Category: Media

Project 2025: What They Don’t Want to Tell You!

Although my hetero lifemate Chris did a fantastic job at discussing Project 2025 in a recent post, I wanted to weigh in a bit more on this subject, too. In the land of social media, there was a lot of buzz surrounding what was in this evil plan to take over America and turn it into a dystopian nightmare (even though it didn’t happen the first time Donald Trump was President), but now it’s super-duper-serious! There’s actually…a plan!!!!!!

Over the past several months, I have compiled a number of statements about Project 2025 and what it will totally definitely do once Donald Trump makes it official. What I’m about to list are actual statements made by people who at least resemble adults. Parental discretion is advised.

End No Fault Divorce

Complete ban on abortions without exceptions

Ban contraceptives

Additional tax breaks for the 1% and corporations

Higher taxes for the working class

Elimination of unions and worker protections

Raise the retirement age

Cut Social Security

Cut Medicare

End the Affordable Care Act

Raise prescription drug prices

Eliminate the Department of Education

Use public, taxpayer money for private religious schools

End free and discounted school lunch programs

End civil rights and DEI protections in government

Ban African American and gender studies in all levels of education

Deregulate big business and the oil industry

Promote and expedite capital punishment

End marriage equality

Condemn single mothers while promoting only “traditional families”

Defund the FBI and Homeland Security

Use the military to break up domestic protests

Mass deportation of immigrants and incarceration in “camps”

End birth right citizenship

Ban Muslims from entering the country

Continue to pack the Supreme Court and lower courts with right-wing justices

Connected to Donald Trump

End programs that address climate change

End public education

Persecute LGBTQ+ Americans

Encourage racial discrimination

Mass deportation and reduce immigration

Insert Christian Nationalist ideology into the mainstream

Give unchecked power to the President

Restrict IVF access

Family separation

Muslim ban

Tax cuts for the ultra wealthy

Replace civil servants with MAGA loyalists

Guns in classrooms

Order prosecution of political opponents

Pardon January 6 insurrectionists

Pathway for Trump to become permanent dictator

Put Medicare on the path to privatization

Repeal President Biden’s drug price negotation program

Threaten Medicare coverage

Reverse the Biden Administration’s student debt relief efforts

Withdraw from the UN Framework Convention on climate change and the Paris Climate Agreement

Repeal the Inflation Reduction Act

Shred greenhouse gas regulations and gut clean energy programs

Replace the WH climate advisor with someone focused on boosting fossil fuels

Give Trump the power to reject all climate science research directed by the Biden Administraiton

Gut the federal workforce and install loyalists

Allow Trump to deploy the military against American citizens

Allow ICE to conduct raids at schools, churches, hospitals, playgrounds, and other sensitve areas

Make federal government establish marriage between a man and a woman
Withdraw federal anti-discrimination protections for transgender students

Reimplement Trump’s transgender military ban and expel transgender service members

Reverse the FDA’s approval of abortion medication
Invoke the Comstock Act to ban the shipment of abortion pills

Compel states to report the “reason” for every abortion performed

Allow states to ban employers from providing health benefits that cover abortion care

Eliminate the Department of Education

Use public funds to pay for private religious schools

Encourage Christian indoctrination through public schools

Dismantle Civil Rights and DEI protections at all level of government

Eliminate no fault divorce

Total ban on abortions regardless of viability or health of the mother

Ban all contraceptives

Ban African American and Gender studies at all levels of education

Tax cuts for major corporations and 1% while increasing taxes on the rest

Eliminating unions and all worker protections

Eliminating all climate protections

Encourages arctic drilling

Eliminating regulations of big business and oil

Raise retirement age

Eliminate Social Security for the elderly and disabled

Promotes capital punishment and the speedy “finality” of such sentences

Condemns single mothers while encouraging “traditional families”

Only recognize traditional families by overturning Obergefell v Hodges in attempts to eliminate LBGTQIA community

Dismantling the FBI and Homeland Security

Use of military to break up protests

Eliminating Head Start and the free/discounted school lunch program

Banning books and curriculum regarding slavery

Forcing immigrants to be deported or held in camps and ends birth right citizenship

Banning Muslims from entering the country

Dismantles the FDA, EPA, NOAA, and more

Pack the Supreme Court with extreme far-right judges

Funding decrease for the DOJ

Dismantling the DOC

Dismantling the DHS

Eliminate independence for the FCC and FTC

Terminate DEI programs

Implement “unitary executive theory” expand the power of the President

Restructure and repurpose the DOJ

Replace career federal employees with hand-picked loyalists

Reverse FDA approval of Mifepristone

Rename HHS “Department of Life”

Add work requirements to receive Medicaid

Condemn single motherhood and same-sex marriage

Eliminate the terms “sexual orientation,” “diversity, equality, and Inclusion,” “gender equality,” “abortion” and “reproductive rights” from all laws and federal regulations

Terminates the Constitution

Guts democratic checks and balances on Presidential power

Ban President Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure law

Cease support for international organizations that promote LBGTQ+ equality

Stopping cybersecurity efforts to combat mis- and disinformation

Deprioritize DACA

Abolish the Gender Policy Council

Cutting ties with China

Reversing protections against discrimination in housing.

Tracking potential employees’ opinions

Employers can cut or eliminate overtime


Pretty extensive list. I will warn you there may be duplicates because a) there are so many ways to phrase the same thing, and b) Leftists aren’t that imaginative.

As I promised in the title, I am going to tell you something they don’t want you to know about Project 2025. Brace yourselves because I’m about to drop a truth bomb on you.

Almost everything the Left tells us about Project 2025 is complete bullshit.

I’ll give you a moment to catch your breaths.

Ready? Here we go.

One of the most common traits of each of the things said about Project 2025 listed above (and others that I didn’t catch) is the lack of attribution. Out of the claims I posted, only 1 gave a page number. And since I had a handy-dandy copy of the Project 2025 document, I was able to look up the page number and read what the poster claimed was there. And, surprise surprise, it wasn’t. It was a gross misrepresentation of what the document actually said.

That means the vast majority of claims made were made without a page number, just a “trust me, bro” as its attribution. So, when I looked for the verbiage used in the claims and came up emptier than a Kamala Harris victory party, that was a huge red flag that the post was utter bullshit. To borrow a phrase from the late Christopher Hitchens:

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

That may have worked well for Mr. Hitchens, but I’m more of a research nut, so I took the additional (and, admittedly, unnecessary) effort to look it up myself. Then, I could say what I found, point to what section(s) I read, and give more attribution than the poster could muster.

