Have you ever spent a ton of money on something you barely use and then wonder why you’re still spending money on it? Lately, the Trump Administration has been wondering about that in the area of public broadcasting. Thanks to a recent Executive Order, National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service may find their funding cut due to allegations of bias. Of course they deny it (using the same terminology, I might add), which leads us to the inevitable question: why do Republicans want to kill Big Bird?
Or, better yet, the inevitable Leftist Lexicon entry.
public broadcasting
What the Left thinks it means – a valuable service that provides balanced and factual reporting
What it really means – taxpayer-funded propaganda favoring the Left
Both NPR and PBS are under the umbrella of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a private non-profit. They describe themselves as:
the steward of the federal government’s investment in public broadcasting and the largest single source of funding for public radio, television, and related online and mobile services.
In other words, they handle the money once they get it from us. And with an operating budget of $545 million for Fiscal Year 2025, that’s ain’t petty cash. So, what are we getting for this investment?
That depends on who you ask. If you ask the heads of NPR and PBS (or their squawking heads), they’re providing a valuable service to society, the economy, and education. To someone who used to work there, it’s become a Leftist mouthpiece, which has negatively affected the public’s trust in it. To me, a consumer of what public broadcasting has put forth over the years, it’s a mixed bag.
Remember Slobodan Milosevic? Not only is it one hell of a Scrabble score, but he was the former leader of Kosovo, accused of ethnic cleansing. As it turns out, I first heard his name while listening to NPR’s “All Things Considered,” and at the time I thought their coverage was pretty balanced. Then, when Leftists decided ethnic cleansing was bad, that coverage changed and Milosevic became Public Enemy #1. Well, #2 after Rush Limbaugh.
I bring that up to a) show off the big brain on Thomas, and b) give you an idea of the subtle biases that was already involved in NPR’s reporting. The Left doesn’t come right out and say “We’re biased as fuck and we don’t care.” At least, outside of MSNBC, and they’re not really a news channel as much as a way for Al Sharpton to keep getting a steady paycheck. Their bias comes through through less obvious means. A turn of a phrase here, a descriptive word there, and before you know it, you’re being indoctrinated.
Just ask Bernard Goldberg.
Where PBS and NPR get more cover than the traditional media is in the idea they just present facts. Welllll…that’s subject to debate. Sometimes they present facts, and other times they suppress them, like they did with the Hunter Biden laptop story. Their now-infamous statement about why they didn’t cover it?
We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.
Yeah, because who would want to hear about what’s on the laptop of the President’s addict son during a Presidential election? That would be like…oh, I don’t know…covering when the Bush twins got busted for fake IDs when their dad was President.
Oh, wait…
Setting the bias aside for the time being, there is a serious question on the table: should we be funding public broadcasting using federal tax dollars? The artist in me says we should because it provides viewpoints and entertainment people might not get otherwise. Like reruns of “Are You Being Served?” or “The Red Green Show.” The capitalist in me says we shouldn’t because PBS and NPR should be able to stand or fall on its own merits like any other media outlet. Like reruns of “Are You Being Served?” or “The Red Green Show.”
Where I come down on the question is…kinda both options? I appreciate the fact public broadcasting exists and, when the product is closer to the lofty goals of the CPB, it’s pretty fucking good. When the product is tainted by biases, the image of public broadcasting suffers.
Although it would be easier to find a time when Adam Schiff hasn’t made himself look like a dumbass, I don’t think it’s impossible for public broadcasting to change its fortunes without costing taxpayers a fortune in the process. The first step (which is always the hardest, especially if you’re drunk) is to remove any pretense of moral and intellectual superiority. You may think you’re providing pure wisdom from the gods themselves, but you’re really just college radio and public access TV stations with a trust fund. Get off the Shetland Pony you call a high horse and just talk to us like we’re fellow human beings.
And while we’re here, let’s figure out a way to reduce dependence on donations and federal funding by spinning off popular intellectual properties. Take “Sesame Street,” for example. The nonprofit behind it struck a deal with HBO to run new episodes exclusively with those same episodes being shown on PBS after a few months. Now that this deal has reached its end, there’s a possibility of Disney buying it. And considering Disney already owns the Muppets, it’s not that much of a stretch.
