Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

I’ve been trying to avoid writing about this, but since the Left can’t stop talking about it for 2 microseconds, I suppose I’ll have to weigh in. After moments of tepid unrest (as opposed to the usual white hot variety), tensions between Israel and Palestine flared up, resulting in rockets being exchanged, and not in the white elephant kind of way. To put it mildly, they were putting some heat on those things.

As they typically do in situations like this, the Left has already taken sides with Palestine, with members of “The Squad” openly calling Israel an “apartheid state.” I’m sure that’s going to go over well with the white nationalists there, but that’s not important right now. What is important is the Left’s political gamble taking sides with Palestine, a gamble they’ve made before and won handily. In the grand scheme of things, does this matter?

Why, yes. Yes it does.

Palestine

What the Left thinks it means – a nation being oppressed by Israel merely for trying to get its land back

What it really means – a nation that no longer exists, due in no small part to its leaders

The biggest problem when discussing Palestine is agreeing on the basic facts that are not in play, mainly because there are so many people who disagree on them. However, there is one fact not even the staunchest of pro-Palestinian propagandists can spin away.

Palestine doesn’t exist today.

Oh, sure, they did at one time and the United Nations even recognize Palestine as a state, but that means nothing in 2021. Especially that second part. If your ace in the hole is a UN proclamation, you’re better off in admitting you got nothing. At least then you won’t have to worry about explaining away the UN’s noted anti-Israel bent. If anything, they should get bent.

The country that was once Palestine was comprised of a lot of land in the Middle East in what is now Jordan. Not Israel. Not the West Bank. Not even the Gaza Strip. Jordan. The fact Israel and Jordan are neighbors doesn’t help the situation any because they have easy access to each other and their respective populations and property. In short, this is a property line dispute with heavy artillery.

But as a former homeowner myself, I can tell you it’s hard to have a property line dispute when you don’t actually own the property. If the Palestinians had a valid claim to Israel, I would be one of the first to say so. As it stands, all they have are a UN proclamation and apparently nobody who knows how to read an ancient map. But what they do have is Leftists willing to carry their water for them. As it turns out, this is their default position on Palestine because a) they like to at least appear to support the underdog against the powerful, and b) they have a major anti-Semitism problem.

Let’s start with the first one since it’s first and all. The Left loves a good David vs. Goliath story, not because they necessarily want David to win, but because they love making Goliath look like a jerk in the process. Instead of fighting for the little guy, the Left tends to fight against the big guy because it’s easier to paint the big guy as the villain just like they did with the big banks. Of course, when it’s a big guy who agrees with them (I’m looking right at you, Jack Dorsey), the Left turns a blind eye…until it becomes convenient to throw you under the bus. Just ask Amazon.

Or we can just ask Israel. With the two terms of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and the first year of Joe Biden’s term, Israel knows full well what the Left thinks of them and how they will make nice to your face while helping the opposition. The Left has even sent political advisors to Israel to try to defeat Benjamin Netanyahu, all because he has this crazy idea that Israel should exist. That MONSTER! Out of Clinton, Obama, and Biden, only Clinton had Israel and Palestine try to work out some sort of agreement. Even when Israel was willing to give in to Palestine’s conditions, their leader at the time, Yasser Arafat walked away. Since then, the possibility of peace between the sides is more remote than a hermit at Ice Station Zero.

This is where the anti-Semitism comes into play. Yes, there are Leftist Jews who are on the “Free Palestine” bandwagon and will criticize Israel in the same breath they order brunch, but they are being used for votes and money, just like every other group the Left associates with. The Left loves the money and power the Leftist Jews give them, but nothing else beyond that. As long as the Israel-Palestine conflict continues, the Left will use it for their own ends without doing anything to help the situation.

Oh, and it should be pointed out, as the Left loves to do, the Palestinians are also Semites. So, what would you call a group of people who use the death of people they allegedly support to enhance their own political and fiscal power? Some could say they were…anti-Semites…

Amazing, but not unexpected from the Left.

Beyond that, some of the Left’s favorite hustlers…I mean figures have a history of out-and-out disdain for Israel and its people: Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Hillary Clinton, Louis Farrakhan, just to name a few. More recently, “The Squad” has shown it can flex with the best of them when it comes to attacking Israel. No matter how many times they get caught, however, the song never changes. Israel will always be bad, and Palestine will always be good. And as long as there’s money and votes to be had, the Left won’t care.