And, as you might expect, that wasn’t met with respect and an honest appreciation for finding the facts. Let’s just say the people I interacted with were on a really long boat trip in Egypt. If I didn’t know any better, I’d say the Left was…lying.

I’m kidding. Of course I know they were lying, but they don’t want to tell you that. Hence the title.

And with that, we’ve come full circle! I love it when a blog post comes together.

Extremist Makeover: MSNBC Edition

If the 2024 elections taught me anything, it’s how much the mainstream media’s influence is waning. And by waning, I mean tanking more than Michael Dukakis in a helmet. And if you got that reference, you are officially old. Welcome to the club!

But there’s one cable news network that has been hit the hardest: MSNBC, or as I call it “the Bluesky of cable news.” (And, for you MSNBC viewers out there, that’s not a positive thing.) Ratings are down, NBC is considering splitting MSNBC from its holdings (it’s not them, it’s you), and even high profile stars like Rachel Maddow are having to take pay cuts.

If anyone needed an Extremist Makeover, it’s MSNBC. Good thing I’m here to help!

Right now, MSNBC is directionless. They can go back to being the “Orange Man Bad” channel (as if they ever stopped), but that route has diminishing returns in its future. They’ve lost a lot of credibility following every Trump-related conspiracy theory and inviting on figures like Adam Schiff to perpetuate those conspiracy theories. They’re behind the times when it comes to reverting back to more straight news, as CNN has already tried to take a step back towards the middle from the hinterlands of Leftistinistan.

Not exactly an enviable position to say the least!

There are two choices that come to mind, neither one attractive in the grand scheme, but necessary to try to sustain an audience. The first is to try to appeal to the middle ground. You can still have Rachel Maddow, but you would also need someone on the other side (preferably not from the not-quite-as-insane-as-Joy-Reid-but-you-can-see-her-sanitarium-from-here group) to balance the scales and offer a different perspective.

And speaking of Joy Reid, you’re gonna have to let her go, as well as a few others. Al Sharpton, Lawrence O’Donnell, Chris Hayes, and hosts of others shouldn’t even be allowed in the newsroom if they were getting coffee for the real journalists. They should rightly be shown the door if for no other reason than to eliminate redundancies. Heck, Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow are practically twins as it is, so why not get rid of the less talented one?

A change in ownership may also be in MSNBC’s future, which could go a long ways towards righting this left-leaning ship. One of the names being bandied about is Elon Musk, who knows a thing or two about bringing balance to a media outlet, as all the Leftists fleeing the Social Media Site Formerly Known As Twitter can attest. Or would if you didn’t get banned off Bluesky for not being Leftist enough.

On the other hand, it may be too late for MSNBC to gain any amount of credibility in the eyes of the media consuming public. In that case, maybe it’s time to lean into the nitwit Leftist conspiracy theories. Go all out! Rename yourself MSNBlueAnonC and let anyone with an idea that makes Trump look like the Dictator-du-jour. Is there fluoride in your drinking water? Trump did it! Step in some dog waste on your way into a San Francisco Whole Foods? Trump literally just took a dump right there! Make the Weekly World News look like the New York Times!

Wait, wait. I have to apologize for that last line. In no way, shape, or form was I attempting to question the journalistic integrity and prowess of a highly respected newspaper by comparing it to the New York Times. I’m sorry. Now please don’t sic Bat Boy on me!

Anyway, if you’re going to cater to the marginally coherent crowd, make sure it’s the best catering you can do. Sure, this will further tank your credibility and will shrink your audience smaller than the number of people who still want to see the Snow White movie when/if it comes out, but it will be fun. And when you really think about it, if you know you’re on the Titanic and about to plunge to an icy demise, why not have a little fun with it? Do the biggest cannonball you can and never regret it for a second!

Either way, I hope you folks at MSNBC take my advice. Especially on that second option because, although I can’t guarantee its success, I can guarantee it will make me laugh a lot.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Hollywood loves reboots like they love hookers and blow, and they really love hookers and blow. Sometimes these reboots work out (like the updated version of the Planet of the Apes movies, minus the Tim Buron-directed abomination). Sometimes they don’t (like the flaming shit-show that is the unreleased “Snow White”).

When Elon Musk bought Twitter and turned it into the Social Media Platform Formerly Known as Twitter, Leftists started looking for alternatives because they would no longer be able to count on high-ranking Leftists to censor those icky conservatives opinions that didn’t violate the Terms of Service, but did violate their fee-fees.

Now, they’ve found one, a little thing the kids like to call Bluesky. It’s relatively new, but it’s already boasting over 20 million users with a lot of them being former X users (so ex-X users. Thank you! Tip your waitstaff!) departing the social media site after Donald Trump won the Presidency for a second time with help from Elon Musk.

So, shall we take a trip into the Blue-niverse? (Thank you! Please hold your applause!) Even if you don’t want to, we’re going!

Bluesky

What the Left thinks it means – a social media site where like-minded people can share their opinions without fear of being censored by right wingers

What it really means – the digital version of Air America

After decades of having control over most of the popular media of the time, Leftists have had to adapt to a new environment where their control was no longer as secure as it once was. Talk radio, lead by the late Rush Limbaugh, started becoming the alternative to the squawking heads people once looked to for news. And, yes, there are plenty of examples of talk radio hosts getting shit wrong, but it didn’t matter. The Left no longer controlled the flow of information.

As a result, Leftists tried to ride the wave of talk radio success by creating Air America. Basically, what the brain trust behind it thought was all they had to do was replace Rush Limbaugh with Al Franken and watch the money roll in. Only, it didn’t. Talk radio wasn’t plug-and-play. You actually had to have personalities people want to listen to, and Air America really didn’t. Oh, they had an audience, but it was far smaller than the normal talk radio audience. Say what you will about Limbaugh, he knew how to entertain (which is ironic because Al Franken was on “Saturday Night Live” when it was actually funny).

And then Air America came in with a whimper and went out with a popcorn fart. You’re lucky to find anyone around my age to even remember Air America was something other than a Mel Gibson movie these days, and the only reason I remember it is because I’m just that lame. Nevertheless, the point is Leftists really don’t know how to catch up when someone outside of their ideological bubble races ahead of them.

Which brings us to Bluesky.

