autonomy take hold, I’m not confident it will happen. Society today has made a lot of people self-absorbed and unconcerned about the plight of others (which, oddly enough, is kind of what motivated the CHOPpers to start their little social experiment in the first place). We have become so fractured and distant from people who live across the hall, across the street, or across the country that self-governance even on a small scale will be a flop of “Gigli”-esque proportions.
But it doesn’t have to be that way. As I’ve gotten older, I’ve come to appreciate those little moments of freedom that come not from a government or a warlord, but from the conscious decision to live my life as I see fit with an understanding of the implications of my decisions on others so I do as little harm to them as possible. At a time when we can’t get a chunk of the population to wear masks in public to protect others from possibly catching COVID-19, it’s important we balance rights and responsibilities for no other reason than because it’s the right thing to do for everyone involved. If you’re constantly looking out for number one, you invariably wind up as a piece of number two, if you know what I mean.
And speaking of number two, there will be a lot of that to clean up, literally and figuratively, from the CHOPping grounds, and it won’t be the CHOPpers who get to foot the bill. If there’s one thing I’ve learned from being a Leftist it’s they never think they have to pay for their failures, no matter how badly they’ve screwed everything up. They’re like the rowdy kids who will always come to a party, but leave right before it’s time to start the clean-up. To the Left, it’s the intentions that matter, not the results. Which is good for the CHOPpers because they accomplished exactly nothing. Bad cops are still out on the streets, good people are still getting murdered, theft and violent crimes continue, and CHOP turned out to be…well, the aforementioned “Gigli”-esque failure it was destined to be.
Personally, I would have liked to have seen what the CHOPpers would have done over the next couple of months, maybe even into the fall when temperatures drop and Seattle’s climate turns a bit cooler and wetter. Oh, well, I’m sure there will be another CHOP site somewhere that will provide me with more giggles. It’s only a matter of time before history repeats itself.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Have you ever heard of the Law of Unintended Consequences? If not, the gist is sometimes what you want to happen comes with strings attached that you didn’t anticipate. Like eating gas station sushi on a long road trip. You may be happy in the short term, but further down the line you’re going to wind up puking your guts out at a Rest Stop outside Laramie, Wyoming.
Not that that’s ever happened to me, mind you…
Anyway, the Left is experiencing a gas station sushi situation of their own, thanks to a little something called cancel culture. When the Left wants a conservative marginalized from the open market of ideas, they do everything they can to discredit and silence them, expecting them to either apologize (which the Left will never accept) and comply (like confessed liar and Media Matters founder David Brock) or to go silent to avoid further persecution. Now, some prominent Leftist celebrities are watching this practice boomerang against them, and now they’re being held to the same standard they held for others.
And somehow it’s the Right’s fault.
This looks like a good time to look at cancel culture and mock it.
cancel culture
What the Left thinks it means – a movement co-opted by the Right to silence anti-Trump speech
What it really means – the Left not getting the message of 1984
I’m not a fan of silencing people for offending modern sensibilities because it tends to drive their message underground where it can thrive away from the attention of the offended. However, the Left and some members of the Right believe the ends justify the means. They’ve tried with Rush Limbaugh, Chik fil A, Fox News, and others with varying degrees of success. Mostly failure, but I want to be generous.
The entire idea of cancel culture, much like most of Leftist ideas, is absurd at its face. However, with the Left’s dominance of media, those ideas have been given absolute power, and in this case absolute power screws up absolutely. Keep this point in mind because it’s going to get even weirder.
Recently, Leftist celebrities are being called out for using blackface in sketches and shows. Jimmy Kimmel, Sarah Silverman, Joy Behar, Tina Fey and others are facing legitimate criticism and apologizing for offending people. And in Fey’s case, she’s asking for the episodes of “30 Rock” that used it to be taken off any platform that replays her show. Although the apology and the removal of the offensive material may be enough to satisfy the cancel culture club, it doesn’t change the fact Fey and the producers of “30 Rock” made the decision to allow blackface in the first place.