Imagine being able to do that with other public broadcasting properties. Yes, I understand doing so would be hard for some people to take because they think selling a property is selling out. On the other hand, it’s really no different than what the CPB already does with different foundations and companies picking up the tab for programming. And, you might actually be able to get free of the federal influence, which will give you more freedom to thrive.
Unless, of course, you want to keep donating the GDP of small island nations to get a crappy tote bag. At least with a more capitalist approach, you might be able to get a crappy tote bag for a lot less.
Meanwhile, public broadcasting could use a few more encouraging voices to help them navigate the possibility of being without federal funding. When PBS and NPR do well, tell them and, if you’re so inclined, toss them a few bucks. When they fuck up, call them out and offer constructive feedback. They may not take it, but at least you tried in a way that doesn’t come off as automatically anti-public broadcasting.
When you really think about it (and I do because the Interwebs went out at Casa de Tomas recently), public broadcasting provides us with all sorts of programming that appeals to different audiences. And, aside from the amount we kick in unintentionally via taxes, it’s free-ish. You can do a lot worse than watching a nature documentary, period dramas, British sitcoms, and the occasional Doctor Who episode.
And given what DOGE has found so far, we’ve spent money on a lot worse.
Category: Media
Extremist Makeover – Disney Edition
To put it mildly, the current state of Disney is looking bleak, and this is the same company that gave us “The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes.” After getting two of the biggest intellectual properties in pop culture history in Star Wars and Marvel, it was assumed the House of Mouse would be churning out profitable movies and TV shows.
Yeah, about that…
Instead of making money, Disney started making enemies of its core audience. Sure, you had the Avengers movies which raked in tons of money, but live action versions of “The Little Mermaid” and more recently “Snow White” made less money than I did working for a fly-by-night three-day-old sushi franchise called “Still Better than Chipotle.” The fan bases that would normally flock to these movies flocked to the Interwebs to trash Disney’s offerings as “woke garbage.”
And those are the good reviews!
Granted, Disney hasn’t helped matters by putting out woke garbage under the guise of entertainment. Whether it was Kathleen Kennedy stinking up the Star Wars franchise (with the help of J.J. “I Haven’t Seen a Lens Flare I Haven’t Loved” Abrams) or the third wave of Marvel movies and TV shows that have focused more on diversity than, you know, coming up with good stories, it seems Disney has lost its way.
Well, I’m here to help in my own unique way. And considering I’m more of a Bugs Bunny than a Mickey Mouse fan, you know things are bad.
Let’s deal with the elephant in the room, and I’m not talking about Dumbo: you’re driving away potential fans with what you’re doing. I get that you want to grow your base while recognizing the diversity that’s out there, but you’re going about it all wrong. Your approach so far has been to inject the diversity you want to see in the world, wrap it in a half-baked plot, and claim whatever ism you want to blame for the inevitable poor performance. But here’s a little secret.
Not everyone who criticizes the flaming dumpster fires you call entertainment is a bigot. Yes, there are people like that in every group, but you have to try to sift through the hate and trolling to find the kernel of truth. And considering there seems to be a consistent theme of “this is bad and you should feel bad,” you might want to pay attention.
Here’s an example from my own experience. After hearing all sorts of bad things about “Captain Marvel,” I decided to give it a watch. After all, I didn’t want to judge it unfairly and I have an affinity for bad movies. I turned it off after 10 minutes because Brie Larson was so unbearable as a “girl boss” character. I didn’t get any sense of the character she was playing (and I place a good chunk of the blame for that on Larson herself) and I didn’t really care to learn anything more about her. She was just…annoying.
This is one of the things Disney capitalizes on, yet fails to understand in any discernible way: girls want to be princesses, too. Not every girl wants to be a girl boss, and not every female character has to be one to be interesting, or in Larson’s case, not be repulsive to potential fans. Even making Captain Marvel a Disney Princess in “The Marvels” falls flat because she lacks one of the major parts of being one: we like the character.