What Musk has done for X is so logical, it’s no surprise Leftists hate it. Instead of letting one side of the political aisle run roughshod over anyone who disagreed with their enlightened (and utterly dumb) opinions, Musk brought at least some semblance of neutrality to the platform. Which pissed off Leftists to no end. After all, if there’s one thing Leftists hate more than Donald Trump and Elon Musk, it’s having their positions challenged in any way. So, after spending all this time talking smack about the platform (while still on said platform), they took their balls and went home…to Bluesky.

Now, I’m not going to say it’s a flaming Port-A-Potty over there because, well, that would be unfair to flaming Port-A-Potties. Oh, sure, you’ll still find decent posts about nature and science, but most of the stuff being posted on there is straight-up Beyond Thunderdome shit. Aside from being accused of censoring conservative viewpoints as well as pro-Palestinian posts, they’re driving other Leftists away for…dare I say it…not being Leftist enough.

Great way to build up the world’s most tolerant echo chamber!

In the post-election environment we find ourselves in, this isn’t all that unusual. Leftists always look for people to blame for their election failures because it’s a hell of a lot easier than saying, “Ya know, we really fucked up here.” With Bluesky, the only difference is the venue.

Oh, and the level of batshit insanity.

Fortunately, you don’t have to go on Bluesky to see it. Some brave soul is going into Bluesky and picking out the best of the worst and putting it on X. Whomever you are, my few remaining brain cells and I thank you.

If you don’t want to get an X account (like your humble correspondent), there is still humor to be found out of the batshit insanity when you consider the possibility the Bluesky Leftists are screaming into the void (albeit an intellectual one) of their own creation. Then, it becomes a contest to try to “prove” how Leftist you are, which will lead to more fighting with the freak show.

Cue Thunderdome! Two Leftists enter, one Leftist leaves!

And we’ll have to deal with a potential shortage of popcorn…






Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

With the reelection of Donald Trump, Leftists took the realization Queen Kamala the Appointed wasn’t going to be President as well as you’d expect: by being bat-shit insane. I mean, even worse than they normally are, which is saying a lot from an ideological group that thinks trans women can get pregnant.

Well, some of those trans men may have to pick up the slack, thanks to a movement Leftists women adopted in the wake of Trump’s victory. It’s called the 4B movement, and it’s…well, we’ll get into that after the break.

4B movement

What the Left thinks it means – women protesting the patriarchy by cutting off any relationship or sexual ties with men

What it really means – Leftist women co-opting a movement because Orange Man Bad

The origins of 4B has its roots in a South Korean feminist movement in the mid-to-late-2010s. The tenets of 4B are as follows:

no sex with men
no giving birth
no dating men
no marriage with men

In other words, my dating history prior to meeting my wife.

The driving force behind 4B is a desire to reject the “normal” family dynamic and the male-dominated culture that perpetuates it. Given the culture in South Korea and the challenges women face as a result of it, there is a legitimate need for such a movement, even if I may not align with them politically. I firmly believe there are things women can do as well as a man, if not better, and that women should be given the chance to succeed or fail on their merits.

So, naturally, Leftist women in America have to go and fuck it up.

Before they could get warmed up for their epic meltdowns, Leftist women were looking into 4B thanks to social media. Yes, the same outlets where people do stupid dances or post images of food are responsible for this movement coming to our shores. To which I say fuck you very much.

Or not.

And the thought behind this is just as shallow as the “influencers” on the aforementioned social media sites. Because Donald Trump appointed Supreme Court Justices who…horror of horrors…told the country abortion was a state issue, the misogyny of men not wanting to vote for Queen Kamala the Appointed because she ran a campaign so bad it made Walter Mondale circa 1984 look like Ronald Reagan circa 1984, and Orange Man Bad, of course, Leftist women are going to…adopt conservative values.

Holy self-own, Batman!

But it gets even better when you consider the Left’s fascination with abortion. Not only was it one of Queen Kamala the Appointed’s campaign cornerstones, but it’s a wedge issue that has worked time and time again in getting votes from a wide swath of the female population. Didn’t work this time, but that’s a blog post for another day.

Anyway, imagine the impact of Leftist women not having sex. Aside from making Tinder a lot easier for horny men to find a hook-up, it has the potential to reduce the number of abortions done. And what was one of the reason Leftist women want to adopt 4B?

Abortion rights.

Looks like Planned Parenthood is going to need even more federal funds to keep the doors open. Good luck with that with the incoming Administration and Congress, ladies.

To make matters worse (and by worse I mean a lot funnier), Leftist women are doing everything they can to repel men. Many are shaving their heads, getting tattoos or blue bracelets to show they voted for Queen Kamala the Appointed (and, thus, “safe”), or even suggesting men should be poisoned. Because that’s completely rational and totally not ultra-turbo-psycho-bitch behavior.

There are a lot of jokes I could make about Leftist women taking this tack, like how a significant chunk of the women backing 4B in America won’t have to worry about ever needing to get an abortion because they are less likely to have sex than an Amish eunuch, but that’s not what I do. That kind of superficiality only matches the superficiality of the women deciding to adopt 4B and, to be frank (or if you prefer, Steve), they really don’t deserve it.

Now, pointing and laughing, on the other hand…

Seriously, kids, it’s hard for me to take the Americanized version of 4B seriously because it makes no sense on any level and it reduces women to their lady parts…which is what a lot of immature men already do. Leftists believe women’s vaginas create a sisterhood that requires all women to think, speak, and most importantly vote a certain way. Otherwise you’re betraying your gender.

Unless, of course, there are women to the right of Gloria Steinem. Then, fuck those women!

But there is no such sisterhood, and there never has been. Men don’t think, act, and vote a certain way because we all have dicks. We do that because we’re men. We are pretty simple creatures when you get right down to it. It’s hard-wired into our DNA from Ug on down.

Women, by contrast, are much more complex, and I for one am glad for that. The females of the species are more in tune with their emotions (which explains a lot about the Leftist women signing on for 4 years of 4B when you think about it) because it’s hard-wired into their DNA. A woman is a marvel of creation, able to be a fierce lover and a fierce fighter depending on the situation, being the one responsible for carrying life within her body, and having the intelligence to guide her male counterpart towards a better way.

But Leftist women believe in the Sisterhood of the Traveling Vajayjay.

Call me crazy (and I’m sure you will if you haven’t already), but that comes off as incredibly condescending and, dare I say it (Spoiler Alert: I do dare), rather misogynistic. By viewing everything through the pussy prism, Leftists strip away everything that makes women special and turns them into objects without agency. As bad as you Leftists think Donald Trump is, you aren’t much better.