The larger question is whether Palestinians want peace. I can’t point to anything specific, but I get the feeling the majority of them do. Constant fighting without a reason to fight erodes your soul pretty fast, and the way many Palestinians have found a way to live without fighting is…by moving to Israel. Contrary to popular belief, Palestinians in Israel enjoy a modicum of power and respect so long as they don’t wreck anything. They even have a place at the table in Israel’s version of Congress, the Knesset. Hard to argue Israel is an apartheid state when they give more freedom to Palestinians than Palestine does.

And therein lies the real tragedy of it all. Palestinians really don’t have an ally on the Left, but Hamas does. That’s not an insignificant distinction to make, either. Hamas has been designated as a terrorist organization by the US and others, and currently holds all the power in Palestine. Oh, and they’re much more militant than Arafat was, and he was militant enough as it was for a guy who could pass for Ringo Starr in an off-Baghdad production of “Lawrence of Arabia.” The other option is to seek sanctuary with the ”enemy” or try to stay enough under the radar as to not attract attention. With fanatics like Hamas, though, neither option is good enough. You’re either in all the way or you’re a traitor.

Hmmm…I wonder if that attitude has anything to do with the religion Hamas members follow…naaaaaaah!

In the end, there will be more fighting, more death, and more heartache until both sides of the Palestine/Israel conflict decide enough is enough. Even then, the Left will find a way to paint Palestine as a victim instead of a participant, if only to secure more money and power for themselves. If only to try to stem the tide of eternal war (and, admittedly, make Leftists even madder than they are now), I will defend Israel’s right to exist.

And I will continue to act as an Israeli Chamber of Commerce for Palestinians looking to get out from the conflict.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

If you’ve watched the Left as long as I have, first off, I’m sorry. Second, there are some cues when they’re going to try to advance/distort a word, idea, or concept by what phrasing they use.

This past week, the word “competent” has been thrown around like Tom Brady throwing footballs at training camp. The Left and the media (but I repeat myself) have expressed everything from not-so-subtle exhaling to sycophantic gushing over their perception of the Biden Administration as being head and shoulders above the Trump Administration. They seem pleasantly surprised at how the Biden Administration seems to know what it’s doing.

But, as we’ve seen previously, the Left loves to play with the language to make themselves look smarter, faster, and better.

competent

What the Left thinks it means – mature, intelligent, and empathic leadership shown by political leaders

What it really means – a phrase that should rarely, if ever, used to describe any Presidency

Why, yes, my general cynicism about government is coming through! How could you tell?

Seriously, though, competence isn’t normally associated with government as a whole because we’re dealing with human beings in power. The chance we’re going to get a savant in a Cabinet role is less likely than Donald Trump marrying Rosie O’Donnell. Even when we get someone reasonably intelligent in a role (see Dr. Ben Carson), the fit might not be there, which will result in a litany of mistakes.

Now, imagine that same work being done by stereotypical WalMart shoppers. That’s closer to how competent government is these days. Frightening, isn’t it? Add to that the immense number of regulations, policies, procedures, legalese, and general ideologically-driven goals, and you have a situation where even the best of intentions gets turned into the worst of bureaucracies.

In spite of the media’s best attempts to prop up Joe Biden as a good President, most people just aren’t buying it. The policy wonks, like your humble correspondent, see an Administration tackling problems like Pee Wee Herman while making somewhat manageable problems worse. And a lot of these are unforced errors, meaning they could have been prevented if someone had just taken the President aside and said, “I know what you want to do here, but it’s like letting Hunter have Charlie Sheen as his rehab partner.”

Take the border crisis, for example. Before he came into office, Joe Biden laid out a pretty clear invitation for illegal immigrants from Mexico to come on in! Then, when people took him up on his offer, the Administration was caught off-guard. I mean, how were they to know an open invitation to come here would be accepted so readily? It’s not like the President was in office for nearly half a century or anything, right?

One of the legitimate knocks against the Trump Administration was the lack of experience in important roles within the government. It seemed like President Trump handed out these roles like Planned Parenthood hands out…well, whatever it is they hand out. Now, with a new Administration, we see…exactly the same problems as the Trump Administration, but with a lot more tolerance from the Left. Seriously, who was the genius to made Pete Buttigieg Secretary of Transportation because he likes trains? I liked trains when I was 7 or 8, but I don’t put that on my resume so someone in a future Administration would put me on a short list for the Department of Transportation, or any Cabinet post for that matter. Given the nozzleheads in charge, I’m surprised Hunter Biden wasn’t put in charge of the DEA.