That may be the biggest shock for the Left right now. Not only have they thought, said, and signed off on racist activities, they’ve championed the very tools of their own destruction…when those tools are used against other people. Although it’s fun to point and laugh (because, believe me, I have), it astounds me how tone-deaf these people are. It’s almost as if they thought they’d never be held to the standards they’ve set for others because their ideology made them immune. They say the right things, they support the right causes, so in their minds, they can’t be batting clean-up behind Adolf Hitler in the World’s Worst People Softball Tournament. It’s almost as if they never expected to get caught and suffer the consequences of their actions.
In other words, they’re all Hillary Clinton, circa 2016.
Leftists have tried to get in front of the cancel culture story by saying it doesn’t exist, but that was only after several people were caught up in cancel culture that the Left decided to say it wasn’t real. Just a teensy bit late on that, kids. Meanwhile those of us who paid attention in history and any literature class that included George Orwell in the reading list could see where this was going because it ends the same in fiction and reality: eventually everyone gets the axe in one form or another. Even the most stalwart believer of an ideology can be called an infidel at some point and, in fact, it’s the Leftist approach to everything. If they can’t find some reason to expel you, they’ll invent one. Paging Juan Williams…
So, how do we fight cancel culture? By not giving into it. The Left need you to be scared of being publicly shunned to force compliance or silence. Social media is a breeding ground for this kind of insanity, so either be completely non-offensive so they can’t find dirt on you or be loud and proud of who you are. Not everyone will be able to be as brash as Candice Owens, so find your comfort level and stick with it. Also, keep your emotions in check. Once you lash out at someone for an opinion that differs yours, you’ve sprung the trap that will allow you to be canceled at some point.
Above all else, though, try to be as intellectually diverse as possible. I don’t like Samuel L. Jackson’s politics, but I enjoy his work as an actor and I would never want him to be censored by anyone. As long as he’ll let me be me, I’ll let him be him. That’s the thing the Left doesn’t get. You don’t have to be in lockstep with everyone you like, and anyone who says you have to is an idiot. By keeping an open mind and accepting not everyone will dance to the beat of your own drum, not only will your life be more open and interesting, but you’ll recognize those who think they can tell you who you should and shouldn’t see are missing out. Plus, if you learn about ideas and concepts outside your comfort zone, you may become a fan of them or at least a better-informed critic.
On top of that, you can prove you’re not an immature brat like the Left. So, double-bonus!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
To put it mildly, 2020 has become Dennis Hopper on a bad acid trip. Every time we think things can’t get any worse or weirder, somebody says, “Hold my beer.” And for once, it’s not me.
Black Lives Matter has inspired a group in Seattle to create a self-contained community formerly called the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) and now called the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest (CHOP). Nice to know these folks have an internal PR firm because CHAZ makes them sound like a creepy scumbag guy at the bar hitting on any woman with a pulse. Whatever they want to call themselves is fine, but it’s interesting to note what these CHAZholes actually do.
At least, I hope it’s interesting enough, otherwise I have nothing else to write about this week.
CHAZ/CHOP
What the Left thinks it means – a group of protesters banding together in peace and harmony to protest police brutality
What it really means – Occupy 2.0 with better acronyms
Remember the good old days when Occupy Wall Street took over public parks and turned them into communes full of drug use, rapes, and people repeating whatever some doofus with a megaphone would say? Those were the days, weren’t they? Now, that’s passe. The new hotness is taking over six square blocks of downtown properties (often without permission from the owners, I might add) and setting up Zuccotti Park West, complete with a warlord.
Well, he calls himself a warlord. He’s actually a rapper turned warlord.
And, well, CHAZ/CHOP isn’t really all that autonomous. In fact, they’re on social media frequently with requests for food and other items they need to survive. Oh, and they’ve only now started a garden, fertilized with human waste. And when you consider the upheaval in just one week ranging from multiple assaults and at least one theft to the suicide of a trans leader within CHAZ/CHOP, I think it’s safe to say the great CHAZ/CHOP experiment has stumbled more than a drunken sailor with a shortened peg leg.