It will be interesting to see how long Leftist women will keep up with the tenets of 4B. It might last as long as a TikTok dance fad or go on and on like “The View.” In either case, I think I can speak for a good chunk of the American male population with this simple sentence.

Your terms are acceptable.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Every election cycle has its share of “I can’t believe that shit happened” moments, and Election 2024 is no exception. Seeing a major party candidate working at a McDonalds drive-thru and then riding around in a garbage truck just to mock Queen Kamala the Appointed and her sycophants? That’s what passes for normal these days.

But what isn’t so normal, at least to Leftists, is Queen Kamala not getting endorsements from major newspapers like the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and USA Today. As you might expect, the Left didn’t take this very well. I mean, this is the most important Presidential election in world history (you know, since the last one), and Queen Kamala the Appointed needs every possible endorsement she can get because ORANGE MAN BAD! Who cares about maintaining a veneer of neutrality and not pissing off potential customers to the right of Vladimir Lenin? This is much more important because if Donald Trump gets reelected, he’s going to destroy the mainstream media and put political enemies in concentration camps!

Do you Leftists want me to vote for Trump? Because this is how you get me to vote for Trump!

Seriously, though, this got me to thinking (a scary thought in and of itself) about endorsements in the social media age and why Leftists think it’s important to get them. The answer, my friends, is blowing in the wind…or might be in this edition of the Leftist Lexicon. You know, whichever.

endorsements

What the Left thinks it means – vital messages from important sources designed to inspire you to vote for a candidate

What it really means – not-that-important messages from sources of varying degrees of presumed importance designed to make you believe bullshit

There was a time in our history when you could reasonably depend on newspapers, magazines, and TV news to give you the straight scoop on what was going on around the world and in your backyards. How they got access to my backyard I’m not sure, but the point is their words meant something. So, when a newspaper’s editorial board sat down and decided to support a candidate, it was meaningful.

That was before Leftists found their ways into journalism and into those editorial meetings. Recent history shows there has been a shift in who gets the nod in newspaper endorsements and, although Republicans over the past 50 years have dominated the endorsement game, Democrats have been reaching parity (as opposed to them reaching parody, which they do quite unintentionally). And, to be honest, as newspapers have wandered more Leftward, the endorsements have gotten as predictable as a Michael Bay movie with much fewer explosions.

Now, as media outlets are less popular than used car salesmen with an infectious disease, the time of the political endorsement meaning something may have passed. Not only are traditional media considered to be dinosaurs, but the advent of social media has pretty much made their roles in society obsolete. Why wait until 5 or 6 PM to hear your local talking heads tell you about a news story when you can jump onto the Interwebs and see how your favorite YouTuber thinks? And what better way to get the pulse of the nation than to log on to TikTok, Instagram, and the Social Media Platform Formerly Known as Twitter?

So, why did the Left lose their collectivist shit over the lack of an endorsement from three major newspapers? Control, my dear readers. One of the ways the Left controls the narrative in many cases is because they control the dissemination of it. Donald Trump could come out and say, “I love cats,” and the mainstream press would run “Trump Hates Dogs” stories until the cows come home. Or “The View” wraps up shooting for the day.

I’m sorry. That was mean. I apologize to all the cows offended by being compared to the shrieking harpies on “The View.”

Anyway, when Leftists saw Jeff Bezos making a smart business decision at a newspaper that lost $77 million in 2023 by not pissing off potential readers, they saw it as a betrayal. Oh, sure, they couch it by lamenting the lack of journalistic courage, but it was much more personal. Bezos, a loyal member of the Leftist hivemind, didn’t carry water for Queen Kamala the Appointed by approving a puff piece telling us all how Her Majesty would be better than Trump because…ORANGE MAN BAD!

Without the word of the Washington Post to bolster Queen Kamala the Appointed’s Presidential clusterfuck…I mean campaign, it hurts her chances of becoming President, even though high profile publications have already done so. After all, the Left has to speak in one voice, mainly because they share the same weakened brain cell. Anyone wh0 doesn’t echo that sentiment down to the decibel is automatically considered to be an enemy.

So, Mr. Bezos, welcome to the club.

Where the control element comes into play is the implication of so many high profile publications backing Queen Kamala’s candidacy. If well-known newspapers back one candidate over another, there’s a level of credibility that comes with that endorsement. Think of it like a celebrity endorsement of a product, only for news nerds like your humble correspondent.

Ah, but that credibility comes with a catch in the form of a logical fallacy called ad populum. Simply put, an ad populum argument is when a conclusion is presumed to be true because many people believe it to be true. To put it in this particular context, getting a number of newspapers to agree Queen Kamala the Appointed is the best Presidential candidate out there would be enough to convince potential voters to vote for her because everybody else is doing it.

Anyone who remembers trying to use that line on parents who weren’t trying to be their kids’ friends knows how well that worked. And for the record, Mom, I didn’t jump off the railroad bridge because Mikey Schooner did it. That was my dumbass idea!

And it’s the Left’s dumbass idea to overreact to the lack of Presidential endorsements by quitting their jobs and canceling their subscriptions. In the case of the Washington Post, it’s a way for them to get rid of shitty employees and save money in the process. Fucking brilliant!

More to the point, the time of a newspaper endorsing a candidate and having it mean anything has passed. I’m a news nerd and even I can’t give a shit about what newspaper endorses what candidate because I have my own shit to worry about. I have a family to take care of, a roof to keep over our heads, bills that need to be paid, groceries that need to be bought, gas that needs to be bought so my wife and I can continue to go to work to afford the shit people like Queen Kamala the Appointed made more expensive because they know fuck-all about economics.

And if you think I’m going to say, “You know, I need four more years of this economic shitshow” because some newspaper says Queen Kamala is great, you’re dumber than a Leftist, and that’s a pretty big accomplishment.





Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

As Election Day looms over our heads like the Sword of Damocles, Queen Kamala the Appointed is trying to shore up as many voters as she can to try to deny Donald Trump. Let’s just say it hasn’t gone well. Even captain of the Exxon Valdez Joseph Hazelwood is saying the Harris/Walz campaign is a disaster.

And speaking of reaches for humorous intent, there’s a group called White Dudes for Harris who recently put out a…well, one of the dumbfuckiest ads I’ve ever had the misfortune of seeing. And it only cost $10 million! Not to be out dumbfucked, some genius decided to put professional actors in an ad about how real men support Queen Kamala the Appointed.