It’s because of the unforced errors that the Left is talking about competence with regards to the Biden Administration. The idea is to persuade you with multitude (i.e. an appeal to popularity) than to get you to think whether the Administration fits the definition. As you might have guessed, I’m pretty sure it doesn’t, if only because Obama Administration failures…I mean holdovers like Anita Dunn, John Kerry, and Jen Psaki managed to find work again after screwing up so badly.

But at least there aren’t any mean Tweets, right?

Even if you set the lowest possible bar for competence, government finds a way to limbo under it with room to spare because there is no punishment for failure. If anything, people tend to fail upward. Want proof? Who is President and Vice President right now? A two-time Presidential candidate whose mental faculties are on the decline and a Presidential candidate who dropped out before the Iowa Caucuses due to a lack of support. And people expect competence out of these two?

I mean, aside from Leftists.

I have a saying that applies in this situation: “If you have to say it, you ain’t it.” If the Biden Administration or its stenographers in the media have to keep telling us the Administration is competent, it’s a clear sign it’s not (oh, and that the media are hacks). But don’t just take my word for it. Watch the Administration carefully and see if they perform at even basic levels of competency. Or you can do the DMV Test. If your local DMV works more efficiently and effectively than the federal government, there’s a problem, and Spoiler Alert it’s not a local one.

I know the Left wants to create a clear difference between the Trump Administration and the Biden Administration, but you can’t just slap a descriptor on the latter and call it a day. Government by its very nature doesn’t solve problems and expecting people who have spent a good chunk of their lives proving it and/or covering up for it to suddenly get it stretches reality like Mr. Fantastic, only less believable. When the Biden Administration does something right, I will be among the first to call it out because I’m good like that. Given what I’ve seen so far, though, I may be waiting a while. Good thing I packed a lunch!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

To put it mildly, this past week has been what the military would call a “target-rich environment” for somewhat humorous weirdos like me. On the Left, there has been a move to create four more Supreme Court seats and do away with the Electoral College. On the right, Project Veritas exposed CNN, which promptly got James O’Keefe kicked off Twitter.

Now, which would be more entertaining, a dry discussion about the Supreme Court or the Electoral College, or poking fun at a cable news network whose fortunes are as bright as a Socialist Socialite policy position?

Let’s just say I’m siding with schadenfreude.

CNN

What the Left thinks it means – a reputable news organization that occasionally ventures into “Fox News Lite” territory

What it really means – a news network who keeps finding a way to tarnish its reputation

Back in the day, CNN was the only name in cable news because, well, there weren’t any other real cable news networks out there. And it was unique in that it showed a global perspective on news, which was a big risk because of the way American media are set up to cover international events. Think coups and earthquakes, kids.

Where CNN really came into its own was during the first Gulf War. With reporters live on the scene giving regular updates and being one of the few (if not the only) television news crews there, CNN became a household name around the world. Once the Gulf War ended, CNN could have either rested on its laurels and coasted or continued to cover stories as balanced and as in-depth as possible.

Given the fact we’re in the process of mocking it, I’m guessing you can figure out what path CNN took.

What happened that caused CNN’s fall from grace (no relation to Nancy)? That’s hard to say because there have been a number of incidents in the 30 years since the first Gulf War that could have been the catalyst, but for me, it was the campaign and subsequent election of Bill Clinton. For better or most definitely worse, Clinton was our first “rock star” President, and CNN acted like a pack of teenage groupies hoping to catch his attention.

To me, the minute any news outlet picks a side in an ideological battle, it ceases to be an example of good journalism and becomes an example of good propaganda poorly masquerading as journalism. As other news networks popped up or became more prominent as they carried water for the Commander in Briefs, talent had viable options to exercise, and some of them did. As that happened, CNN picked up other talent, but the replacements didn’t fill the talent void. And in the case of Brian Stetler, became a talent void in and of himself. Pro Tip: if you have someone with as inconsistent a track record as Stelter, don’t let him host a show called “Reliable Sources.”