But I’m probably just poisoning the well. I’m sure CHAZ/CHOP will be just fine, just like the Occupy folks were.
Actually, now that I think about it, Occupy Wall Street started petering out when the weather got cold. It’s one thing to rage against the machine when the weather’s nice, but it’s a lot harder to muster the resolve to fight the power when you’re also fighting frostbite. This hits on one of the major problems both Occupy Wall Street and CHAZ/CHOP face: a lack of personal discipline. Feeling passionate about a cause such as police brutality can only take you so far if you aren’t prepared to act on that passion no matter what the sacrifice. Given the fact neither group could do without their cell phones, I’m going to guess they aren’t all that down for the struggle.
The bigger question that comes up for me in both cases is what the actions taken had to do with the intended end result. Is camping out in Seattle going to make bad police officers suddenly stop being violent idiots with badges? Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see how we get from Point A to Point B. Even with the Mayor of Seattle and the Governor of Washington supporting CHAZ/CHOP and being receptive to their demands/expectations, there’s a pretty big gap that no one seems to be able to address.
Granted, this could fall under the penumbra of “raising awareness” that Leftists trot out whenever they do something stupid and non-productive for a cause du joir, but I’m gonna have to say we’re aware of some police officers getting overzealous while on duty. Awareness isn’t the problem here, kids. Some of us are just having trouble figuring out how your actions lead to better policing. The Underpants Gnomes from “South Park” had a better grasp on things than you guys do.
This may make for great comedy for those of us who understand the absurdity of calling a group that still asks for help “autonomous,” but I get the feeling there’s a tragedy brewing because CHAZ/CHOP plays to the worst of our human nature. We all strive for freedom, but not everyone takes into account what that freedom can do to others in our general vicinity. That’s where personal discipline comes into play. If you feel you are free to do whatever you want, there is a good likelihood you are going to infringe upon others because you are going to be more concerned about yourself than you are about anyone else. Combine that with the narcissism running rampant in our culture today and you have all the makings of anarchy. All it takes is a spark.
Guess what, CHAZ/CHOP folks! You’re sitting on a powder keg in the middle of a wildfire, and it’s not if it will explode, but when. Whether you get external pressure from the property owners whose properties you’ve overtaken or internal pressure when the inhabitants of CHAZ/CHOP get fed up with the lack of progress or the inevitable butting of heads, you’ve built the means of your own destruction.
Just like Occupy Wall Street did.
The biggest problem CHAZ/CHOP faces right now is a lack of a clear message and direction. Sure, the Mayor may say it seems like a street festival, but how many street festivals have a warlord? Even if he’s only self-titled, it’s a bad look made even worse by driving out a police precinct under threat of firebombing. Regardless of whether it’s the CHAZ/CHOP gang or a different group doing it, CHAZ/CHOP is going to get blamed for no other reason than proximity, and you kids haven’t done anything to counter that perception.
In the end, though, you may have a story to tell your grandchildren someday, but you will have accomplished nothing. With a track record like that, some of you may occupy a Congressional seat someday.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Another week has passed, and another Leftist idea has taken hold in the aftermath of the George Floyd death. Admittedly the original sentencing for the main officer involved would have made Brock Turner’s look like he was the victim of the Spanish Inquisition (which, by the way, no one expects), but the reaction to this has been both positive and negative. On the positive side, America and Minneapolis have taken a long look at police tactics and how to address situations when officers step over the line. On the negative side, a new idea has taken hold in Leftist circles: defund the police.
Most of us are behind the former, but unfortunately too many are getting behind the latter. That’s why it’s important we understand what the Left wants so we can develop ways to combat it.
Oh, and so we can mock it.
defund the police
What the Left thinks it means – introducing necessary reforms so police departments can better serve citizens of color
What it really means – defunding the police
I’ve said the Left loves to control the language in situations like this, but they are really putting in some overtime to get people to believe the words they’re hearing don’t mean what they say. This isn’t easy, mainly because of the number of Leftists actually saying we should defund the police and have it handled either by a higher level of government or just have no police at all.