Someone get Bath and Body Works on the horn. I think I may have found who okayed their snowflake candle packaging!

Either way, I find it interesting the Left is suddenly interested in masculinity as a positive attribute. Usually, Leftists hate all men, even the ones who agree with them in an attempt to get a laid…not that I know anything about that, mind you. Meanwhile, we have a Lexicon entry to get to!

masculinity

What the Left thinks it means – the way a man acts, talks, dresses, and so forth

What it really means – a subject about which Leftists know nothing, which isn’t that different from any other subject when you think about it

One of the things I like best about my life is I remember what things were like before the shit hit the fan. Back in my day, men were men and women were men and everybody was really confused. Seriously, though, we may have any number of men as role models each representing a different facet of the male experience (think Tom Selleck and Boy George), and people were okay with it.

Except for Leftists.

Somewhere between the second and third wave of feminism, men became an appendix with a credit line: fun for a while, but ultimately useless. Soon, the only way a man could get anywhere near a woman without being called a rapist was for the man to completely reject his masculinity, and even then you weren’t safe from scrutiny. Being a guy in the late 80s and throughout the 90s was a minefield of potential bad mistakes. And I’m not just talking about the 3 AM hookups…not that I know anything about that, mind you.

This attitude found its way into politics. (The man-hating, not the 3 AM hookups.) You couldn’t swing a dead cat (and, really, why would you) without hitting a horndog male politician who got caught in a sexual situation because, well, men. But even when that aforementioned cat hit that aforementioned horndog, there had to be exceptions for politicians who acted poorly, but supported the right politics.

And the biggest example of the eternal Hall Pass was Slick Willie himself, Bill Clinton. Leftists went from hating white male politicians to wanting to service the Commander In Briefs just for protecting abortion rights. To the Left, Clinton was the epitome of masculinity, genital warts and all.

As funny as it was to see Leftists throw away their self-imposed standards to back a man who only used them for his own satisfaction (and also to win elections), it gave me insight into just how the Left feels about masculinity.

They don’t know what the fuck it is, but they’re damn sure going to try to define it.

And as you might expect, they’re doing a shitty job of it. When they’re not saying gender is a spectrum or is a social construct, they’re saying men can have periods, have babies, and can even redefine womanhood. And you thought outsourcing jobs was bad!

Yet, in spite of their attempts to remake men into Dylan Mulvaney clones, not every guy wants to get rid of masculinity. They’re happy doing guy shit, like working on cars, hunting, and so forth. So how do Leftists try to win over these potential voters? You guessed it, by talking down to them like they were idiots. Granted, depending on where you go the odds might be in their favor, but from a political standpoint, it’s a losing strategy.

Just as Queen Kamala the Appointed found out. When she saw her numbers among white male voters sink lower than an earthworm’s cock ring, someone had the brilliant idea of trying to appeal to male voters by…hosting a White Dudes For Harris Zoom call with Leftist white dudes! Sign me up for that!

For any Leftists out there reading this, that was sarcasm.

The Harris/Walz campaign has leaned heavily into what they think masculinity should be. And their lapdogs in the media are helping. Reuters devoted time and energy to painting Tim Walz as an evolved man (all while trying to appear to be a normal guy working on his truck and hunting). Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff is being fawned over for redefining masculinity. (His first wife could not be reached for comment.)

And the whipped cream on top of this shit sundae (or any day for that matter) is the term Leftists have created to describe the Walz/Emhoff model of masculinity: nontoxic masculinity. I’ll save you a click: it’s basically being a man that would make Richard Simmons look like Chuck Norris.

That opens up a whole new Costco-sized can of worms that loops back to the point I made earlier about how little Leftists understand men. The Left have defined toxic masculinity as a series of negative traits like dominance and emotional distance that are typically seen as preferred masculine traits. Apparently, the people behind this concept have never been married. (PS, I love you, honey! Please stop watching “Deadly Wives.”)

Although there is some merit to not exhibiting the more negative elements of masculinity, there’s a lot more under the surface that complicates things. For one, men are different than women. I know. It shocked me, too. But even I have to repeat this fact to the Left (who are soooooo much smarter than us, by the way) because of how little the Left knows about masculinity.

Some of the traits attributed to toxic masculinity are hard-wired into the male experience. Back in the old days (affectionately known as my childhood), men didn’t have time to process emotions because they were too busy trying to survive. Men were (and still are) hunters and gatherers at heart. If they fail to come through in providing for their families, there are negative implications. Granted, these days those implications may be limited to having to spend the night on the old musty futon in the basement, but the principle is the same. Men are seen as providers, and with that comes a lot of responsibility and psychological baggage.

And the Left thinks putting a flannel shirt on a guy who doesn’t know a fuel pump from a pumpkin spice latte is better.

Here’s the thing. Masculinity, much like Queen Kamala the Appointed’s policy positions, is vague, can cover a lot of ground, and is often contradictory depending on the day. As a result, trying to redefine it to fit a current political need is pointless. And extremely comical, as the most recent “I’m a man supporting Kamala Harris” ad was.

What made this ad so funny was in how superficial the men were in it. The more I thought about it, the more it reminded me of something. Then, it hit me.

The guys in the ad…were the modern day Village People. The cowboy, the gym bro, the farmer, all stereotypical male archetypes. And the old guy could easily pass as a biker! All they needed was a cop and a sailor and they could go on tour. Maybe they could open for man-turned-pretend-woman Dylan Mulvaney, who could sing his rendition of a song from “The Book of Mormon” called “Man Up.”

Trust me, Leftists. That tour will bring out tens and tens of fans.

The other comparison I can make involves a talk radio network I affectionately call Err America. Billed as the liberal alternative to talk radio, they did their best to copy the success Rush Limbaugh and others experienced. And they failed, mainly for the same reason the Harris/Walz campaign is failing with men: they went with the stereotype instead of finding the deeper context that would have made them at least somewhat credible as an alternative.

So, that’s where we are with the Leftist view of masculinity. In their attempts to attract male voters, they have exposed a glaring weakness in their philosophy about it, and they are getting slammed for it. And rightly so.

Plus, it’s hypocritical (and, therefore, utterly mockworthy) for the Left to say gender is whatever you want it to be while at the same time extolling the virtues of what they think are real men…who just happen to want Queen Kamala the Appointed to be President. The whole concept of masculinity doesn’t revolve around what box you check on your ballot in November. It’s goes a lot deeper, and the Left clearly doesn’t want to take the time to figure it out. As a result, their “outreach” becomes a comical attempt at pandering that is all show and no go.

