I’ve been asked a few times whether I like reality TV or soap operas, and I don’t. Mainly because I get enough of both watching Congress.
And this past week has ramped up both with the election of a new Speaker of the House. For a time, House Republicans couldn’t seem to figure out who got to be the honorary whipping boy (or girl because I ain’t sexist) of House Democrats who want to get more of Puddin’ Head Joe’s brilliant agenda passed. At this point, the method of choosing a new Pope seems a lot more logical and a lot less dramatic.
Leftists, being the helpful sort they are, keep the drama ramped up to 11 (because it’s one higher), claiming the lack of a Speaker of the House is a national security issue. Even former Speaker Nancy Pelosi is attempting to dunk on House Republicans, citing (of all things) dignity.
While we wait for our irony meters to get back from the repair shop, let’s take a closer look at the House of Representatives.
the House of Representatives
What the Left thinks it means – a vital legislative body being disgraced by House Republicans’ inability to elect a new Speaker
What it really means – a reflection of what America is right now
First, a bit of history and civics. Our Legislative Branch is modeled at least in part on England’s Parliament. While our British brethren have the House of Commons and the House of Lords, we have the House of Representatives and the Senate. This is by design in both cases, but I’m going to focus on the American version, which like the American version of “The Office” is great, but lacks some of the elements that make the British version better.
Although, I’m willing to die on the hill that Dwight Schrute is the superior character.
Anyway, the House of Representatives is supposed to be “the people’s house,” in that it requires Dwayne Johnson to own it…wait, that’s not it. It’s that way because the House is supposed to be more accountable to the electorate and are up for reelection every 2 years instead of every 6 years like in the Senate.
This accountability is underscored by the sheer number of Representatives. There is one for each District, including the District of Columbia, resulting in a grand total of 435 Representatives. As censuses and redistricting/gerrymandering occur, the size and shape of these Districts will change, but the number doesn’t. So, that means at any given time, there may be 435 complete asshats in Congress.
I know, right! It seems like more!
Meanwhile back at the subject matter at hand, the requirements to serve in the House are pretty simple.
– at least 25 years old
– a US citizen for at least seven years
– an inhabitant of the state he/she represents
That’s it. Notice breathing and thinking aren’t on the list, which explains a lot about how dead people and idiots wind up winning elections…
If you think about it, that’s a pretty wide net. And it doesn’t exactly mean we’re getting the best and brightest, either. It just means we’re getting people who can lie convincingly enough to win elections.
Which brings us to the House of Representatives as it currently works, which is to say it doesn’t. In between the people looking to turn their House election into election to a higher office and the people perfectly happy to take up space where they are, it’s clear the bulk of the House is lazy, often doesn’t show up for work for bullshit reasons, develops huge egos unrelated to actual achievement, starts Twitter spats with one another, gets nothing done, and spends a lot of money and wastes a lot of time doing it.
In other words, America in 2023.
That’s why I find it so hysterical former Speaker Pelosi talks about the dignity of the House of Representatives as it relates to the current Speaker fight. (Plus, it gives me a chance to really rub it in that she’s not the Speaker of the House anymore.) It’s really not all that dignified, and it’s not supposed to be. It’s supposed to be the legislative body that responds to the folks back at home and represents their interests.
And right now, their interests have little to do with what’s best for the country. If anything, they’re loving the shitshow and popping more popcorn and ordering more pizza. Sure, Leftists are upset no important bills are getting passed, but it’s more based on self-interest than concern for Americans. After all, the House is part of the legislative body that spends the money, per Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution. And if we’ve learned anything from recent history, Congress loves to spend our money.
Of course, if there’s no Speaker elected, there’s no leadership. (Granted, that’s been standard operating procedure for decades, but work with me here.) If there isn’t a Speaker, no bills can come out to the floor to be voted on. And that means nothing gets done and no tax money gets spent.
Wait. I’m trying to find a down side here…Nope! Coming up empty!
But to the Left, government inaction that prevents them from spending money or passing laws is bad because it prevents them from getting more power over our lives. That is, except when it’s their actions causing gridlock. When they do it, it’s justified because…reasons. For me, anything that mucks up the wheels of authoritarian malfeasance is fine.
But, let’s say for the sake of argument I wanted to fix the House of Representatives. I would start by adding a few more requirements to serve in the House. The requirements we have are lower than a snake’s cock ring, but yet candidates still find a way to limbo under them and still get elected. Here’s a few I’ve put together.
– Parental locks on a Representative’s Twitter account, allowing him/her only 1 hour a day to tweet
– An emotional age of at least 25
– Actually living in the District instead of having a “paper residence” for election purposes
– Work from home requirement for at least 6 months
– Since they’ll be home, mandatory town hall meetings where the public can appear, not just a hand-picked asskissers
– A regular State of the District Address with opportunity for a rebuttal
– At least a B+ grade on a civics test. And since I’m the one who came up with the idea, I suppose I could be persuaded to come up with the test because, dammit, I care!
By the way, if there’s an Academy Award for bloggers, I humbly submit that last point for consideration. Thank you. Moving on…
– Signing and agreeing upon the government version of a “non-compete clause” meaning they aren’t allowed to join any insider think tanks or media outlets for at least 10 years. And going along with this…
– Former Representatives have to get gainful employment within their former Districts within 30 days of the start of the new House session or they lose their government pensions, because nothing would be funnier to me than seeing a defeated Representative having to spritz vegetables at a local grocery store for minimum wage after living the high life in Congress
I have a few more ideas, but some of them involve tar, feathers, pitchforks, and torches…I’ve said too much. Let’s just say I’m not at a loss for ways to improve things. You know, if I wanted to pull a “This Old House” on the House, that is.
Instead, I’m going to kick back with steak and some adult beverages and watch the proceedings for the shitshow they are, and I suggest you do the same. At least until we see white smoke coming from Capitol Hill. Then, either we’ll have a new Speaker of the House, a new Pope, or Adam Schiff is trying to destroy as many incriminating documents as he can find.
Category: Humor
The Elephant In the Room
As much as I like ripping into Leftists, there are times when I have to take the Right out to the woodshed for being dumbasses. And this is one of those times. Otherwise, you’d just be watching me typing nonsense and wasting your time. I mean, more than usual.
The “Red Wave” most people were expecting turned out to be just a trickle, with Republicans mostly underperforming in races that shouldn’t have even been close. Although there are still some unresolved election issues (namely alleged misconduct affecting Republicans in Arizona, surprise surprise), the fact remains Republicans did not do as well as expected. Electile dysfunction, if you will.
Or even if you won’t, that’s what I’m sticking with.
Although the “Red Trickle” has been analyzed more than Donald Trump eating a salad with Russian dressing, there’s a problem even the smart pundits on the Right seem to have missed. Right now, the Republican Party has a serious identity crisis.
Unlike the Left, who has a loose coalition of voting blocs united by the idea “Republicans Bad, Democrats Good,” the Right has a diverse pool of voters, but doesn’t have a single rallying cry. Under Presidents like Ronald Reagan, that wasn’t the case, but since then it’s been the political version of Whose Line Is It Anyway, the political party where everything is made up and the percentage points don’t matter.
I’ve narrowed down the various factions vying for control of the GOP to these groups.