We’ve seen examples of both. Camden, New Jersey, eliminated its police force and created a county-level police force. To be fair, the numbers look a lot better. Whether it’s because or in spite of Camden’s efforts is a matter of opinion. Crimes nationally have dropped faster than Stacey Abrams’ hints she wants to be Vice President and some residents aren’t happy the police force doesn’t live close enough to the neighborhoods they police to understand the problems. Oh, and some think it doesn’t reflect the diversity of the community well enough.
As far as the no police option, we saw that working at UC Berkeley in 2017. Sure, they still have a police department, but they pretty much let student rioters make a mess of things due to a “hands off” policy where officers weren’t allowed to arrest criminals. We’re also seeing the same situation play out in Seattle, Washington, right now, with a group calling itself “Free Capitol Hill” creating its own community-within-a-community called the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone. And, as you might expect, it’s been a clusterfuck. The best part of it is these morons were allowed into City Hall because…a Councilmember let them in. And to repay her, the protesters called for the Mayor to step down because reasons.
As you might expect, the Free Capitol Hill group is pro-defund the police.
But you’d never hear it from the Left’s mouthpieces in the media and their designated political flunkies like the Socialist Socialite. They’re trying to spin “defund the police” into “reform the police.” The main goal is simple: get people to believe what is being repeated isn’t the real goal of those calling to defund the police. Yeah, about that. Seems there are too many people on both sides calling bullshit or at least saying the messaging is wrong and hurtful to the Left. Not that they necessarily disagree, mind you, just that the message can get interpreted in a way that makes the Left look anti-police.
Which, of course, they are.
I wish I could say that was an attempt at humor via hyperbole, but I can’t. (And, yes, I know I just typed it, so don’t write in about it, okay?) Leftists are on the front lines of this controversy because people are talking about it, but what have they actually done? Demonized police officers as a whole for the actions of too many bad cops. Granted, those too many bad cops shot themselves in the feet with a Howitzer, but their actions have been used time and time again to tarnish the reputations of many police officers. Plus, hating cops guarantees the Left will be able to garner votes and money from people of color, who also aren’t fond of the men and women in blue. Few, if any, Leftists even stop to consider they treat police officers more harshly than they treat Muslims (i.e. #NotAllMuslims after any terrorist attack perpetrated by Muslim radicals).
The funny thing is police unions give a ton of money to Democrats in both the House and the Senate, while the officers themselves are currently giving more money to President Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans probably for the same reason flies respond better to honey than to sulfuric acid: self-preservation. The rank and file police know it’s the Right who support them with actions and words, and they know their unions spend dues to help candidates who don’t support them ultimately. Now with the defund the police idea catching fire, they get to see the disconnect between leaders and members play out yet again.
However, we must acknowledge this momentous occasion. This is the first time the Left hasn’t thrown money at a problem in an attempt to fix it. Well, this isn’t exactly true. The defund the police side wants the money spent on police spent on other items, which represents a laundry list of Leftist causes. Public education, ending misogyny and racism, and universal health care, to name just three I’ve seen being tossed around. How universal health care helps make communities safer isn’t exactly spelled out, but I’m sure they’re working on it…eventually. Right after they get done rioting…I mean protesting.
That’s par for the course with Leftists. They sow the seeds of a problem to exploit it later for personal gain, and in this case, it’s honest police officers getting caught in the crossfire. More often than not, too, it’s never those who created the problem in the first place who get the axe. Politicians find ways to keep people under their thumbs, and police unions are usually untouchable. Yet, who are the ones making decisions on what to support and how officers get trained? The answer is, of course, Donald Trump because he’s always the bad guy these days.
Unfortunately for them, this isn’t something the Left can blame President Trump for saying and doing. They’ll try, but it won’t work. This is their baby and they’re going to have to be the ones who figure out how to change its diaper.
In the meantime, we can be safe in the knowledge we can both support police officers and want the bad ones to get their comeuppance. It’s not an either-or proposition, kids. If the Left gets its way, your local police department will wind up like teachers’ unions: incapable of firing the bad to make room for the good, which is a goal we can all support. But we can’t do that by defunding or abolishing the police.