But I’m sure the Left would never try that backwards approach with people of different races…or genders…or sexual orientations…or religions…

Extremist Makeover: Harris/Walz 2024 Edition

With Election Day only (thankfully) a few weeks away, people who have lives are starting to pay attention to the two major party candidates. Even with her campaign of joy (which sounds a lot like the Hope and Change campaign of Barack Obama), many voters still aren’t sure what to make of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. What exactly do they bring to the table?

That’s…hard to explain at this point, mainly because the candidates themselves aren’t talking much to reporters, and those reporters who do talk to them throw more softballs than a pitching machine full of Nerf balls. Needless to say, the Harris/Walz ticket is not burning up the campaign season, even though their friends in the media are doing everything in their power to explain away the ticket’s lack of talkativeness.

Well, I’m here to help. Sure, I’m not going to vote for Barack Obama 2.0 and the Mirror Universe Dick Cheney ticket, but I still want to help, and I think I have a way.

First off, it’s time to drop the easy “We’re Not Trump/Vance” strategy. We know you’re not them, but we do notice you’re taking a few of their ideas to make them your own. You learned well from the current President, Madame VP!

Anyway, the point is it’s not enough to say who you aren’t. You have to convince people of who you are. And that may be a problem in and of itself. For politicians of all stripes, honesty isn’t the best policy, nor does it make for the best policy statements. Right now, the Democrats have a loose coalition of special interest groups that all want the same things often at the expense of other members of the aforementioned coalition. That makes it hard to appeal to a wide swath of voting blocs.

Hard, but not impossible.

With reviews of the Harris/Walz media tours being more negative than a Goth nihilist reading Sylvia Plath (or a typical Gen Xer for that matter), it may be time for a different approach to campaigning as a whole. The current President managed to win the White House by staying in his basement and having his messaging be extremely controlled for reasons we now understand. With all of the questions surrounding the Harris/Walz ticket, though, that’s not gonna work.

So, let me borrow something from my childhood and retool it for the modern day. Back when I was a wee lad, we had these books called Choose Your Own Adventure. For those of you unfamiliar with the series, you controlled where the story went based upon decisions you made, which each decision being played out on a page specified in the book. If you decided to go into the spooky looking house, turn to page 43. If you decided to walk past the spooky looking house, turn to page 59. If you decided to buy the spooky looking house and turn it into an apartment complex, turn to your local real estate office. That sort of thing.

In this particular situation, I think the Choose Your Own Adventure concept could be useful. It would just take some work from campaign staffers to make it happen. And it can start with the Harris/Walz website.

Instead of putting together an expansive laundry list of policy positions, turn it into a Choose Your Own Adventure game. If you want to ban fracking, go to page 28 of the Harris/Walz policy book. If you don’t want to ban fracking, go to page 18 of the Harris/Walz policy book. Then, each page would outline that particular decision’s outcome and instruct the reader to make another decision which will take him/her to a different page, and so on. It may not be the most innovative, but it would be a nice change of pace from the current campaign status quo.

Plus, think of how much easier interviews would go! If a reporter had a question, he or she could just play along and find the answer. No more embarrassing word salads! And if a hostile reporter or a political talking head says, “But that contradicts what’s on page X,” you can point out how that was based on a decision made on a different page. Pretty nifty if you think about it!

So, if anyone from the Harris/Walz campaign reads this, please know I want to help if for no other reason than to encourage more applications of the Choose Your Own Adventure approach. And if you don’t like my idea, turn to page 69 and get out!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The moment political junkies and partisan players dreamed for arrived recently: Donald Trump and Kamala Harris had their first Presidential debate. And boy was it a shit show! Between Trump being, well, Trump, Harris being as vague and clueless as possible, and the two debate moderators all but being Harris/Walz 24 cheerleaders, the first (and possibly only) debate settled one thing.

Presidential debates have become the drizzling shits.

Although the quality of candidates has gone down faster than Bill Clinton’s pants at a nudist colony of Playboy Playmates, the candidates themselves aren’t solely to blame. It’s the debate moderators who are the #5 combo meal from Taco Bell that make the drizzling shits that much shittier.

debate moderators

What the Left thinks it means – journalists whose expertise adds gravitas to political debates

What it really means – political operatives disguised as journalists

If you’ve been reading my entries for any length of time (and if you haven’t, I can’t say as I blame you), you’ll know I have a healthy contempt for the modern media. And by healthy I mean professional body builder level. That comes from years of studying it, both in an attempt to become one and in critiquing it to better understand what I’m being told. Oh, and to write blog posts!

During these years, I watched reporters and journalists go from attack dogs to lap dogs, from the Fourth Estate to the Fifth Column, and other somewhat witty turns of a phrase. The minute journalism took a turn for the worst was when its practitioners realized they could advance personal and ideological agendas within their reporting. A sympathetic word here, a dismissing tone there, and before you know it…an echo chamber than puts the Grand Canyon to shame.

But I’m sure having an industry where the majority of participants agree with each other on most every issue and on who deserves to be discredited could never have an impact on how Presidential debates would be moderated, amirite?

Not so much.

When moderators turn into advocates, the Presidential debates turn into a situation that makes Custer’s Last Stand look evenly matched. We saw that with Candy Crowley, who did a live fact check of then-candidate Mitt “Mayo Is My Sriracha” Romney in his 2012 debate with then-President Barack “I’m Too Lame to Have a Nickname” Obama, showed the damage a moderator can have on a campaign. After she “corrected” Romney, his campaign was never the same. People saw Romney as a liar, and he ultimately lost the Presidency.

But there’s a reason why so many people remember Crowley’s interjection. Turns out she was completely fucking wrong. Of course, after Obama had secured victory and was cruising through his final term in office, that’s when the scrutiny got to be too hot to ignore. Crowley was never the same, but she managed to get the desired effect: reelecting a man who shouldn’t run a lemonade stand in the Sahara Desert let alone the most powerful country in the world. The damage was done, and the mea culpas were too late to be effective.

And then every moderator decided to get in on the live fact checking act with varying degrees of success and dumbfuckery. With Donald Trump, it was both easy and difficult to fact check him in real time because they “knew” he was lying, but the “sheer magnitude” made it hard to keep up. It must have been so tiring they forgot to fact check Hillary Clinton, Brick Tamland, and Kamala Harris. I mean, that’s the only possible explanation for their one-sided approach to holding politicians accountable, right?