Aside from Stetler, CNN doesn’t have as much star power as it once did, and even less actual journalism is being done. Maybe it’s me, but when you call yourself a news network, it kinda implies you know what news is. Judging from the Project Veritas video, though, even the staff wouldn’t recognize news from a hole in the ground. And don’t get me started on whether they know their asses from the aforementioned hole.

Although the video didn’t expose anything new (assuming CNN swung Left was so obvious Stevie Wonder could see it), it does damage their brand at a time when they need to regain some of their viewership. Although the landscape is looking like the Hatfields and McCoys, but more cordial, there is room for a straight news organization that gives different perspectives.

Which the Left hates.

The Left relies on being able to control the narrative, so any time one of their usual outlets decides to…horror of horrors…show more than the Left’s version of events, the Left accuses that outlet of betraying them. Just look at how they go after Jake Tapper when he tries to reason with the Left. Granted, it’s getting more rare than how Dracula likes his hamburgers, but it happens.

Right now, CNN is finding itself the odd network out. On the right, there is Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN, and on the left, there is…pretty much everybody else. No matter how Left CNN leans, it will be outdone by someone else. To put it another way, CNN is now the New Coke of cable news: some love it, but most prefer the Coke that actually tastes like Coke. MSNBC will do what CNN does or used to do with a greater Leftist slant, so CNN becomes an afterthought. Personally, if it weren’t for the Left’s hatred of Project Veritas, I’m not sure Leftists would care how bad CNN looks right now.

Yet, I’m reminded of a saying: “Where there is chaos, there is opportunity.” If CNN wants to be relevant again, they need to resist the urge to become MSNBC without Rachel Maddow. They also need to resist the urge to swing to the right, especially considering the Right doesn’t trust CNN as far as Pee Wee Herman could throw Mount Everest. So, I see the best way to stand out and move forward is to look towards the past. Wipe the slate clean and go back to straight news, complete with an announcement of the change so people know what’s going on. Sure, it will piss off the Left, but the way I look at it, you’ll get more viewers than if you continue on your current path.

Of course, that will go over with Jeff Zucker like David Duke at a BLM rally, so it probably won’t be done anytime soon. Even so, what do you have to lose, Jeff? A bunch of whiny crybabies who think they respect science while simultaneously believing there are more than two genders? At some point, you have to cut your losses, buddy.

And when it comes to Leftists, you’re dealing with a lot of losers!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

This week has been a great one for our favorite Socialist Socialite, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. After accusing Senator Ted Cruz of attempted murder in a tweet where the two agreed on the recent Robinhood controversy, she came out this week and told her story about what happened on January 6th.

To put it mildly, I’ve seen less melodrama in a telenovela than in her story. And, as expected, Leftists ran with it, even if the facts didn’t exactly match up with her version of events. After people attempted to correct the record, fact-checking website Snopes got involved and came out looking like one of AOC’s social media team by ruling the fact checks that undermined her story “misleading.”

I know we’ve covered fact checking before on the Lexicon, but this week I want to delve deeper into Snopes to try to figure out how they operate.

Snopes

What the Left thinks it means – a valuable fact-checking website that does its homework to expose lies

What it really means – a website that went from debunking urban legends to creating political ones

Snopes built its reputation for telling the truth by focusing on those stories we took as gospel, but may or may not have the ring of truth. You know, like the government actually spending within its means? For a while, this was good enough for the owners/creators of the site, but eventually it branched out into politics. Not surprising, given the creators happened to be prominent Democrat donors. Now, that wouldn’t matter to me if they stuck with urban legends, but once you cross the line into politics, those little details matter because they can taint the results of your fact checking.

Let’s just say Snopes has no concerns with it because they don’t care about whether their fact checks resemble factual information.

Take the AOC story, for example. Regardless of how you feel about the events of January 6th, it’s not far-fetched to say she could have felt she was in danger. Yet, the way she initially described it made it sound like she was at the Capitol when everything went sideways. That wasn’t the case, though. She was in a different building within a short walk of the Capitol and was evacuated before the protestors breached the building itself. Additionally, she said her fear was compound by a man yelling “Where is she?” That man happened to be a member of the Capitol Police trying to keep her safe and get her away from the potential danger.

Nowhere in that series of events was AOC in any actual danger, though. She can feel she was in fear for her life (which makes me wonder just how New York she really is), but the facts don’t back it up. And as Ben Shapiro has pointed out on a few occasions, facts don’t care about your feelings.