What may make a difference is for police officers to be empowered to engage their communities and prevent bad cops from getting a Get Out of Jail Free card when they screw up. The key will be to reducing the fear and distrust between police and the people they are supposed to protect. It does no one any good to know there are people living in fear or hate because of what the police do to the criminal element. It’s going to be a lot of work, but if it helps create a better working relationship, I’m all for it.
Let’s take the Left at their ever-changing word. They want police departments eliminated through the death of a thousand paper cuts made worse by red tape. If they get what they want, we will all feel the pain.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
After the recent killing of George Floyd, a forgotten figure of the Black Lives Matter movement came back into the limelight: Colin Kaepernick. The former starting quarterback of the San Francisco 49ers became a darling of the BLM crowd by taking a knee during the playing of the National Anthem (and for wearing socks depicting police officers as pigs) to protest the killing of black people by police. At the time, he was praised and criticized and now it seems he was ahead of the curve, even though he was riding the pine at his former job for sucking.
With Kaepernick’s reemergence, Leftists are coming out and saying we owe him an apology, a starting quarterback position, and back pay. There are people making as much on two knees as Kaepernick could make on one, and what he’s doing won’t get you arrested! But is he worth the accolades? Let’s take a look.
Colin Kaepernick
What the Left thinks it means – an early hero of Black Lives Matter who was blackballed by the NFL for his stance on police brutality
What it really means – a quarterback whose skills have been overshadowed by his advocacy
When he started, Colin Kaepernick was a one-of-a-kind quarterback. He was able to lead the 49ers to a handful of NFC championship games and an appearance in the Super Bowl, where he lead the team to a disheartening loss to the Baltimore Ravens (which just happens to be your humble correspondent’s favorite football team). After that, he experienced either a decline in his skills, defenses started figuring out his tendencies and exploited them to their benefit, or his offense wasn’t as potent as it was when he was successful. As a result, he wasn’t as effective as he once was and lost his starting quarterback position, even though he felt he had the skills to play as a starter.
This is where things get a little controversial. Kaepernick started dating a woman in the off season who turned him from a mediocre-starting-quarterback to a mediocre-former-starting-quarterback-with-a-cause. And out of that cause came a lot of trouble for him and headaches for the NFL. After he tried to test the free agency market and came up empty, allegations of his being blackballed flew around like errant passes from Kaepernick.
Was he blackballed? Not really. He insisted he was a top-tier talent without the numbers to back it up, and he refused to accept a back-up quarterback position. Oh, and there was the attitude problems and controversial statements supporting Fidel Castro…while he was trying to get a job with the Miami Dolphins. I will say this. What Kaepernick lacked in reading the room, he more than made up in positive press coverage. To say he became more beloved by people who would normally consider football barbaric (and, to be fair, anything short of checkers is too barbaric for the Left) would be an understatement.
And that’s how he’s made his money since deciding not to play football (i.e. when no NFL team would sign him because, well, he’s a PR nightmare in crappy socks). He’s become a professional victim, even though his ego/stupidity made him a victim in the first place. Since he’s involved in a Leftist cause, however, his defenders will overlook the obvious flaws in his story of victimhood. After all, there are black people being shot by police all the time, right? Wellll…that’s not strictly true. Crime statistics show police most often shoot…white criminals. And it’s not always white cops doing the killing, either. Thanks to diversity (something the Left claims to embrace), police departments have officers of various races. In fact, only 2 of the police officers involved in the George Floyd matter were white.
None of this diminishes the fact far too many people are getting killed by police officers, regardless of race. Nor does it excuse the racism evident in some police departments. These are real issues that fuel the division in this country and acts as justification for all sides to distrust each other. If we are make any headway, we have to call out the bad faith actors and praise those who are upholding the best in people.
And that’s why I’m calling out Colin Kaepernick and his Leftist enablers. I know the perfect is the enemy of the good, but Kaepernick is neither. He took advantage of a bad situation to create a new job opportunity for himself when his job at the time wasn’t working out the best and his options were as limited as his ability to evolve as a quarterback. And I’m guessing he hasn’t improved on his existing skill set during his extended off-season. Even though his cause has gained traction, it wasn’t because of him. If anything, it occurred without his presence being necessary. Although the Left can remember the glory days of him taking a knee, the truth remains he was merely a replaceable cog in an already existing machine.