Yeah, and if you believe that, I have swamp land in the Sahara Desert conveniently located near a lemonade stand that I’d love to sell you.

Although this concept seems to be lost on the current generation of media squawking heads, their job when moderating a debate isn’t to try to check facts of one side or the other; it’s to fucking moderate the fucking debate! I know that’s a lot of profanity for one statement, but it needs to be said in the hopes it penetrates their well-coiffed skulls.

And maybe this point needs to be reinforced. With the most recent debate, Trump spoke longer than Harris, which is something within the moderators’ power to address. Sure, cutting off mics or trying to interrupt the candidates when they bloviate are tools, but they aren’t as effective as a moderator saying, “President Trump, shut the fuck up!” Ideally, both sides should get approximately equal time and not let one or the other get the lion’s share.

Along with that, moderators should take it upon themselves to hold candidates to the same standard of questioning. It’s one thing if the questions are tough across the board and follow-ups are equally challenging. It’s quite another when one candidate gets more grilled than the dinner options at Steak-A-Palooza and the other gets questions no more challenging than “What is your favorite Taylor Swift song?” (The correct answer: none of them.)

But that’s part of the echo chamber the media find themselves in repeatedly. They want their side to win, but they aren’t willing to come out and say it for fear of the mask dropping too much. See, they want to be Leftist stenographers but they also want the protection against accusations of bias that come with being a journalist (or at least did before these fucknuggets ruined it).

And now this stench is affecting how debate moderators act.

Fucking yay.

Since we can’t trust the media to do the right thing, it’s incumbent upon us to hold debate moderators the way they treat any Republican to the right of Karl Marx: they’re fucking liars, and we know it. But instead of turning off the debates, we should really lean into them and see where the moderators’ biases lie. Once we get that figured out, we can determine how trustworthy they are and adjust our expectations accordingly. Granted, these expectations are bound to be lower than a snake’s belly button piercing, but at least you’ll have something better to do than listen to Kamala Harris dodge simple questions.




Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

As a semi-popular blogger, pundit, and all around neat guy, I have a deep respect for freedom of speech. After all, without it, I’d just be some lunatic behind bars talking about how bad government sucks. As it stands, I’m just in a rubber room, so yay, I guess?

I wouldn’t bring this up unless it was relevant, and thanks to Queen Kamala the Appointed and the Left, it’s become very relevant, but not in a good way. Whether it’s The Social Media Site Formerly Known as Twitter getting banned in Brazil for alleged misinformation to Vice Presidential candidate Tim Walz and Presidential candidate Kamala Harris both in favor of some form of government intervention/regulation of social media, the topic is as relevant today as it was when the Bill of Rights was passed.

free speech

What the Left thinks it means – the right to express yourself without government interference, except when it crosses certain lines

What it really means – the right to express yourself without government interference, regardless of who you are and what you say

As with guns, cars, and movies like “The Room,” freedom of speech can be used for different ends. That’s why it’s important to consider the implications of their use prior to firing a gun, driving a car, or paying for a ticket to see “The Room.” Oh, and speaking out.

Yes, there are some limitations to free speech, and they’re established as a means of protecting people from physical or reputational damage. Some speech like “fighting words” aren’t considered free speech because a) they are designed to promote a violent response, and b) the person engaging in it is kinda asking for an ass-whuppin’. For those of you younger folks reading this, fighting words are what we old folks used to do in lieu of internet trolling because the Internet hadn’t been invented yet. (Thanks, Al Gore.)

Anyway, the Left has tried to apply the same approach used with fighting words with other forms of speech. Each one could be a Lexicon entry in and of itself, but here is a list of these speech forms the Left doesn’t like.

hate speech – Basically, any speech that makes Leftists look like assholes

misinformation – Basically, any speech that proves Leftists are assholes

election interference – Basically, any speech that shows Leftists losing

election misinformation – Basically, any speech that proves Leftist politicians are full of shit

I’m not sure, but I’m sensing a pattern here…

Although a case can be made for regulations on these, the case is pretty fucking bad. You can pass as many laws banning them, but they run smack in the face of the very thing Leftists claim to be all about: free speech. Yes, some speech is abhorrent and would make Gandhi want to grab a shotgun and start kicking ass, but the answer to it isn’t cracking down on the bad speech; it’s countering it with good speech. Dennis Miller put it best (and I’m paraphrasing it from here, so please don’t sue me, Mr. Miller): No free speech gives you Hitler. Healthy free speech gives you David Duke. There’s a big, big difference.

The problem is the Left doesn’t understand that difference. Either that, or they don’t get the reference, which isn’t all that uncommon with Miller’s work. Regardless, Leftists treat any speech that isn’t from their echo chamber as dangerous. And it’s not because it’s particularly threatening, dangerous to society as a whole, or offensive to society as a whole. It’s because it’s not something they can control with any degree of success.

Having said that, they aren’t going to stop trying. During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, information countering the official narrative got censored and social media accounts that spread that information got removed. Even as Mark “No, I’m Not Data” Zuckerberg had to admit the Brick Tamland Administration pressured Meta to crack down on certain content. And I’m guessing you know what content got the ban hammer.

But you know who didn’t get nailed for COVID misinformation? All the figureheads and media outlets who peddled the Administration’s bullshit. Seems “Trust the Science” didn’t include actual science. Then again, the “Trust the Science” people also believe men can be women just because they feel that way, so…

It’s bullshit like this (the censorship, not the men claiming to be women) that made Elon Musk take on the mantle of leadership when it comes to free speech online. He has rightly made it his cause, and given the lack of accountability for those who on the Left who violate the Left’s own rules (I’m looking at you, Rachel Maddow!), it’s clear we need someone who not only understands free speech, but also allows it.

Musk may not be the best person to do it, but at least he’s doing it. Since taking over the Social Media Site Formerly Known As Twitter, he has reversed many of the previous decisions made and reinstated accounts that he felt were terminated unjustly. Granted, that gave us back noted white nationalist and all around weirdo Nick Fuentes, but the upside is we can now keep better track of him and what he says. That’s something you don’t get with free speech crackdowns. Forcing people like Fuentes to go off the free speech grid makes it harder to track him down and combat whatever speech he’s spouting. With a healthy respect for free speech, he makes himself known, so we can do a little rhetorical White Supremacist Whack-A-Mole.