When presented with tweets explaining the logical inconsistencies, Snopes found the fact checks on AOC misleading because…she never said she was at the Capitol when things happened, which is true, but contradicted by her own story as she told it. It’s a question of literal versus figurative speech, which can also be subject to political biases. Case in point: President Donald Trump’s “very fine people on both sides” comment after Charlottesville. Even though the President clearly and unequivocally denounced the racists, the Left ran with the narrative he thought the racists were “very fine people.” The President literally explained himself, but it wasn’t convenient, so the Left went with what they said he meant to say. (Cue the dog whistles the Left keeps hearing, but few others outside of their circles can…which is an odd thing to consider if you really think about it.)

And how did Snopes rate Trump’s statement? A “mixture” because they felt he didn’t condemn white supremacists. Funny how a clear articulation gets treated as a mixture of truth and lies, but a clear implication AOC was at the Capitol Building gets treated differently. 

That’s why fact checking, especially from Snopes, needs to be scrutinized and mocked mercilessly. I can count on the one hand of the world’s worst shop teacher the number of times Snopes has given Republicans the benefit of the doubt, but they will bend over like Cirque du Soleil when it’s a Democrat. No logic is too pretzel-like for Snopes if the ideology is right.

Even when the Democrat and Republican says the same thing using the same terminology. And, yes, this actually happened.

I have a rule of thumb when it comes to checking facts: if you have to equivocate to make something true, it ain’t true. The fact the preeminent fact checker can’t call balls and strikes should tell you everything you need to know about Snopes and its standards. Yet, Snopes keeps finding a way to limbo under their already low standards, as they have here.

Take their overwhelming focus on Republicans. The Left loves to point at the fact Snopes calls out more Republican lies than Democrat lies as proof the Left is more truthful. Now, consider the Snopes fact checking model. Naturally they’re going to find Republicans lie more because the site actively targets Republicans and giving half-butted explanations as to why while simultaneously giving Democrats a pass on even their most egregious lies. Under those parameters, it’s more likely that David Duke will win an NAACP Image Award than a Republican will get a fair shake, or an NAACP Image Award for that matter.

Even though Snopes has been in the fact checking game for a while, it’s clear they haven’t learned facts have no party affiliation. If a Democrat or a Republican tells a lie, it’s a lie. If somebody from “flyover country” gets it, why can’t Snopes?

The State of the Onion Address, 2020 Edition

As the glow from the flaming dumpster fire that was 2020 appears in our rearview mirror, we can finally take a look back with hope, namely the hope that 2020 doesn’t come back for an encore. Unfortunately for us, the media’s malpractice will be coming back like the food and drink after a really intense bender.

The state of journalism last year was the gasoline thrown on top of the aforementioned dumpster fire. Big stories, like a little bug known as COVID-19, got covered intensely by people whose only experience with medicine is drinking a Dr. Pepper, while other stories, like Jeffrey Epstein’s “suicide” or Hunter Biden’s business details, were treated with a dismissive hand wave in spite of there being more red flags than a Chinese military parade. That is, of course, when they weren’t busy being the sycophantic propaganda arm of the Left.

But don’t you dare call the media out for acting like the lapdogs they were! They are real reporters working on real news, like…oh, I don’t know…continuing to follow the Russiagate narrative after being embarrassed by the lack of actual facts involved in it. That was certainly more important than reporting the actual news or following up on stories that might make the Left look bad. You know, like dragging a kid through the mud for shooting Leftist thugs who were attacking him first. The interwebs often did the work the “real news” people were reluctant to do, but the “real news” folks could be counted on to provide only half the story to advance their ideological ends.

Speaking of which, how’d that work out for you media types with Nick Sandmann?

The only other constant in modern media outside of the fact they’re all terrible is that they don’t learn from their mistakes. Oddly enough, that perpetuates the terribleness, which makes it all the more humorous to me. A lot of that comes down to ego. High profile journalists (which should never be a thing, in my opinion) are often notorious for having skin thinner than the plot of a Michael Bay movie. When they get caught screwing up, being general asshats, or looking down their noses at the rest of us, there’s a tiny bit of satisfaction that comes from watching them fail time and time again. It’s schadenfreudelicious!

Over the past year, the media decided to be fact checkers for anything and everything President Donald Trump said. And they failed. A lot. As of this writing, they still haven’t admitted the President was right when he said there would be a COVID-19 vaccine by the end of 2020. In fact, the media and their handpicked experts said it would be impossible. It makes you wonder why anyone pays attention to these self-professed defenders of truth when they can’t even find it.