As far as his Leftist enablers go, he doesn’t deserve back pay, a starting quarterback job, or an apology because he hasn’t earned any of it. He hasn’t played for a few years because no team would sign him. That’s not the NFL’s fault, but it is Kaepernick’s fault for not realizing his limitations. If he could play like he did prior to the Super Bowl he lost and shown he has a more level head than he did before taking a knee, there are teams right now who could use a good quarterback or at least someone who could do a good job mentoring the next generation of quarterbacks. And if football was no longer an option, he has a degree in business management that he could use…or is he using it right now to leverage his self-imposed victimhood into a lucrative, albeit somewhat dishonest, career?
In other words, Colin Kaepernick is playing Leftists for fools so he can enrich himself, and if Leftists have their way, he will succeed. But, hey, at least they’re “woke”.
The Politics of Science
What a difference a couple of weeks make! It wasn’t that long ago that we were told outdoor protesting against overly oppressive state lockdown decisions made by a dumbass Governor where open-carry laws were followed would cause COVID-19 cases to skyrocket! (Spoiler Alert: they didn’t.) Now, we’re being told by the same people that protests against the death of George Floyd (some of which have turned violent and destructive) are totes cool.
And people wonder why I have a healthy distrust of public figures.
It’s clear politics have more to do with these contradictory positions than actual science, which has been a destructive force for decades within the scientific community. From climate change to the number of genders, ideological elements have made it possible for science to defy itself at the same time the Left tells us we need to listen to the experts. Of course, when the “experts” are Leftists, it’s like they’re saying to listen to, well, themselves.
Funny how that works, isn’t it?
The problem with politics becoming part of science is the former taints the integrity of the latter. With the scientific method, the scientist work toward finding a conclusion by objectively looking at the results of the experiments used. With politics added into the mix, the scientific method either works backwards (as with climate change) or disregarded altogether if the results don’t come out the way the Left wants (as with genders). As a result, we get studies where the results don’t make sense, which opens science up to (deserved) mockery.
As a fan of science, I take the Left’s perversion of science seriously and, admittedly, personally. We cannot simply ignore it when the science tells us we’re wrong. We either have to accept the results or try again. There is no third option. There isn’t a provision where the results don’t matter if they hurt our fee-fees. Accept or reject are the only choices.
That’s where politics taints the process. There’s an old saying, “The personal is political.” The Left takes this very seriously because it allows them to make anything political with the right framing. Once that happens, they can find/create allies to whatever cause they deem appropriate at the time.
Now, here’s the fun part. Once those causes lose traction with the public, the Left chucks them and their supporters aside. Of course, they will pick these causes and supporters up when it suits their needs (like to blame Republicans for what Leftists did to screw things up). If you question this, let me ask one question: How’s the water in Flint, Michigan, these days?
Not good, huh? My point precisely.
Leftists have always treated the black community as below them in the hierarchy of power, which is why you rarely see blacks in positions of real power within their ranks. They’re always on the stage with white Leftists, but only as bunting, and optional bunting at that. And when black Leftists do create organizations, it’s always as subsidiaries of the main hive-mind.
What does this have to do with the Left’s hypocrisy…I mean change of position on protests? Control (and I’m not talking about the Janet Jackson song). With the anti-lockdown protests, the Left couldn’t control the protesters. They were powerless to stop them, so the Left tried to get people to believe they were dangerous and that a love of freedom is equally dangerous. However, with the protesters of George Floyd’s murder, the Left controls the narrative and can stoke the fires to make the tensions worse. And once the passion dies down, the Left will forget George Floyd even existed.
Just like they forgot about Flint’s water problem.
And just like they forgot about COVID-19 when it came to the George Floyd protests, even after these same folks shouted about how dangerous it was for people to be out in public without masks and social distancing.