Compare this to Merida from “Brave.” Although she may be overlooked as compared to the others, she is both determined without being, well, Brie Larson-levels of annoying. And she is, now listen carefully, relatable. We can see ourselves in Merida because she goes through many of the emotions and experiences we do or have. She’s the everyman…er girl…er Princess.
Are you starting to see why “Snow White” flopped more than a drunk fat fratboy jumping into a pool during Spring Break? I’m sure Rachel Zegler is talented, but she didn’t exactly endear herself to the potential audience by putting herself over the Disney cartoon on which her role was based. Even if you wanted to do an updated version, you don’t have to dump all over the source material.
Especially when it’s one of the best animated films Disney has ever done, one that has been beloved for almost 90 flipping years!
This is Marketing 101 stuff, folks. Know your brand and protect it at all costs. In short, don’t use a major IP for an outhouse. In fact, this may be the first step towards Disney regaining its footing: require Disney execs to take a marketing class for an actual grade, minimum grade of a C+ or they get booted. I’ll even allow them to take it at an institute of higher learning suited to what appears to be their intellectual level, Greendale Community College.
By the way, #sixseasonsandamovie.
While the current execs are busy at school, find talent within the company who have an actual passion for storytelling, film-making, acting, et cetera, because these are the folks who will rebuild the foundation of the House of Mouse. Much of the pushback against Disney right now is based on the notion they’re more interested in pushing agendas than producing movies and shows people want to see. And on some level, they’re right.
You have to decide whether the agenda or the final product is more important. Look at it this way. If you want to spread an agenda, you need an audience, and nobody’s going to pay to see your agenda-driven passion project if you’re not making people want to see it. Tone down the agenda and weave it into a good story with characters we feel for. Sure, that means acting roles for the aforementioned Ms. Larson and Ms. Ziegler are going to be few and far between, but I think it will be better for everyone involved. And by everyone, I mean the audience.
Another possible option is to spin off a section of the company that will specifically work on the agenda-driven shows and movies. It will still be part of Disney, just under a different part of the company umbrella. That way you can tell the stories you want to tell without having to worry about having to make money. In short, you’re going to become the brother-in-law who moves in, sleeps on the couch, and eats all the food in the house without chipping in.
As part of this spin-off, you will need people who know about the IPs you’re bastardizing…I mean using. For that, you kinda need the fans you’ve been crapping on to help guide you. For all their faults, they care about the source material and can bring insights into the process that you might not have thought of in your dream to bring an albino quadriplegic gender-queer otherkin Jedi order into the Star Wars universe. Or at the very least, they can devise a canonical reason why such an order exists instead of relying on “muh fee-fees.”
Ditto for the Marvel IPs. Your decisions have turned a guaranteed money-making machine into a product that is lucky to recoup its money. Sure, they hit all the ideological marks you wanted, but that doesn’t mean anything if you’re not getting eyes on the product and driving away potential fans. For example, “She-Hulk: Attorney at Law” has gotten middling reviews and gotten more than its fair share of hatred, some by people who would complain about anything (basically 99% of people online), but some who have a legitimate love of the character.
Of course, when the star of said show goes out of her way to attack the fan base to this very day…yeah, not a good look.
The best way to navigate your way out of this situation is similar to that with the Star Wars franchise: come up with good stories and engaging characters and let them do the talking. And as a Marvel fan, I can tell you there are a lot of characters that haven’t been tapped, but certainly can be with the right approach and with people who actually care about them. And if you can’t find a great story during the entire history of Marvel to adapt, you’re not looking hard enough.
So, Disney, you’re not out of the woods yet, but you’re not a completely lost cause. Let me give you a piece of advice to get you back on track. Take everything you’ve done over the past few years, all the advice you’ve gotten, all the direction you’ve been given, and the like. Then, do the exact opposite. Before you know it, the House of Mouse will be back on a solid foundation.