Evangelicals – These are men and women of faith who want to take America in a positive moral/religious direction and believe politics is the means to that end. To me, that’s like a Luddite computer repair shop, but who am I to begrudge these folks?
Fair Weather Republicans – These are your Mitt Romneys, Mitch McConnells, Susan Collinses, Marco Rubios, and such who talk a good game, but don’t have the track record to back it up. If these folks were a rap album from the early 90s, they would be “As Wishy Washy As We Wanna Be.”
MAGA Republicans – These are the politically-minded voters energized by former President Donald Trump. And when I say “energized,” I mean you could run the Texas power grid if you were to tap into their enthusiasm over all things Trump. Again, not bad people.
The Intelligentsia – These are the former conservative talking heads and consultants who were taken very seriously until Donald Trump came into the picture. Now, they’re too busy trying to “preserve conservatism” to notice their relevance is lower than the trading price of FTX right now.
Old School Conservatives – These are the Republicans who long for the days of Ronald Reagan and want to try to be his second coming. I would put Rand Paul and Ted Cruz in this category, and to be fair I almost voted for Zombie Ronald Reagan in 2020. I guess I would be in this category, too, even though I don’t see myself as a Republican.
Talking Heads – This group runs the gamut from Sean Hannity to Glenn Beck to even Tulsi Gabbard (still not a Republican, but I’m including her here to make a point). They command a lot of attention and viewership/listenership when they speak about what conservatism and Republican values mean.
Big Business Republicans – These are Republicans who are beholden to Corporate America and will do anything to please their corporate masters. Although there is the potential for overlap, usually these Republicans defer to whatever the business world wants, no matter how it betrays the party line.
The Rank and File – This group represents most Republicans, but ironically it has the least amount of power because it lacks the money, insider connections, and media presence of the others. Whether they’re life-long Republicans or Johnny-Come-Lately Republicans doesn’t matter.
Minority Republicans – This group is different from the others in that they’re also part of other groups that may or may not normally associate with the GOP. Gay, black, Hispanic, and so forth.
There may be others I’ve overlooked, but I think you get the idea. With so many voices talking about their version of Republican ideas, it’s hard to find a single unifying idea. Plus, it doesn’t help that some of these groups are less friendly than the reception Nick Fuentes gets at the Apollo. This is a byproduct of the many voices at play here. With so many groups trying to become The One True Voice of Republicans, there will be conflict.
If you doubt me, I have three words for you: The Lincoln Project.
Normally, infighting is par for the course with political parties, but in this case, it’s starting to become counterproductive. You might be able to get a couple of groups to gang up on one of the others, but such coalitions don’t last because Republicans and conservatives deeply care about issues. Leftists may say they do, but they care only as far as it takes to get stupid people to vote for them. Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to have bedrock principles on which they will not bend. For some, it’s defending the Constitution. For others, it’s Christian values. For others, it’s recognition. Whatever the motivation, conservatives will draw a line in the sand at some point.
And if you dare cross that line, you’re an enemy.
Not a great way to win elections, kids.
No matter how bat-shit insane the Left gets (and, believe me, they’re going for the record), expecting people to vote for the Right because they’re not Leftists only works for so long. Eventually, potential voters are going to ask “So, what do you stand for exactly?” And if you don’t have a good answer aside from “the Left is bat-shit insane” you will lose potential voters.
Believe it or not, some of us actually want to be courted. Give us ideas, principles, goals, actual substance for the love of Pete! Just because you’re not as crazy as the Left doesn’t mean you’re not crazy. After all, the Left says the same thing about the Right and you can guess how I think they are.
This is where a unifying theme is essential. The thing many conservatives and Republicans forget about Ronald Reagan is the fact he found a way to bring people together through the unifying theme that America was worthy of being respected and loved by its people. That helped peel off a number of people who might not have normally voted Republican and helped The Gipper win two terms. These days, Republicans might be lucky to win one term in the White House because while each of the groups believes they are carrying on Reagan’s vision, few of them remember the important essence of the vision itself.
Remember Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment. No matter how distasteful you may find one of the other groups, a unified front is what is needed going forward. In 2024, Republicans have a chance to make the argument their Presidential candidate is up to the task. And with Puddin’ Head Joe and Kamala “Word Salad” Harris, you could drool on yourselves and make a better case.
Yet, this should be the starting point, not the only point. If Republicans want to make Puddin’ Head Joe a former President, it has to be done with one voice. Yes, you can have opinions and you don’t need my permission to express them, but keep in mind a split party makes it easier for Biden to win again. Find common ground and hold onto it no matter what.
Otherwise, get used to seeing Puddin’ Head Joe embarrass us on the world stage.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Ever see the movie “Catch Me If You Can“? If not, it’s a movie about a real person, Frank Abagnale Jr., who made a name for himself by scamming people. Well, recently Republicans found their own Frank Abagnale in the form of George Santos, incoming Republican Congressman from New York. Seems he lied, like, a lot.
In other words, he was well-qualified for the job.
Leftists, never known for being honest or consistent, have jumped on the controversy to try to demand he resign and start state and federal investigations into his campaign. Although I really don’t have a problem with any of that, the Left’s reaction is a bit of a tell, as we’ll see in a bit.
George Santos
What the Left thinks it means – a Republican politician who should not be allowed to represent anyone because he lied about his past
What it really means – a man being held to a different standard by the Left to hide the real reason they want him gone
This is going to come to a shock to some of you, but politicians lie. I’ll give you all a moment to compose yourselves after such a revelation.
Okay, that’s long enough.
What makes Santos a different breed of cat, according to the Left, is the extent of his lies. He’s claimed to be Jewish, gay, a financial advisor to Goldman Sachs, and any number of things, both about himself and his family. Hmm…that sounds a lot like a former Vice President, but I can’t remember who…
Oh, well. Guess I’ll have some pudding.
While the lies themselves are troubling, what’s more troubling is the underlying reason for the Left’s reaction. No, they haven’t decided to turn over a new leaf and become truth seekers. Instead, their reaction is based on something more…base. And if Meghan Trainor taught us anything, it’s that it’s all about that base….
For more context, let’s take a trip to New York. See, Mr. (or Doctor or Monsignor or whatever title he’s given himself) Santos committed a mortal sin in Leftists’ minds: he beat a Democrat. What’s more, it was a seat formerly held by a Democrat, meaning it flipped with Santos’ election. That alone would make Santos a target for Leftist hate, but the over embellishment of his resume gives them a legitimate hook on which to hang their disdain and hide their real agenda.
Of course, getting Santos to either resign or have House Republicans not seat him won’t affect the fact Republicans will still hold a slight majority. But that’s not the point. The point is to make Republicans live up to their own standards, as our good friend Saul Alinsky taught in Rules for Radicals. And knowing how many House Republicans have spines of Jello, there’s a good chance this strategy will work.
Provided, of course, some House Republicans don’t use the Santos situation to expose the Left’s hypocrisy, that is. And it’s not like they will have to do a lot of legwork because conservative commenters on Twitter have already done it. It is just a matter of playing the Left’s game better than they do. Make them defend their silence/defense of Puddin’ Head Joe’s multiple lies, and don’t let them off the hook. After all, these are the same fucknuckles who said former President Donald Trump lied over 30,000 times and said it was unbecoming of a President.