This also applies to the self-professed fact checkers the media love to use to “debunk” the President and his supporters. In a move that can only be called peak 2020, the media did a handful of fact checks on…the Babylon Bee, a satirical website. And this is after popular fact checking website Snopes fact checked the Bee just the year before and were deservedly mocked for it.

Remember what I said earlier about the media not learning from their mistakes?

The funny thing (at least to me) in all of this is the people who profess to check and know the facts so we don’t have to are the ones who struggle the most with the facts and correcting the record when they get their facts wrong. This is why I take the media’s portrayal of themselves with a great lake of salt. At this point, you’re better getting your news from your local Super Shopper that has been left in a festering pile of garbage.

And speaking of festering piles of garbage, let’s talk about Twitter. Granted Twitter is to news what Jerry Springer is to quality TV programming, but more and more people (including journalists) are using it to report on events as they happen in as close to real time as we can get. The only problems with this type of on-the-spot reporting are 1) the information may not always be accurate, 2) information can be mixed with opinion easily, and 3) it’s fucking Twitter. And if you think journalists are slow to admit they were wrong, Twitter users rarely, if ever, correct their mistakes. They just prefer to ignore them or double down while insulting anyone who disagrees with them. Which, as we know, is the only way to win debates.

In closing, it will be fun to watch the media who spent so much time fact checking fall asleep on the job as Joe Biden starts his administration. If 2020 is any indication, 2021 in the media is going to be lit.

Just like a dumpster fire!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The big news of the week was a story by The Atlantic alleging President Donald Trump disparaged veterans and Vietnam veterans specifically as “total losers.” And everyone from Fox News to former Vice President and current Democrat Presidential candidate Joe Biden has run with it like they stole it. Whether you believe it or not depends on something we haven’t really had a chance to discuss in detail for a while.

Unnamed sources.

As it turns out, The Atlantic‘s story relied heavily on unnamed sources, which can be a positive and a negative in journalistic circles. And, thanks to your humble correspondent, you will see why.

unnamed sources

What the Left thinks it means – valuable sources of information that get to the heart of most stories

What it really means – questionable sources of information at best

As a former journalism student, I can tell you unnamed sources can be a mixed bag because their credibility is completely reliant upon how much the reporter believes them. In the past, journalists could sense when there was the ring of truth to what a source said and when it was bullshit. Today, most journalists have a bullshit meter more broken than Matt Hardy. (If you get that reference, that would be DELIGHTFUL, yaaaaaaaaaas.)

Now, imagine a journalist who is predisposed to believe anything negative about President Trump, no matter how absurd it is. Guess what, kids? He/she is going to believe the negative stuff without so much as a first thought (because expecting them to have a second thought would be way above his/her pay grade).

This is where things get sticky. Under normal circumstances, anyone in the media who gets tricked by false information would get called out and discredited to the point not even the local Super Shopper would hire them. In the current media environment, though, that only happens if you’re not in league with the bulk of the media, which might as well be stenographers for the DNC. Even when getting caught time and time again falling for bad information, Leftists don’t lose any credibility. Compare the Left’s treatment of James O’Keefe and Rachel Maddow if you question this.

What does this have to do with unnamed sources? Regardless of the veracity of said sources, the Left has nothing to lose by believing them and reporting what they say. Meanwhile, the Right could get God to certify their statements and the Left wouldn’t believe it.

You know what beats unnamed sources, though? Named sources. With The Atlantic story, they have four unnamed sources. The number of named source? Zero, the same number of delegates Kamala Harris got. On the other side, the Trump Administration noted zero unnamed source, but ten named sources (including people who were there when the President allegedly made the statements attributed to him). Now, I’m no math major, but I’m pretty sure 10 is larger than 0, and that’s not even counting the fact the 10 are named sources.

That’s the double-edged Sword of Damocles when dealing with unnamed sources. Their truthfulness can’t be measured because we don’t know who they are, but the journalists do. That’s one level away from the source, which opens the journalist to scrutiny and questions of bias. And by questions, I mean certitudes. By protecting their sources by keeping them anonymous, they take on the criticism, often willingly, but even though the Left overlooks it, they lose the Credibility Olympics against named sources who come forward because there is no degree of separation from the original source with the latter.