Of a lot of money.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
The Leftist world was all atwitter (or if you prefer all aX) recently with the story of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a poor illegal alien soul who was deported back to his home country of El Salvador, allegedly without due process. Without going too far into the weeds, let’s just say you’re more likely to catch Bernie Sanders flying on a private plane than you are to understanding the ins-and-outs of this case.
Wait. Scratch that.
So, to borrow a phrase from hack comedians, what’s the deal with deportation? It’s a complicated issue that deserves sober thinking to understand the gravitas of the subject. But since I’m already a few beers into this, you’ll have to put up with me.
deportation
What the Left thinks it means – a practice that needs to be done by the book, no matter how long it takes
What it really means – the legal consequence for illegal immigration
Contrary to what Rep. Jasmine Crockett says, illegal immigration is a crime. The law in question is the Immigration and Nationality Act which, along with other laws and regulations, provides direction for the immigration and deportation processes. Seems everything should be in order, right?
Not so much.
Much like Disney with negative reviews of “Snow White,” our political class loves to ignore the laws on the books when they’re inconvenient. And let’s just say the immigration laws are mighty inconvenient to the Left. After all, that’s the use of following immigration laws if they prevent you from ensuring Democrat control? You know, aside from those laws being the fucking laws.
That’s not to say Leftists don’t follow the laws all the time. In fact, one area where they demand the laws be followed to the letter is in…you guessed it, Frank Stallone. Actually, it’s deportation, which is really convenient considering it’s our topic for this Lexicon entry. After allowing people to enter the country through our southern border like wine moms going to a Taylor Swift concert, it’s funny to watch Leftists be such sticklers to the letter of the law.
And by “funny,” I mean calculated.
I know I’ve mentioned our good friend Saul Alinsky so often I could be his agent, but one of his Rules for Radicals applies here: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” Since Republicans believe in the rule of law (unless they find the laws inconvenient for political gain), the Left knows it has them in a box when it comes to immigration. If we have to follow the laws when it comes to stopping illegal immigration, we have to follow the laws when it comes to deportation.
And that’s where Constitutional law comes into play. The US Supreme Court previously ruled all aliens are entitled to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. So, that means regardless of the way they come into the country, they get their day in court.
A noble gesture in theory, but a burden in current practice, thanks to a little thing the Leftist kids like to call the Cloward-Piven Strategy. In short, this strategy is designed to achieve Leftist goals related to poverty by forcing the system to get overwhelmed. And guess how that gets accomplished: illegal immigration.
“But wait, Thomas. Wouldn’t illegal immigrants be ineligible for federal benefits?” you might ask. Or “Are you aware you’re not wearing pants?” The answer to the former is they should be, but thanks to loopholes in the law and soft-hearted and soft-brained politicians (I’m looking at you, Gavin Newsom), they gain access.
So, what does this have to do with deportation? By having to follow due process and the delays caused by so many illegal immigrants being processed over the past few years, the strain to the social safety net continues unabated.
That is, until President Trump got back into the Oval Office and decided to start enforcing immigration law. In the first six weeks, the Trump Administration deported 27,772 illegal immigrants, which is a step in the right direction. Where I think they’ve gone wrong is through fast-tracking the process. Yes, I know this plays into the Cloward-Piven and Alinsky playbooks, but it’s necessary to ensure the Left has no room to bitch. Not that it will stop them, mind you…
Nor will it stop the Left from lying. With the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case alone, we’ve seen attempts from the Left to paint him as an innocent victim denied due process and attempts from the Right to paint him as a gang-banger terrorist who has been legally deported back to his home country of El Salvador. Well, the truth is a bit murkier than these extremes are letting on.
First off, Kilmar Abrego Garcia freely admits he entered the country illegally, but has received a court order preventing him from being deported back to El Salvador out of fear of being attacked by a rival gang. So, not only have we confirmed he’s a member of a gang (MS-13 to be exactly, and I ain’t talking about Microsoft) and that he’s not supposed to be here, but he’s already had due process. But he also has a court order that should have protected him from deportation, as well as a questionable designation as a terrorist.