Of course, the Left will call this “whataboutism” (mainly because they can’t refute Puddin’ Head Joe’s lies), which to some extent it is. My counter to this is simple: lying is never good for leaders to do, even if it’s infrequent. Whether it’s 30,000 lies or just 30, each time a political leader pulls a Tommy Flannagan it undermines public trust. Or at least that’s what my wife, Morgan Fairchild, says.
But a key for this to work is consistency. Republicans need to hold Santos to the same standard as Biden, and not quietly in either case. And, while we’re at it, let’s follow the Left’s logic a bit more. Santos should be punished, whether it be by the House Leadership or by his constituents, and so should Puddin’ Head Joe. Then, sweeten the pot by pointing out how Leftist darlings Nancy Pelosi, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth “Chief Running Mouth” Warren, Eric Swalwell, Richard Blumenthal, Adam Schiff, and others should be held to the same standard the Left wants to apply to Santos.
Then, when Leftists point out Republican liars, say, “Sure. Throw them out, too.”
Then, grab a bottle of water as the Leftists run off in a cloud of dust that would make the Road Runner look like a sleeping sloth. But enough about Jerrold Nadler.
Let’s face it, George Santos gives the GOP a black eye (or if you’re politically correct, an African-American eye). The fact he got this far without someone at the RNC giving him the side-eye at all the red flags that came up means the party needs to seriously revamp their vetting process. It doesn’t matter if the candidate is backed by Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, or Susan Collins, Republicans need to do a much better job in 2024 to avoid embarrassments like Santos.
After all, we wouldn’t want someone like that to be President, right?
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
To all of you from all of, well, me, I hope you have a Merry Christmas, Happy Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Kickin’ Kwanza, Fabulous Festivus, Cool Yule, a Spectacular Solstice, or for those who don’t celebrate anything this time of year, happy Sunday.
And for a number of people who just so happen not to be us, Congress gave them a very generous holiday bonus to the tune of, oh, $1.7 trillion. It was part of an omnibus spending bill whisking its way to President Joe Biden’s desk as of this writing, where there is no doubt he will sign it. Where the doubt lies is whether he’ll sign it in pen or purple crayon.
Another issue not in doubt is your favorite blogger is going to cover it this week. And I will, too!
omnibus spending bill
What the Left thinks it means – a necessary spending bill that helps America and Americans
What it really means – a bill so full of pork Jews and Muslims can’t partake of it for religious reasons
In my lifetime, Congress has always been the home of big spenders, as the National Debt Clock continues to show. More on that later, but I wanted to give you an idea of the numbers we’re dealing with here before giving more details. Plus, it will give you a chance to get a stiff drink or fifty to steel your nerves.
First, let’s dig into the details. Thanks to Senator Rand Paul and Congressman Chip Roy, we have an idea of just what Leftists were telling us were vital expenditures necessary to keep the government from shutting down. Here are a few examples.
– $4.5 billion in COVID Economic Injury Disaster Grants to people who weren’t eligible to get them in the first place
– $1.7 billion for upkeep of federal office buildings not currently in use
– $140 million in COVID funds used to build a spa
– $31.5 million in COVID funds to buy luxury cars
– $3 million on watching ‘roided-up hamsters fight
– $2.1 million to encourage Ethiopians to wear shoes
– $1.1 million to teach mice to binge drink (could have just sent them to college)
– $69 million in overpayments to government contractors for a terminated contract
– $77 million in mismanaged and untracked fuel purchases by the State Department
And so on and so on.
Granted, you could make an argument for some of the spending ($3 million to build a Gandhi museum, almost $500 million to redevelop our hard cider industry, $200,000 for radio spots telling drivers to stop at railroad crossings), but most of it is USDA Certified Lean Bullshit. Out of all the bad financial decisions that makes Arthur Andersen look like Warren Buffett, possibly the worst was almost $120,000 going towards…and I wish I was making this up…a grant to research whether Thanos could actually snap his fingers while wearing the Infinity Gauntlet.
The short answer? No. My answer? No, because Thanos is a fucking fictional character.
Where is that stiff drink?
Okay, I’m ready to continue.
Remember when Ukrainian President and Vogue photo subject Volodymyr Zelensky recently told Puddin’ Head Joe he would need more money? Well, surprise surprise surprise, the omnibus spending bill has nearly $45 billion in aid earmarked for Ukraine. And that’s on top of the $68 billion we’ve already given them in 2022. For the math challenged out there, that will be in the neighborhood of $113 billion.
Of course Leftists and some self-described “real conservatives” tell us this money is essential and if we don’t agree, we’re anti-Ukraine and, thus, anti-American. In fact, to them it’s a no-brainer. After all, if we fund the Ukrainians well enough, they’ll beat the Russians and hinder their ability to influence the world
No. That’s really what they believe.
And if it hadn’t been for 18 Senate Republicans voting with Senate Democrats and two Independents in favor of the omnibus bill, we might not be having this conversation. As of this writing, only one of these 14 asshats, Mitt Romney of Utah, has even attempted to explain his reasoning.
Put simply, the Senate Republican support was a no-brainer because no brains went into their votes.
Bartender, hit me!
Now, for the fun part. All of this spending is being done without being in a budget. Since 1996, the federal government has been spending money through Continuing Resolutions (basically, an IOU Congress writes to itself promising to spend more money without any rhyme or reason) or…drum roll please…omnibus spending bills. The reason is simple: no budget means no budget limits. I’ve seen inebriated sailors with more restraint than Congress.
Speaking of inebriation…bartender!
Let me lay my cards on the table here. I’m not a fan of omnibus spending bills, not just the ones Puddin’ Head Joe will sign. Congress has a spending problem, and omnibus spending bills are blank checks backed up with the promise of professional liars that they’ll pay it back with interest.
By the way, $475 billion of the omnibus bill is for interest on the national debt.
Yeah, we’re never going to see a balanced budget anytime soon, not when it’s so easy to pass spending bills that have no fiscal strings attached.
Even if you’re in favor of the bill, you’re going to have a hard time convincing me spending any money on Thanos research, luxury cars, or building a spa advances anything in the national interest. Personal interests, sure, but national? Give me a fucking break!
Speaking of which, I’d better take a break from drinking long enough to wrap this up.
The very fact supporters of the omnibus spending bill have to rely on faux patriotism, a backdrop of Ukraine fighting for freedom, and the idea the government has to stay open or things won’t get done should give us pause to drink…I mean think. As Americans struggle to make ends meet due to inflation being higher than Tommy Chong on Willie Nelson’s tour bus, our elected officials continue to make matters worse by making our money more worthless than an abstinence talk by Bill Clinton.
The sad thing is there’s nothing we can do about it. Aside from a wholesale house (and Senate) cleaning and starting over, we’re stuck paying for someone else getting a luxury car, thanks to Daddy Government. The sad truth is there are so many Democrats and Republicans, both elected and governed, who have no problem with the current state of affairs. After all, they’re not going to pay the tab; we are.
And with that, I bring this Lexicon entry to a close. Which is good timing because I’m about to passdkjladkahdfadjf;dajkl;
[Editor’s Note: We found Thomas slumped over his laptop after getting blackout drunk writing this piece. We cleaned up his entry and his computer as well as we could. We are giving him coffee intravenously in the hopes he’ll be awake in time for next week’s Lexicon.]