Plus, there’s another thing to consider. There is a known and generally accepted practice of making up sources and/or quotes as needed. When you work a beat, you won’t always get the information you want or need for a story. If you’re being honest, you either find a way to get the information or try to write around it. If you’re a journalist today, you make it up. You know who uses similar practices? The National Enquirer.

Actually, I take that back. The Enquirer has standards.

To be honest, I don’t know who to believe when it comes to The Atlantic‘s piece, but I do know you can’t discount the fact a piece reliant solely on unnamed sources has fewer legs to stand on than Captain Ahab after his prosthetic leg was stolen.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

As the situation in Portland continues to cement the idea of how gonzo the Left has gotten, the media are doing their parts to minimize the PR damage being done. Who knew trying to set a federal courthouse on fire and leaving trash everywhere would be bad for the image of a movement? Right now there are two narratives being expressed. One is based on on-the-ground videos of rioterrrrr…I mean protesters doing what is being attributed to them. The other is based on trying to downplay the situation to give the impression what we’re seeing isn’t what’s really going on.

Guess which one the media are running with.

As the Left tries to contain the blowback, they’ve come up with a turn of a phrase: mostly peaceful. Seems nice, doesn’t it? Well, I’m about to be the black fly in your Chardonnay if you believe that.

And no, I’m not being ironic, and yeah I really do think.

mostly peaceful

What the Left thinks it means – the best way to describe what’s going on in Portland well before Donald Trump sent his government stormtroopers to cause problems

What it really means –  a phrase designed to make you think what you’re seeing play out on live video isn’t what is happening on live video

To better understand the Left’s narrative, we need to figure out why it seems plausible. Since the rioterrrr…I mean protesters aren’t keen on letting people know who they are and what their motivations are (Spoiler Alert: it’s most likely socialism), it’s hard to pin down whether their motives are peaceful or violent. While this would be a problem for normal people, it’s actually a boon for the Left because it’s impossible to discern who is the second coming of Gandhi and who is the second coming of Guy Fawkes. With this uncertainty of motives, it’s plausible to say it’s only a handful of people committing the crimes, leaving the others’ hands clean.

On a larger scale, too, the Left’s narrative makes sense. The vast majority of Portland isn’t Beirut with better coffee shops. In fact, most of the chaos is contained within an approximately six block area that just so happens to be located in the same neighborhood as a federal courthouse. So, in all actuality to the Left, Portland is mostly peaceful.

If you’re expecting a “but” out of me, you know it’s about to drop.

Let’s take the “handful of criminals” aspect first. Appropriately enough, the Left’s own rhetoric against the police department destroys this idea. One of the Left’s favorite slogans during this flaming fiasco and others of a similar vein is “Silence Is Violence.” In essence, if you remain silent when there is a crime against another person being committed, you are condoning it. (Granted, these are some of the same nozzleheads who also say words are violence, but that’s a blog post for another time.) Now, let’s apply that same thought process to Portland. If you see bad actors using your platform to cause harm to someone or something else, shouldn’t you be considered someone who condones the actions being taken? Wouldn’t your silence be violence, in this case literally?

As far as the larger Portland area is concerned, it’s true there’s only a limited area negatively impacted at the moment. However, when you have the Mayor and Governor giving silent consent for the anarchy going on, the fact it’s been contained to that six block area is a miracle in and of itself. What happens when that good fortune runs out and that six block area gets wider? Based on riots…I mean protests in other cities, it’s only a matter of time before the downtown folks decide to head to the suburbs (provided, of course, they don’t already live there in Mommy and Daddy’s basement). Then, the permissiveness granted previously might not survive much beyond the first incident between the protesters and the private security guard at the gate.

Even if I buy the notion Portland is mostly peaceful because the criminal activity is limited, it’s hard to argue with the video coverage. And, yes, you can claim these videos are out of context, but until you provide a viable alternate context, I have to go with what I see, and what I see is a less-than-peaceful protest. No matter how many shields you make and show off, no matter how many moms (or alleged moms) show up to form a wall, no matter how many veterans (or alleged veterans) supply support, no matter how many fathers (or alleged fathers) show up with leaf blowers, we have to believe what we’re seeing.