That means…well, a whole lotta shit, to be honest. If we deport him, we run afoul of the legal process. If we don’t deport him, he will still be affiliated with MS-13 which could put us in mortal danger.
Congratulations. We’re now in Kobayashi Maru territory.
The only way forward is being transparent, follow the law, and, oh yeah, stem the flow of illegal immigration to give the system time to catch up. And guess what the Trump Administration is doing? They’re cracking down, and that’s resulted in reduced encounters at the US/Mexico border. It’s a start, but there’s still a lot more to do.
First of all, let’s stop treating gang members like terrorists. Not only does it set a bad precedent for future Presidents, but it gives Leftists ammunition to call the deportation process into question. And, let’s face it, it’s not exactly the swiftest nor the clearest process in government. Plus, it elevates gang members, which only feeds their egos and gives them enough bravado to commit bigger, more audacious crimes. That, in turn, may cause other gangs to try to play catch-up, making the gang problem even worse.
Second, as much as the Trump Administration wants to rush through the deportation process to get results, we have to play it by the book. It won’t stop Leftists from lying or making gang-bangers look sympathetic figures, but it cuts the due process complaint they have off at the knees. And at the very least, it will make Leftists look like Cotton Hill, which will never fail to make me laugh.
Lastly, it’s long past time we overhaul our immigration and deportation policies. And that requires taking a hard look at our border policies. We can’t keep letting anyone with a sob story (and without paperwork) walk in unexamined while others jump through bureaucratic flaming hoops to gain legal entry. As draconian as Leftists think Trump’s border enforcement may be, it’s working. That gives us time to get our house in order.
If you really think about it (and I have because I’m as boring as an Amish rave), the deportation issues we’re seeing now are an outgrowth from the immigration issue. The more illegal immigrants come into the country, the more deportation orders have to be made once they’re caught. Of course, Leftists will continue to push for sanctuary cities and sanctuary states because, well, they don’t have to deal with the aftermath since they live more in the suburbs than where the illegal immigrants are.
So, let me float this idea, one that I’ve modified from Governors Ron Desantis and Greg Abbott. While they flew illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities and states, I want to send them to the residences of those who insist on being sanctuary cities and states. Preferably, to the houses of those politicians who made those things possible. Maybe that will drive home the point that illegal immigration isn’t something we should encourage.
Or, at the very least, we can point and laugh as we give Leftists exactly what they said they wanted.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
As social media and other electronic forms of communication have evolved, there is still a fundamental truth that will always remain: someone is going to fuck it up. Whether it’s the idiots who hit “Reply All” on a mass email asking to be taken off the email or posting videos on Instagram that results in getting the poster fired, people can and will be boneheads.
Just like members of the Trump Administration, thanks to a little app called Signal and a reporter named Jeffery Goldberg. The short version of the story is government officials including Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth discussing an impending military strike. And Goldberg was somehow invited to be in the chat.
And just as predictably, Leftists want to turn this matter into a major scandal because it’s not like they have anything to do between firebombing Tesla dealerships and posting lame videos about an impending silent riot. (Yes, it’s just as stupid as it sounds.) But is it a nothingburger or a major scandal requiring figurative heads rolling? Let’s find out!
Signalgate
What the Left thinks it means – a major scandal that exposes the Trump Administration’s incompetence
What it really means – a boneheaded move that may or may not have legs
One of the hardest things to get a handle on when researching this situation is figuring out the severity of it. It’s definitely a bad look, but so is the “Choose Your Fighter” video put out by Democrats. (And for those of you who click on the link, I cannot be personally held responsible for any brain cells lost.)
Where things get muddy is what security level the information in this chat was. I will be the first one to admit I don’t know shit about fuck when it comes to security levels. The best parallel I can make is the various internal security settings on company emails. The main difference? An email from Steve from Accounting about cover sheets on TPS reports probably won’t start a nuclear war.
I say probably because there’s always a chance. Fucking Steve from Accounting!
If you’re really interested in classified information designations, Wikipedia has a breakdown and the history behind it.