And if you know any of the scuttlebutt about him, the mole part might not be complete hyperbole.

Freedom of speech is one of the bedrock principles we should all strive to want. Without it, how would we redress grievances with the government (of which your humble correspondent has plenty), spread the message to others to gather peaceably, or print out flyers? And for those of you eagle-eyed readers out there, you might recognize the examples I just gave as rights covered under the First Amendment. If you didn’t, that’s okay. You’re still brighter than 100% of the dipshits who think free speech should be limited because fee-fees get hurt.

I don’t think free speech is going anywhere if Queen Kamala the Appointed and Vice Queen TIMMAH get into office because neither one has the brains necessary to make the case in favor of getting rid of it, but that doesn’t mean we can ease up protecting it. As Ronald Reagan put it:

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

And if you can’t trust a man who acted with a chimp, who can you trust?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Every modern political campaign these days is fraught with scandal. The severity of the scandal depends on a number of factors, not the least of which being how the politician at the center of it reacts.

This year, the Vice Presidential candidates (or at least the one on the ticket that actually got votes at the convention) are battling over stolen valor. As the son of someone who served (and as someone who isn’t a complete asshole…although the jury’s still out on that one), I take this matter pretty seriously. And that’s why I try to do my homework so I’m not throwing out an accusation that I can’t back up, thus not looking like a complete asshole in that case.

There is a lot more behind stolen valor than the words themselves, and in today’s hyper-political environment, it’s especially important to be accurate.

But since the person responsible for accuracy is on vacation, it’s my job.

stolen valor

What the Left thinks it means – an unfounded accusation made against Tim Walz that makes JD Vance look stupid

What it really means – taking credit for unearned military achievements

When dealing with military matters, I try to look for authoritative sources. And I’m going to guess a website chronicling the Medal of Honor and other military honors might just fit the bill.

HomeofHeroes.com describes stolen valor thus:

“Stolen Valor” is a term applied to the phenomenon of people falsely claiming military awards or medals they did not earn, service they did not perform, Prisoner of War experiences that never happened, and other tales of military actions that exist only in their minds.

So, no matter your rank in Call of Duty, you aren’t really a military expert, nor should you talk to anyone outside of your gaming group about your rank. And given some of the video gamers I’ve known, their rank isn’t just a military term.

Regardless, the description above jibes with something I’ve experienced personally. Those who served don’t tend to talk about it very much, while those who didn’t or served lighter duty than Al Gore can’t stop talking about it. Those who practice stolen valor are usually trying to pull a scam, whether it be for a discount on a breakfast meal, bang a hot and dumb sexual conquest, or a few pity dollars along the roadway. Those who get away with it tend to keep pushing it until the time they’re exposed as frauds.

Which brings us to politics.

The war of words between JD Vance and Tim Walz began when Vance accused Walz of stolen valor. Since then, Walz has rhetorically fired back, stating Vance shouldn’t denigrate anyone’s service record, let alone his.

Now for the $64,000 Question: is Walz guilty of stolen valor? (It was either that or “Where are your pants, sir?”)

Wellll…that’s a really good question (the stolen valor one, not the pants one). A lot depends on who you ask. Leftists, of course, say Walz is innocent and that Vance served less time than Walz did. The Right, on the other hand, noted Walz claimed a rank he hadn’t really earned and made a claim he experienced war during a speech about the need for gun control.

The thing is…both sides are right to a point. Although Walz isn’t trying to scam people out of anything but votes, he did claim a rank he didn’t earn. And although he did that, it’s questionable whether it rises to the level of stolen valor. As such, I think Vance and Donald Trump should drop this line of attack sooner rather than later since they don’t have a Delorean and a flux capacitor. Also, it gives Walz a chance to appear to be a victim of “right wing attacks” which will make Trump/Vance look dishonest and mean by comparison.

Of course, the media lead us to believe they are already, so…it’s a wash, I guess?

This is one of the pitfalls of politicizing stolen valor: if you’re wrong, you’re likely fucked. Furthermore, it takes something serious and reduces it to a talking point. Republicans will continue to say Walz is guilty of stolen valor, Leftists will continue to dismiss the allegation and point to Trump’s less-than-existent military career. And in the end, nobody’s really going to be convinced or do the digging into the allegations to find the truth.

Well, except for me, and my excuse is I don’t have hobbies, so take that for what it’s worth.

There is one upside to this, for me at least. Leftists, who have spent decades decrying war and violence, now have a Vice Presidential candidate who thumps his chest with pride for…being involved in war. Granted, the most action Walz saw was a really big squirt gun fight, but the point stands. Maybe they’re too caught up in the joy the Harris/Walz campaign is bringing to the race (at least, that’s what the media keep telling us).

Joy overdose or not, the Left’s hypocrisy here is worth pointing out. And by “pointing out” I mean “mock mercilessly.” You want peace in Palestine, but back a veteran in the #2 slot of the ticket? If you can make that make sense without invoking “Orange Man Bad,” give it a go. Just know I will be laughing at your futility.

Regardless of how you feel about Walz’s retirement or Vance’s service, the point is they both signed up for something I couldn’t do because I was young and stupid. They served this country willingly, and for that they both have my deepest respect. The rest of the shit they’ve done, though…that’s fair game.

Before I close this out and await the slings and arrows of outrageous Internet comments, I do have to call out Walz for his response to Vance’s accusations of stolen valor. No matter how much you try to frame it as maligning your military service, the fact is it wasn’t that much of a slight, and certainly not so much of a slight that it required a response more than a so-what. By showing it bothers you, you have given Trump/Vance a means to needle you and make you look defensive.

You know, the way you made them look defensive when you called them “weird”?

And given the fact the head of your ticket is more vacant than a We Can’t Afford a Roof Inn during rainy season, you’re taking the focus away from the her. Then again, if I had a record like Kamala Harris’s, I’d be embarrassed to show my face in public, too. Nevertheless, your response gave the accusation oxygen, which allows people from all sides to weigh in on the topic.

Including some of the folks you served with.

Maybe you can get some tips from John “Swift Boat, Not Swift Thinker” Kerry about that. Provided, of course, you can sit through a James Taylor set.

Meanwhile, I urge my conservative brethren and sistren to knock off the stolen valor claims against Tim Walz. They’re not helping. Besides, I’m sure if you look hard enough, you can find way worse shit with which to rhetorically batter him.