The Left can’t have that, though, so they’re trying to get us to disbelieve what we’re seeing. It’s a mild form of gaslighting, which is a grossly overused term these days to describe when someone tries to get another people or group of people to doubt themselves through psychological means. The Left’s tactics here are subtle, but evident and need to be called out for what it is: an attempt to downplay criminal behavior by ideological allies because the Left think it helps them against President Donald Trump in the upcoming Presidential election. In order for this to be successful, however, they have to lie repeatedly. Some are small, some are large, but all of them are lies.

That’s why their gaslighting attempts won’t work. We can see what the rioterrrr…I mean protesters are doing in the videos and livestreams. Spin it all you want, Leftists, but it’s clear these activities aren’t remotely peaceful, let alone mostly peaceful. The more you try to make it look and sound otherwise, the more foolish you look.

Then again, your partners in crime are LARPing as revolutionaries, so maybe you’re used to it by now. 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Although COVID-19 put the kibosh on a lot of festivities this year, we still had the Pulitzer Prizes awarded. Aren’t we lucky? Among the wieners…I mean winners were reporters who wrote about global climate change being bad, Vladimir Putin being bad, and President Donald Trump being bad. You know, the same topics the media report on during any day ending with a Y.

And speaking of Y, why are these reporters winning an award for journalistic excellence when there is very little deviation in the subject matter? That, dear readers, is a fine topic of discussion.

the Pulitzer Prize

What the Left thinks it means – a prestigious award given to the very best in the journalism field

What it really means – an award as worthless as the reporters who win them these days

I wouldn’t want to be a journalist or a reporter today. The pay sucks, the hours are as erratic as Joe Biden going off script, and more often than not the only time you get recognized is when you screw up or get nominated for a Pulitzer. And more often than not, you get known for the former because most people don’t care about the latter.

So, why should we care? The people who are getting nominated are the ones who have an incredible, albeit waning somewhat, amount of power to shape narratives. There was a recent story that spread like wildfire that President Trump had a financial interest in a company producing hydroxychloroquine, a drug he promoted as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The press reported it without highlighting the fact the interest was 1) part of a mutual fund, and 2) so financially insignificant he could have found more money under his couch cushions. Even after the facts came out, people believed the initial truncated reporting.

And we’re no longer just dealing with half-truths being heralded, either. One of this year’s Pulitzers went to Nikole Hannah-Jones for the 1619 Project, a major New York Times undertaking reviewing the history of slavery in America. And by “reviewing,” I mean “making shit up.” One of the major contentions Hannah-Jones made was the American Revolution was fought to keep slavery alive here. Yeah, nothing about taxation without representation, unfair treatment of the colonists, and, oh yeah, “The Shot Heard ‘Round the World” that sparked the American Revolution (and included the death of Crispus Attucks, who just happened to be black). It was totes about slavery, yo!

Yet, in spite of the fact historians called out the multiple historical inaccuracies and Hannah-Jones promised to revise her derisive drivel before it gets published as a book, the Pulitzer Prize Board shrugged its collective shoulders and gave her the award anyway. Granted, it was for Commentary and not actual reporting, but the fact she was rewarded for making up easily refuted shit should tell you all you need to know about the Pulitzer Prize and journalism in general today.

While the New York Times can pat itself on the back for winning it, the real payoff is the credibility it gives them with fans and the general public. Joe Sixpack may not be able to name many, if any, Pulitzer winners, but they may recognize the name and extrapolate it means something good for the recipients. But we shouldn’t let the award dazzle us into thinking the Times is worth a damn. Let’s not forget the Times keeps Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman on staff to write about economics, and he’s an idiot on the subject. Then again, it would explain how Hannah-Jones got her job…

In preparation for this week’s Lexicon, I did a little research on past Pulitzer winners, as well as the members who decide who get them. (The sacrifices I make for you…) To put it mildly, it’s mostly a Leftist circle jerk. There are the occasional exceptions to the rule, but it’s safe to say there are some real journalists getting shafted so the “right” people win and the media outlets they work for can pretend they’re actually doing something great for the journalism field.

Of course, they’re not. The profession has undergone a death by a thousand newspaper cuts, combined with a push (or in some cases a gentle nudge) to advance an agenda at the expense of the truth. Nowadays, bloggers like your humble correspondent are the ones digging through the layers of bullshit to get to the heart of a story and then tell it to the world. And we do it without killing trees or brain cells.

That’s more than I can say for the Pulitzer Prize “winners” this year.