Anyway, we have two different camps. One side thinks Signalgate is a nothingburger with a side of nonion rings and a Coke Zero. The other side thinks it’s a major security breach that puts us in danger. Meanwhile, I’m somewhere in the middle based on the sheer dishonesty from both extremes.
Let’s face it, the MAGA Right has a vested interest in playing defense, mainly because they don’t want to give the Left any Ws. In an environment where politics is divided into teams, neither side wants to admit defeat, even when it would be the best thing to do in order to get past a scandal. And when your entire political existence is wrapped up in a single political figure, you’re going to do whatever it takes to keep your guy clean.
Meanwhile, the Left has a vested interest in attacking, mainly because they have nothing going for them. Their approval rating is further in the tank than Michael Dukakis circa 1988. Their attempts to get younger voters? Swear a lot more. And on top of that, there’s party infighting with younger party members openly questioning the old guard. (And I’m talking reaaaaalllllly old here.) They need a unifying issue to at least pretend like they’re on speaking terms.
Clowns to the Left of me, Jokers to the Right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you. I’m sorry.
As of this writing, the chat screenshots are still coming out in dribs and drabs, due in part to the journalist who shouldn’t have been there in the first place, Jeffery Goldberg. Whomever let a known Trump basher in on this chat needs to be fired. Preferably out of a cannon.
And if the fucknuts who said “Hey, let’s make Signal a thing in the federal government” is still employed by the Trump Administration, he or she should be fired. Out of a catapult. You know, just to switch things up.
Let me make this perfectly clear to the Trump Administration members reading this: whenever you use any social media app, it’s only a matter of time before shit gets leaked. Provided you’re not dumb enough to post that shit willingly, mind you. (I’m looking at you, Anthony “I Have a Small” Weiner.) If you have Signal on your phones, delete it, destroy your phone, and get a brand new one. And for God’s sake, don’t download it or any other social media apps ever again! Let’s the public find out about information leaks the old fashioned way: in the Weekly World News.
Where the Left has a point is Signalgate has some legs to it. Not only is it a black eye to the credibility of the Trump Administration, but it shows a level of judgment that doesn’t bode well for the next 3+ years. Trump needs to get his shit together and fast before his second term gets sidetracked by unnecessary bullshit.
Or you can sit back and watch the proverbial circular firing squad going on in Leftist circles, knowing they’re too inept to do anything.
Personally, I prefer option 1. Being President isn’t an entry level position. It takes at least some level of competency to be effective. Granted, we’re coming off a low point after President Brick Tamland, but that’s no excuse to coast. Fix this shit!
And for the Left, as long as you have Hillary Clinton on your side, you can take all the seats regarding the handling of sensitive information.
As for the rest of us, we’ll have to see how Signalgate shakes out. Hopefully, there isn’t any military or foreign relations fallout from it. If not, Lucy won’t be the only one with some ‘splainin’ to do.
And with that reference, I am officially old.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
This week has been a goldmine for content, but not if you’re on the Left. Seems one of their favorite sinkholes…I mean news networks is having to make some cutbacks, including the firing of some on-air talent like Joy Ann Reid.
Sorry. I have to take a moment to let the laughter subside at using “talent” and “Joy Ann Reid” in the same sentence.
Several hours later…
Okay, I’m back. Now where was I? Oh yes, talking about MSNBC! Because I’m a giving person, I want to give it the attention it deserves and the audience it is sorely lacking. With the tens and tens of my readers out there, I can see their ratings skyrocket!
So let’s get into it.
MSNBC
What the Left thinks it means – a valuable cable news source full of diverse opinions and smart analysis
What it really means – the Air America of cable news
As a recovering journalism student and a child of the 70s and 80s, I was there when cable news really became a fixture in the reporting game. Yes, back in the days when various hair products gave us hairstyles that were hard enough to take a sledgehammer to without a single strand being out of place, cable news was a bit of an oddity at first because we weren’t sure just how much news there could be on any given day. Sure, if you had a couple of high profile stories, you might be able to stretch it out over an hour or two, but 24 hours?
Well, that’s why God made filler content.