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
First, we had homophobia, which is the irrational fear/hatred of gay people (according to the Left). Next, we had transphobia, which is the irrational fear/hatred of trans people (also according to the Left). Now, thanks to the people at GLAAD, we have…dragphobia.
According to the…well, I repeat myself.
The latest phobia has roots in a group affiliated with the LGBTQPXBNOTHATISADIFFERENTBAFEWMORELETTERSADDEDEVERYWEEKCHECKBACKDAILYFORUPDATES community and a trend that seems to keep popping up: drag aficionados appearing in what some people consider inappropriate locations in front of all ages. Namely, where there are children congregating. And, well, some people don’t take too kindly to that.
Congratulations, kids. You got another phobia!
And I got another Lexicon entry!
dragphobia
What the Left thinks it means – the irrational fear or hatred of people in drag
What it really means – the real fear and hatred of Leftists trying to warp the younger generations into supporting the Left
If the Left is to be believed (and at this point, it’s a pretty safe bet they shouldn’t), hate speech of all kinds is on the rise, not just on Twitter, but in America. Gays, lesbians, trans people, bisexuals, queer, and now people in drag are all victims of this hate, and, dammit, we need to do something about it.
Like…Tweeting about it?
Or at least podcast about it like GLAAD did. Because as we all know the only way to fight hate is to put it on blast on social media! No need to even put on a pair of pants, or in some cases a garter belt that matches your wig and eye shadow as you prepare for Drag Finger Painting Day at the local preschool.
Okay, so that was a bit excessive. Drag queens haven’t held finger painting day at a preschool, mainly because the paint could get on their sequined dresses and ruin their nails. But if current trends continue, we are not that far away from this becoming a thing.
“But, Thomas, how do you know this is going to happen?” you might be asking. Others might be asking, “Why do you care about drag queens so much?” Still others might be asking, “Would you like fries with that?” Trust me, gentle reader, all will become evident in time.
The first question is easy to answer: it’s been done before successfully. The Left have a standard framework when they want to indoctrinate…I mean educate people.
1. Swing for the fences. Push for exactly what you want and see if you can get it. If not, move to step 2.
2. Find out which groups agree with you and work on a strategy to get more of that group to agree.
3. Introduce a step towards the primary goal that would appeal to that particular group and make it sound like it’s perfectly normal and right to agree.
4. Repeat steps 2 and 3 until enough people agree to sway public opinion (perceived or actual) towards normalizing the idea introduced in step 2.
5. Introduce the next step towards the final goal and repeat steps 1-4.
6. Repeat until you get what you want.
The Left did this with homosexuality and with the idea gender is fluid. Today, anyone who isn’t on board with gay men and women or think there are only two genders can get you “on the wrong side of history” as the Left likes to say. The Left is still in the early stages of getting trans people accepted as just one of the guys…or gals…or something, and it’s having some success.
Since this process works so well, why wouldn’t Leftists try it with drag?
To answer the second question, I really don’t care about drag queens on the whole. I don’t dig it, but I don’t judge anyone who does. Those who do drag and do it well are talented and often can fool the untrained eye. That’s how I met my first girlfriend, Tyrone.
But just like how drag artists use makeup and costuming to tone down elements that ruin the look, there are a number of people using drag as a cover for what they really want, which is apparently as many young boys as they can get their well-manicured hands on. These are the bad apples that are turning an adult activity into a poisonous applesauce.
I have known people who like to dress in drag, and underneath the make-up and clothing, they’re human beings. For that reason alone, I can’t cast a wide net as some. After all, there is Lady MAGA, a drag artist who was and may still be unabashedly a fan of Donald Trump. Granted, Lady MAGA is an exception rather than the rule, but there are bound to be others who quietly support Trump and the GOP or who don’t say anything because of what would happen to them if anyone found out they weren’t Leftists.
Only in Leftist America can someone be supported if they come out as gay, but be reviled for coming out as conservative.
Now, for the part that may get me some hate mail. Drag performances in and of themselves aren’t necessarily sexual in nature. They can be adult in nature, but that doesn’t make them sexual. Even when they get sexual in nature, that’s not automatically bad…when the target audience is fellow adults. When the target audience skews more towards eating boogers than eating caviar, that’s when members of the drag community crosses the line.
Take Drag Queen Story Hour, for example. Supporters say drag artists reading to children is a way to spark their imaginations and get them interested in reading. This approach has some merit, as children (and even some adults, like your humble correspondent) enjoy seeing colorful characters they recognize or like hanging out with them. Detractors say drag artists are trying to groom children into getting into drag, pedophilia, homosexuality, and other adult subjects they’re not intellectually or emotionally ready to understand yet. This approach also has merit, as children are impressionable and may try to imitate what they see and experience.
While both sides have points in their favors, there are still enough niggling points that I can’t support either. If a drag artist is reading The Very Hungry Caterpillar, it’s not necessarily an attempt to get your child into becoming the next RuPaul. If a drag artist is reading How To Get a Gerbil Out of Your Ass, that’s a different story altogether. For one, different creatures. But more importantly, different subject matter that wouldn’t be appropriate for m0st adults, let alone children.
Ah, there’s the vital concept: age-appropriate. Drag by its very nature is not age-appropriate for children because it requires a level of sophistication to understand and appreciate. Having it appear at events geared towards children is going to piss people off instead of fostering the aforementioned understanding and appreciation. Even if your goal really was just to get kids into reading, someone has to understand how it might be a shitty way of going about it.
Then, there are the “all ages” or “family friendly” drag shows. Both sides are guilty of mischaracterizing what goes on at drag shows. The anti-groomers want to make it sound like a significant number of these events actually involve children based on video footage of some of the more egregious examples. The pro-drag side want to make it sound like these events are family friendly and put the responsibility of children appearing at them on the parents. For those well-publicized events where drag artists are barely dressed around or actively encouraging lewd behavior from children in attendance, the only family friendly activities are those of the Mansons.
That quip would surely get me labeled as dragphobic and I would deeply care about how to respond to that…if I gave a fuck about what the GLAAD dipshits think about me. I neither fear nor hate drag artists, but I fear for their futures if the Left continues to sacrifice them to advance an ideological goal.
One of my Immutable Truths is “A movement’s worst enemy is the movement itself.” Right now, the worst enemies of the drag scene are the members who are using drag as a way to get close to children for sexual gratification. These are the ones getting all the attention and, thus, shaping the public image of what drag artists are like. Bad publicity may still be publicity, but it’s a letting-Joe-Biden-work-without-a-teleprompter level of horrible idea if the end goal is to get people not to care about drag.
And true to their core, GLAAD isn’t helping matters any by creating the dragphobia label. Drag artists, along with gays, lesbians, and trans people, don’t need GLAAD to help them gain acceptance. They need good PR, and GLAAD ain’t interested in that. They have an agenda to push like a drug dealer working straight commission, and they don’t care who gets hurt along the way, even if those being hurt are the people the organization are allegedly trying to help.
The truth is there are very few people who actually hate and/or fear drag. Most people on both sides of this issue are operating on a lack of knowledge, which is used to gin up an abundance of fear. Under those conditions, there can’t be understanding since there is no real trust between the sides. They are automatically conditioned to believe the worst in the other side because of what misinformation is getting released. To break this cycle, we need people to understand the issues and facts and then reach out with a genuine intent to fix the problems together. A pipe dream, perhaps, but it’s the only one that makes sense to me.
Oh, and as for that third question, I do want fries with that, and I hope you find use for your gender studies degree soon.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
After a week full of surprise twists (the #TwitterFiles exposing a lot more than anticipated), not-so-surprise twists (Leftists being wrong again about Twitter being dead), and some disappointing-but-not-surprising twists (Herschel Walker couldn’t cross the goal line to win the Georgia Senate runoff election against Raphael Warnock), we finally have a story worth discussing that doesn’t involve Elon Musk.
Brittney Griner is coming home!
Now, if you’re like me (and if you are I’m so very sorry), you have little or no idea who Brittney Griner is. I will admit I had to do a bit of digging to get the facts behind why her release is such a big deal, and I agree it is. Just not for the reason the Left wants us to believe it is.
Brittney Griner
What the Left thinks it means – a brave woman freed after being imprisoned in Russia for no reason
What it really means – a prisoner released solely due to the social justice hierarchy
When Joe Biden took over as President, I knew there would be some bad decisions coming down the pike. I mean, he picked Kamala Harris as Vice-President, a woman so unpopular with Democrats that I got the same number of delegates she did and I didn’t even run. Sure enough, there were no supply chain issues with Puddin’ Head Joe’s bad decisions, as they kept coming in like a LGBQT+ wrecking ball.
Even with incredibly low expectations, I knew somehow the Biden Administration would find a way to limbo under them with room to spare. And that’s exactly what we got with the Griner release.
Brittney Griner is a WNBA player who played in Russia during the off season (which is not that different from the regular WNBA season) and was detained after a search found vape cartridges with hash oil in them. Although what she had was legal in Arizona where Griner plays, it isn’t legal in Russia. As a result, she was sentenced to nine years in prison. Griner appealed the verdict, but was denied. Now, less than a year after she was arrested, Griner is free. A feel good story, right?
Yeaaaaah…not so much.
The terms of Griner’s release included a prisoner exchange for Viktor Bout, who just happens to be an arms dealer with the cute little nickname “the Merchant of Death.” Aside from the laundry list of activities for which he became infamous, he was also the inspiration for a Nicholas Cage movie. That alone should have kept him locked up indefinitely.
Then came Puddin’ Head Joe, who thought it was a good idea to trade Bout for Griner with the hopes of getting another American prisoner detained in Russia, former Marine Paul Whelan. Whelan has been detained since 2018 amid allegations of espionage. Although the charges seem a bit shaky, America has let him sit in a prison camp for far longer than Griner.
So, why are we getting excited over a WNBA player getting released in exchange for an arms dealer? A lot of it has to do with Griner’s identity. Not only is she a basketball player (that maybe 0.00000000001% of the population knew prior to her arrest), but she is black and a lesbian. In social justice terms, that’s practically a “Get Out of Gulag Free” Card! Throw in the fact she lobbied the WNBA to not play the National Anthem during the 2019 season to protest police brutality, and you might as well make her a Leftist Saint. You know, if they believed in that sort of thing.
Even if you strip away all of that, anybody with a lick of sense can see trading an arms dealer for a basketball player while leaving a retired Marine on the table is a bad idea. For one, it’s a fucking arms dealer! For another, it shows the world just what America values these days. If you’re an albino transsexual paraplegic Inuit midget with AIDS, you’ll get the Biden Administration working around the clock to get you home. If you’re a white guy, well…let’s just say you’re going to have to wait a while.
Like, say, the 43rd of Never.
Not to put too fine a point on this, but Bout is also a Russian fucking arms dealer! Now, who are we currently in c0nflict with on the world states? If you said Russia, congratulations! You’ve been paying attention. And if you’ve been paying attention, you can also see where this is going, but for you Leftists reading this, let me spell it out for you: Joe Biden just gave Vladimir Putin an arms dealer, all while funneling money to Ukraine…who is currently fighting Putin and Russia.
Either Griner is one hell of a basketball player, or Puddin’ Head Joe got played. And I think you know which way I’m leaning on that one.
Regardless of how you feel about Griner’s detainment (I think it’s bullshit) and release (it’s great she’s coming back home), the fact the only way it makes sense is through the lens of social justice should be concerning. We should not be making these kinds of major decisions through social justice because of the way social justice operates.
Leftists have devised a hierarchy of oppression through which they view different scenarios to determine how to react. Put another way, it’s a checklist to see how oppressed you are based on superficial factors like gender or race. Check enough boxes and, voila, you’re oppressed! But wait! There’s more! Not only will the hierarchy of oppression tell you if you’re oppressed, but it will show you how oppressed you are! And if your oppression score is lower than someone else’s, the other person gets the support because…oppression!
This makes Calvinball look like chess.
Needless to say, when you prioritize oppression by who allegedly has more of it, some people are still going to feel oppressed which doesn’t help the situation any. Then again, if Leftists were critical thinkers, we might not have Puddin’ Head Joe as President.
As it stands, Brittney Griner is coming home to a hero’s welcome while Russia gets a fucking arms dealer back and a former Marine remains in custody. Even before now, the Left has been writing pieces damning America for various aspects of our prison system or why our government should be supporting Griner because patriotism or what it says about America’s current social issues or how black women are treated in prison. Expect this trend to continue with more frequency and ever higher decibel levels.
But always keep in the back of your mind the Leftists cheering at Griner’s freedom have given zero fucks about Paul Whelan, as evidenced by a) how they haven’t talked about him before now, and b) how slowly the Biden Administration has been working towards getting him home. But when social justice overrules geopolitics and common sense, you’re bound to find yourselves in situations where the obvious answer gets rejected in favor of a worse deal than the Minnesota Vikings trading for Hershel Walker.
Oh, and one last thing. Viktor Bout is a fucking arms dealer.
Damn. Now I need some of the good eggnog…
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Yes, it’s another post about Twitter. In my defense, though, the current Twitter drama is like being in the Mob or on Brokeback Mountain: every time I think I’m out, they pull me back in and then fuck me. Or something like that
The New York Times and other leftist media sources recently reported an increase in the number of hate speech incidents on Twitter since Elon Musk took over. Their source was a study conducted by several groups, including the Anti-Defamation League, academia, and the Center for Countering Digital Hate, all pointing to what they’re trying to push as an epidemic of hate. Their solution? Get another COVID booster.
Actually, the Left has a few different options on the table from having the government oversee Twitter to investigating Musk’s purchase to leaving the platform altogether to staying and fighting as Alyssa “I’m Definitely Not the Boss” Milano suggested. In other words, they don’t have a clear strategy, but they have a clear idea of what hate speech is.