As cable news found out you could make any story run for hours by a) reporting it, b) analyzing it, c) bringing in panelists to analyze it, and d) repeating the cycle, more people decided to jump in the pool. Nowadays, cable news is dominated by Fox News, with CNN and MSNBC not so close behind. Fox News’s popularity is understandable, as they seem to have the hot newsreader demographic on lockdown. CNN is a shadow of its former self, both in content, quality, and ratings.
That brings us to MSNBC. They are the number two cable news network (both literally and figuratively), and they have a loyal following. And so did Charlie Manson, but that’s besides the point. With Donald Trump coming back into the White House like a wrecking ball, one would think they would be set up nicely to rake in the money bashing the President left and, well, further left.
You would think that, but these are Leftists we’re talking about here. They tend to make money in spite of themselves, and MSNBC is no different. If you are an opposition network when a President from a particular party is in power, it’s practically a license to print money. Fox News did it under Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Brick Tamland, and MSNBC kinda did under George W. Bush and the first Trump Presidency.
There is one slight problem with that, however: the potential lack of crossover watchers. The harder you lean into a particular ideology, the harder it gets to get viewers outside of that ideology. Fox News gets away with it because, well, hot newsreaders, but MSNBC is a bit harder of a sell. I mean, who wants to listen to a bunch of unattractive smug assholes complaining all the time? If I wanted to do that, I could just go to a Leftist rally.
And in some cases, my attendance would double the attendance.
Just look at their prime time line up. Aside from Rachel “I’m Only Here One Night a Week But Still Manage to Rake in $25 Million a Year” Maddow, who else is there? Lawrence O’Donnell, whose inability to grow an audience is only surpassed by his contemptuous arrogance? Joy Ann Reid…oops! Too soon? Chris Hayes?
Wait. Has anyone seen Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow in the same room at the same time? I’m just asking questions here, kids.
And that’s pretty much the list of heavy hitters MSNBC has. Everyone else, including Al Sharpton, is either washed up or a virtual unknown. I’ve seen SyFy movies with more star power. And when you’re dealing with attracting an audience, you need more than an ideological connection.
The other thing that hurts MSNBC is repetition. If you watch Rachel Maddow (and for God’s sake why would you), you’re going to get the same perspective, sometimes even down to the same squawking points, on another show. And another show. And another show. And…well, you get the picture. The lack of variety tends to bore an audience.
Now, before you say “Faux News does the same thing, idiot,” let me remind you Fox News does bring on Leftists in prominent (and more watched) shows to offer opinions, as wrong-headed as they are. MSNBC typically doesn’t, or when they do it’s self-styled Republicans who are so far left they make Karl Marx look like Ronald Reagan. Not quite the same thing, kids. It’s closer to what the kids like to call “controlled opposition.”
The MSNBC business model reminds me of the Leftist attempt at talk radio, Air America. If you don’t remember it, be glad. I’ve talked about it before, so I’ll be brief here. Air America tried to create a Leftist talk radio network by taking the right wing radio network model and just putting in Leftists. And it worked about as well as you’d think.
And who had a show on both Air America and MSNBC? Rachel Maddow. Dun dun DUNNNNNNNNNN!
Okay, that has nothing to do with anything. Moving on…
The bad news for MSNBC right now is it’s not as much of a cash cow as it once was and should be given Trump Presidency 2: Electric Boogaloo. There are going to be more cuts coming, and it’s going to affect more and more people. And you thought corrupt politicians sweat a lot when the Epstein Files got released! But there is a way out, one that CNN is trying to do and having marginal success doing.
Try reporting the fucking news with some balance.
Sure, you’ll lose the hardcore MSNBC audience who counts on you to feed them the misinformation they want to hear, but you’ll gain a little credibility in the process. Not much, I grant you since, well, you’re MSNBC, but it might make for an interesting experience for you all. Not every idea that comes from your hivemind is a good one (see Harris/Walz 2024), and not every idea that comes from outside of your hivemind is a bad one (see DOGE). By opening your ideological lens a little wider and giving different perspectives equal footing, I guarantee you’ll find solid footing again.