And, as we’re about to see, they’re completely wrong. Again.
hate speech
What the Left thinks it means – hateful speech that is not protected by the First Amendment and should be illegal
What it really means – hateful speech that is protected by the First Amendment, but not necessarily by Twitter
I’m going to be honest with you at the start. Neither side has this issue completely right as it pertains to Twitter. As a private company, Twitter can set the rules as to what it allows on the platform, and the First Amendment need not apply. After all, the first five words of it are “Congress shall make no law” and last time I checked Twitter isn’t Congress. Although I’ve found an increasing number of twits on both…
At the core of the issue is how hate is defined. Since hate speech first came into the public lexicon, hate has evolved from racist, sexist, and generally unacceptable commentary to anything that hurts a Leftist’s fee-fees. Prior to Musk buying Twitter, the Left had a field day getting accounts nuked for Terms of Service violations more spurious than the credibility of Media Matters.
That’s because the Left has friends in high places, namely the moderation staff. When you get to define what constitutes hate speech, you can justify any moderation invoked under it. With the moderation staff at Twitter leaning so far left the only parts of their body that got sunburned were on the right, let’s just say they were fairly liberal with their definition, and definitely illiberal with their enforcement.
But, remember, it’s Elon Musk creating more hate speech on Twitter.
Actually, the hate speech has been there; it just hasn’t been called such. Like the “Summer of Love” in 2020, the Left crafted a tidy, yet wholly unbelievable narrative. And when confronted with the flood of conservative Twitter accounts going down, their response was the same: they shouldn’t have broken the rules Twitter, a private company, created.
All while telling a Colorado baker to bake the cake, I might add.
Fast forward to, oh, now. The Left no longer defends the private company because the rules are starting to apply to the people who used to be the ones who made up the rules as they went along. Although there are some inconsistencies with how the rules got applied, the fact the Left got a small taste of what conservatives endured for years isn’t entirely unwelcome, at least to me. Still, Musk should work on ensuring the rules are fair across the board, and that starts with the moderation team.
Meanwhile, back in the “hate speech is on the rise on Twitter” camp, they’ve run into a bit of a problem: the numbers don’t seem to match what is going on, or at the very least what the Left says is going on. But why let a little thing like reality get in the way of a good two minutes hate, right?
Which brings us back to what constitutes hate speech because, well…the people making the claims of a rise of hate speech on Twitter aren’t exactly forthcoming with their methodology. Although they cite the number of “slurs” being posted, they never provide context. Granted, there are few instances where calling someone a racial, sexual, or other type of slur would be fine, the fact there are some and the lack of transparency of the internal mechanics of the study being promoted as gospel should be enough to make even the most rabid Leftist pause.
Should be, but doesn’t apparently.
This is the time to push back against the Left’s narrative by asking hard questions. How is “hate speech” being defined? What was considered “slurs”? How were these slurs counted? Was context considered in the determination? Do we really need any more Tyler Perry movies?
Although these questions (especially that last one) will remain unanswered most likely, there is one thing that isn’t in dispute: the First Amendment protects hate speech. No matter how many Twitter Leftists repeat the idea it’s not, the US Supreme Court has already ruled it is. And before the Leftists decry this as a racist decision by a right-wing court, Justices Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, and…the Notorious RBG concurred.
Oops.
Even if you disagree with the ruling, and with basic Constitutional principles for that matter, the concept of hate speech online and in general just doesn’t work without understanding intent. In most cases, it’s clear, but if you’re just looking for words and not context, there will be a lot of hits that should have been misses. Or Ms. if you’d prefer.
Without that added context, you’re more likely to find a cost-effective government agency than you are to find a consistent and logical conclusion. You might as well use a blindfold, a dartboard, and several adult beverages to confirm whether something is hate speech. In other words, a more sensible method than we’re using now.
What the Left fails to understand, either purposely or…oh, who are we kidding, is how to combat hate speech. What they want to do is remove it from the public square so no one can see or hear it. All that does is make it more attractive for those looking to push the envelope more than a postal employee working straight commission. It’s the forbidden aspect that makes it so attractive, as Tipper Gore and the Parents Music Resource Center found out way back in the 1980s. Nice to know Leftist still can’t learn from history, though.
The other and ultimately preferable way to fight hate speech is with…brace yourselves…more speech. By letting assholes spout off, they get their feelings off their chests and we can respond by not being assholes. That, and we can find out where the assholes are and know who not to send Christmas cards to, so…win-win! For the most part, I think Musk falls into this camp, which is a good thing for online speech all the way around.
Not that it will convince the Left to stop being hall monitors. Just look at how they treat each other on Mastodon! They need to feel they’re in control, which is why they’re trying to paint Twitter as a cesspool where only racists, sexists, homophobes, transphobes, and other shitty people congregate. That’s why they have to invent a scandal, especially considering their predictions about Twitter going the way of Kanye West’s future endeavors have yet to occur. (Amazing how the same folks who say the Earth is going to end in 10 years as they did in the 80s can’t get predictions right, isn’t it?)
So, I would take the studies showing an increase in hate speech on Twitter with a grain of salt…the size of Mount Everest.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Normally, I wouldn’t go to gun-grabber and utter dumbass David Hogg for information on what time it was, let alone anything else, but this week he gave me a topic I wanted to research in greater detail. In the aftermath of a shooting at Club Q, a gay bar in Colorado Springs, Hogg took to Twitter to complain about stochastic terrorism.
Although the Left has been using this phrase for a few months, they haven’t really defined, except to say it’s violence inspired by those evil right wingers. You know, the ones who said it was okay to loot, burn down buildings, and build oddly-named autonomous zones on city streets…oh, wait…
Since the Left isn’t going to give us an in-depth definition, I guess it’s up to me. Otherwise, you’d just be stuck with the Mastodon piece
I did this week.
stochastic terrorism
What the Left thinks it means – politically-motivated violence designed to harass and hurt Democrats and left-leaning individuals and inspired by conservative leaders and media figures
What it really means – a combination of two words designed to make Leftists sound smart without them actually being smart
Since I’m a word guy, I want to split the term into its component parts as a means to try to understand the totality. Let’s not forget the Left loves to play with language and combine words that don’t go together that well, like climate justice, democratic socialism, and Leftist intellectual.
The word stochastic is a 25 cent word that adds an intellectual heft to the phrase by virtue of sounding impressive. Thanks to our good friends at Dictionary.com, we have the following definition:
of or relating to a process involving a randomly determined sequence of observations each of which is considered as a sample of one element from a probability distribution.
Yeah, I don’t get it either.
After a bit more research (and a bit of common sense), it occurred to me the heart of the word involves probability or random variables. Keep this in mind for a little later because it’s going to become important.
Once again, our good friends at Dictionary.com provide a solid definition of terrorism, but I want to focus on the primary definition:
the unlawful use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government, with the goal of furthering political, social, or ideological objectives
The key word here is “unlawful.” Of course, I’m curious to find an example of a lawful use of violence or threats for coercive purposes, but that’s research for another time. The point here is terrorism is, by definition, illegal, as is inciting violent or criminal actions. Just ask Charlie Manson. Oh, wait, he’s dead.
So, when we put the parts of stochastic terrorism together, we get…a confusing mess. At best, we might be able to simplify the term to mean violence or threats involving probability. And that’s reaaaaaaaaallllllllly being generous to the Left here.
Then, I see how the Left applies the term, and that generosity goes the way of Keith Olbermann’s broadcast career. The way they use it is grossly inaccurate and intellectually dishonest. In other words, the way they usually use language. Relating to the Club Q shooting, Leftists blamed Republicans, Tucker Carlson, Lauren Boebert, Matt Walsh, MAGA Republicans, LibsofTikTok, and I’m sure anybody to the right of Joseph Stalin by now. They’ve also started laying the groundwork for the idea the past year or so of “anti-trans rhetoric” is responsible for the Club Q shooting.
First, a bit of backstory the Left keeps “forgetting” to include in their rush to damnation…I mean judgment. What the Left is calling “anti-trans rhetoric” is a response to what LibsofTikTok has been posting showing…what pro-trans teachers, medical facilities, and events have been posting themselves. Now, I’m not talking posts about trans adults, mind you. I’m talking about pro-trans rhetoric and events aimed at children.
When the aforementioned Republicans/conservatives responded to what these pro-trans PR reps with power willingly posted on their own social media, these reactions got spun from “we have no problems with trans adults, but leave the kids out of this” to “ARGLEBARGLEREPUBLICANSWANTTOKILLALLTRANSPEOPLE!” And that’s just Cenk Uygur!
And it’s through this spin that the Left’s stochastic terrorism’s hat gets hung. Unfortunately for them, it’s also where the hat falls down, lands in a pile of shit, gets puked on by pledges trying to get into a fraternity, lit on fire, thrown into a toxic waste dump (no, not Twitter), and allowed to evolve into the new Senator-Elect of Pennsylvania. Or shipped to New Jersey.
Remember what I said about what stochastic meant? Well…it doesn’t exactly apply here, using the Left’s own logic and the actual definition of the word. What the Left is doing is drawing direct lines between the Right’s rhetoric and the Club Q shooting. Now, if something is based on probability, that would require at least some level of uncertainty, a chance the final result might not happen in spite of the calculations. By targeting the aforementioned Republicans/conservatives directly, that takes away the uncertainty, which undercuts the stochasticity of the situation.
See? Told you it would be important.
Then, there’s the terrorism angle to consider. Remember, terrorism is an unlawful act. If trans people truly feel threatened by what right wing pundits and online accounts are saying, where are the reports to authorities? To my knowledge, none of the people who claim Republicans/conservatives are engaged in stochastic terrorism have filed charges, sought legal counsel, or taken any of the necessary steps to protect themselves within the law.
Now, why would that be? I’m just some old white guy in Iowa, but something tells me the trans people and their supporters know they can’t meet the legal requirements to get an investigation started. At least, without the police or federal agents laughing hysterically for 10 straight minutes over what amounts to hurt fee-fees over social media self-owns.
And to be honest, the lack of legal action is the smart play here, especially considering filing a false police report is pretty much a big no-no. Plus, it opens up a lot of problems for Leftists like Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, the Socialist Socialite, and plenty more whose rhetoric comes a lot closer to stochastic terrorism than anything Tucker Carlson has said. But if Froggy wants to jump, I say jump. Fuck all of the around and find all of the out.
Before, I close this out, I feel I need to make something crystal clear. Not all trans people and their allies are in favor of what some members of their community are doing in the name of trans visibility. In our efforts to root out the bad actors, we need to ensure we’re not catching the good ones in the “OK Groomer” net. If we don’t, we’re going to wind up doing more damage in the long run and play into the Left’s narrative about us.
In the meantime, call out the Left’s bullshit by asking for receipts. Demand they show us what Tucker Carlson or LibsofTikTok said or did that rose to the level of terrorism. Or if you really want to embarrass them, ask them to define stochastic. Make sure to have your phone or web browser handy to show them the actual definition.
And tell them David Hogg sent ya.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week – Black Friday Edition!
To get us all in the holiday shopping move, I decided to whip up a special Lexicon edition! And, no, I don’t have the receipt, so you can’t return it.
With Elon Musk making massive changes at Twitter, Leftists have been of two minds: one, Twitter is dead, and two, there has to be an alternative to Twitter that will be better. Of course, this makes as much sense as a death ray invented for peaceful purposes, but this is the Left we’re dealing with here.
Well, the Left has been promoting Mastodon as just such an alternative. Now, if you’ve never heard of it, don’t be surprised. It’s only been around since 2016, but now Leftists are starting to get the ban hammer for shit they’ve been getting away with for years, they’re looking for any USB port in a storm. Will they find safe harbor there? Will it become as big or bigger than Twitter? Will the Detroit Lions ever win another Thanksgiving Day football game? We’ll find these answers and more!
Mastodon
What the Left thinks it means – a better version of Twitter, post-Musk
What it really means – social media for Leftists who prefer pre-Musk Twitter where they do whatever they want
Whenever there’s a new cultural phenomenon, Leftists tend to do one of two things: co-opt it so it can be turned into a propaganda arm, or try to copy what the Right is doing. As the Left has discovered, it’s easier to do the former than the latter because all the heavy lifting of actually producing something has already been done. All they have to do is show up and find their ways into key positions to drive the propaganda. This has been pretty successful, considering when they’ve tried to imitate the Right (i.e. Err…I mean Air America) they’ve managed to fuck it all up.
This is how the Left got to hold so much power at Twitter and other social media sites like Facebook and YouTube. With the combination of tech-savvy true believers and sympathetic (or just pathetic) corporate leadership, Leftist enjoyed free reign without fear of consequences. After all, as long as they were on the right side of issues (i.e. so far Left it makes Karl Marx look like Milton Friedman), they weren’t doing anything wrong.
I mean, aside from targeted harassment, doxxing people, death threats, and censoring of stories that broke the Leftist narrative, of course.
Once Musk started asking questions, Leftists started circling the wagons to deny what had been a given on both sides of the aisle, and it wasn’t even a secret it was going on. Don’t believe what has been documented numerous times! Believe the narrative (which has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese factory in the middle of gangland shootout)!
Yeah. I’m not even on Twitter and I know the official stance pre-Musk was bullshit. It’s not even a mystery why Leftists and their media pals (redundant, I know) started saying Twitter was turning into a cesspool after Musk took over. It even inspired the idea Twitter would be dead within a week, as predicted by a (now possibly former) employee.
Yeah, that didn’t happen.
So, what does any of this have to do with Mastodon? Aside from the Left’s snowflake (emphasis on flake) attitudes about having to share their sandbox with those icky right wingers, it shows they’re willing to try to ruin another social media platform so they don’t have to share. Just with Musk’s takeover of Twitter, Mastodon saw a boom in users, and judging from the positive press gushing over it, they were mostly Leftists.
Yet, with growing popularity comes increased scrutiny of the tech security and ideological varieties. I won’t go into the tech side of it because a) that’s more Chris’ wheelhouse, and b) I can’t say as I understand the ins and outs well enough to discuss it. From my interpretation of the articles I read, Mastodon’s security may be as effective as Kanye West’s advisor on Jewish affairs.
But on the ideological side? I am so there.
It seems the ban-hammer harpies that used to infest Twitter have already infested Mastodon. In the short time since Leftists fled there, there has been a Ban-A-Palooza against…Leftists! Yep! They’ve started eating their own over there, including noted Leftist Wil Wheaton, apparently for not being woke enough. The irony? Wil loved to block people on Twitter for saying “Shut up, Wesley” on his account. Now, Mastodon has literally shut him up.
Another user was allegedly banned from the site for, get this, being a capitalist. I would be hesitant to run with this story because I haven’t been able to verify it independently. I add it here as a possible example of just how far Mastodon has gone in just a short time.
In thinking about how the Mastodon influx has unfolded (mainly since I can’t watch my Baltimore Ravens on Sundays with any degree of certainty or without having to fork over my immortal soul), I came across an interesting hypothesis, and with everything I’ve found and relayed to you, I have a hard time ignoring it.
Mastodon is a long-term troll against the Left.
Granted, some of these ideas are out there like the Hubble, but let me lay out the case for you.
First, think about how you say the word “Mastodon.” Most people would pronounce the first “o” with an “a” sound, so “Mastadon” instead of “Mastodon.” Now, put a little vocal comma between the second syllable “sto” and the third syllable “don.” Put it all together and you have “Masta Don.” As in “Master Donald Trump.”
Holy Own Goal, Batman!
Then, there’s the bans I mentioned earlier. Not only are they on-brand for Leftists, but they are so on-brand as to throw up red flags that it might be a long game for someone who wants to fuck with the Left, a la Titania McGrath. I’ve always felt one of the best ways to mock Leftists is to hold a mirror up to how they act and crank up the absurdity to 11 (because it’s one higher). If I’m right about Mastodon, they have mastered this so sublimely as to be virtually indistinguishable from the authentic Leftist.
However, I could be wrong and Mastodon is really trying to be a successful competitor to Twitter. If so, I have no qualms about it. Competition tends to make a product or service better, so even if Mastodon is as competitive with Twitter as the Detroit Lions is to, well, just about any other NFL team, there might be enough incentive for Elon Musk to make changes to improve the overall quality of the app. Then again, the Leftist exodus from Twitter has already done that, so well done, sir!
If Mastodon wants to be around longer than a TikTok video, I have a suggestion. Start up other social media alternatives and name them after other prehistoric animals. You know, like…oh, let me spitball here, Pterodactyl, Triceratops, Saber Tooth Tiger, and Tyrannosaurus. Then, merge them all into a single company called Megazord Inc. Maybe include room for a Dragonzord in there, too.
You’re welcome.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
After every election, political leaders, pundits, and squawking heads try to figure out why the two major parties performed the way they did. Leftists, in their infinite (lack of) wisdom, came down hard against one factor they feel helped Republicans retake the House of Representatives: redistricting.
Oh, they still talk about gerrymandering (and still get it wrong when they do), but this time they’re really drilling down on the fact Republican Governors like Ron DeSantis got favorable results from redistricting, i.e. Democrats going down like the New York Yankees in this year’s Major League Baseball postseason. But unlike Leftists, the Bronx Bombers can’t blame DeSantis for a poor performance. Then again, it might just work…
In either case, the Left is trying to get us to believe redistricting has negative connotations, so naturally it’s up to us to uncover real reason Leftists hate redistricting all of the sudden.
redistricting
What the Left thinks it means – a tactic used by Republicans to draw favorable Congressional Districts so more of their candidates win
What it means – a process that is not only legal, but done by both major parties so more of their respective candidates win
Every 10 years, the US government conducts a census, which helps give it a better idea of demographic trends in certain areas. This information gets parlayed into a number of other decisions, including how to draw Congressional Districts. As population surges and ebbs, the shape of each District can change depending on who gets to determine how each District gets to be drawn. Although it varies from state-to-state, the majority of states allow the party in power at the state level to draw the Districts, and it’s supposed to be done in a non-partisan manner.
Yeah, and I have some cryptocurrency in FTX that’s worth billions.
Instead of drawing logical and appropriate Districts, politicians tend to draw them like a drunk Lindsay Lohan with an Etch-A-Sketch. (For you Leftists out there reading this, the link I just posted provides examples of actual gerrymandering, so you can finally figure out what it means. You’re welcome.) And when the party in power controls how the sausage gets made, the Congressional Districts are going to look like a fever-dream combination of Salvador Dali, M.C. Escher, and Pablo Picasso after an LSD bender with Jim Morrison.
Or in simpler terms, like the hosts on “The View” but more logical.
Because of the way most states handle redistricting, control of state legislatures and gubernatorial positions becomes essential. Although the 2022 elections brought the gubernatorial numbers close to even, Republicans still control the majority of state legislatures. In other words, Republicans still have the power to draw districts or Democrats flip more states, whichever comes first before the next census in 2030.
If trends continue, that means 8 more years of Leftist seething over Republicans having any control over elections whatsoever. Provided our good friend Uncle George Soros doesn’t decide to pull more shenanigans to rig who counts the votes, of course…
Thus, we’ve arrived at the real reason why Leftists hate redistricting all of the sudden. Even in the states where they have the ability to affect change, they lack the control in the entire country to enact their ideological goals. And it means they have to deal with…REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS! The horror!
Why, it’s almost as if…Leftists don’t want people to be in control of who they elect…unless it’s one of their approved candidates! But I’m sure that’s not true. Only a bunch of emotionally stunted insecure adult-babies would think that way, right?
So, how do we address the problem of drawing Congressional Districts the shape of Olive Oyl with a bad case of scoliosis? Some states have non-partisan committees that meet to agree upon redistricting, and some states even allow the committee’s recommendations to be vetoed. Simple, easy, and fair, right? In theory, yes, but when politics gets involved, the practice may not always follow the theory.
Let’s take one of the hot spots from the midterms, Arizona. Under the state guidelines, there are 25 seats available, with 10 going to Democrats, 10 to Republicans, and 5 to unaffiliated citizens. If the 20 politically-affiliated members are deadlocked, logic would suggest all decisions would come down to which side persuaded the 5 unaffiliated members.
That would work…except the GOP tends not to be so monolithic in approach. Yes, the state that gave us conservative stalwart J. D. Hayworth also gave us John McCain, which means the Arizona GOP can have more identities than Sybil. That tends to work in favor of Democrats, whose hivemind approach makes ganging up…I mean carefully considering the drawing of district boundaries a lot easier on them.
Even if you’re not sold on the partisanship angle, here is the most recent finalized redistricting map the commission put together. If this is the best a crack team of officials can come up with, maybe we should assume they’re all on crack and move on from there.
Having said that, I’m not completely down on the idea of the non-partisan committee drawing up Congressional Districts. I just think the idea needs to be tweaked a bit. For example, do we really need 25 people to make a decision like this? Fuck no! Pick one person at random from the active and eligible voting base in each District, or in the cases of states that only have one District, 3 to 5. Since it’s random, the political fuckery will be lessened.
From there, each member has to review the existing map and be able to speak to why it is the way it is. The more these members learn about the districts, the more likely they’re going to find out where the bullshit is. After a certain amount of time (say, a week), they convene to discuss what they’ve found and how to redraw the Districts if needed. When there are disputes arising from practical concerns, the committee as a whole votes on it with majority rule. In case of a tie (because this is going to happen), the Districts in question stay the way they are.
In the case of ideological concerns causing redistricting trouble, though, those will automatically be non-starters. We’re trying to draw Congressional Districts, not play a live action game of Risk here.
I will admit there are bound to be flaws in my idea (and I’m sure people will let me know how much of a dumbass I am for even thinking up the idea), but compared to what we have now, it’s bound to be better.