Just in time for Elon Musk to buy your sorry network.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
For those of you who don’t know, I studied journalism in college. And in my defense, I was young, dumb, and in love. Now, I’m old, dumb, and in love, but that’s besides the point.
I bring up that therapy-inducing memory to ease you into this week’s Lexicon entry involving journalism. During my studies, the Associated Press was one of the gold standards in the news game and was generally considered a neutral source of information. Oh, how times have changed.
This past week (please check local listings for the week in your area) the AP broke the cardinal sin of journalism by becoming the story rather than reporting it. And it’s all over a body of water, the Gulf of Mexico/America. President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order renaming the Gulf, but the AP refused to acknowledge it. As a result, the White House barred an AP reporter from an Executive Order signing ceremony and other events and trips on Air Force One, which of course lead to the AP suing members of the Trump Administration for the act.
And you thought high profile divorces were messy.
Anyway, for its efforts to gain my attention, let’s take the Associated Press on a tour of Leftist Lexicon Land!
the Associated Press
What the Left thinks it means – a trusted news source and vibrant defender of the free press
What it really means – another water carrier for the Left, this one masquerading as a wire service
To complete my old curmudgeon cosplay, I must invoke the “back in my day” power.
Back in my journalism days, there was an expectation of neutrality in news reporting because journalists at the time believed personal biases would get in the way of the public interest. This commitment to serving the public before advancing an agenda is what helped build a stronger, more intelligent society.
Then Watergate happened. The country’s eyes were opened to the dirty corners of our halls of power, and it created a rise in the interest of journalism as a form of activism. Now, instead of just reporting the news, reporters would seek out the news related to a particular evil they wanted to expose and uproot.
There is nothing inherently wrong or unethical in this, mind you. But it opens the reporter up to letting emotions (and possibly greed) taint the end result. Yes, you’re still trying to meet the public need for information, but you also have a personal stake in the outcome. That leads to potential conflicts of interest.
Not that modern journalism has any problems with that. This may come as a surprise to you, but our media sources tend to lean left more than a runner trying to avoid getting tagged out at first during a pickoff attempt. In other news, the Chicago Cubs are already eliminated from post season play before spring training, but that’s not important right now. By taking a side, journalism has gone from being watchdogs to lapdogs, and as much as I love lapdogs, I would prefer journalists play it straight.
The Associated Press used to do that, but has since moved more towards the Left, as slight as some think it has. Even if it’s considered to be factual and, thus, credible, the bias still poses a problem because it can lead to misinformation.
Of course, the AP and its defenders will say it’s fighting against misinformation through fact checks, even the slightest implication that is supported by an extrapolation of the fact checks they do can be misinformation in and of itself. Take the fact checks the AP does and who tends to be the target of those fact checks, namely conservatives. Leftists claim fact checkers have to do more fact checking on the Right because they lie all the time, but there’s one tiny problem with that.
It’s a little thing the kids like to call confirmation bias. When you have a set of beliefs as we all do, you tend to reject information that contradicts those beliefs and accept information that conforms to them. So, when a certain allegedly credible source of journalism decides to fact check the Right more than the Left, that gives the impression that…wait for it, kids…the Right lies more than the Left.
But it also gives the impression the AP covers up the lies of the Left more frequently.
Of course, Leftists and the AP would never admit that because it would expose the misinformation they both agree with, but that’s that’s neither here nor there. The point is the AP has a credibility problem.
Which brings us to their lolsuit. (And, no, that’s not a typo.)
The AP is arguing their ban violates the First and Fifth Amendments, more specifically the freedom of the press and due process, specifically. Not to be pedantic, but both arguments are bullshit to anyone with even a Schoolhouse Rock level of Constitutional knowledge. Or anyone who can read, which might be over the journalism class’s pay grade, but here we go.
The freedom of the press argument doesn’t work because of five little words from the First Amendment. Sing along if you know the words:
Congress shall make no law
Since this beef is between the White House and the AP, Congress doesn’t have a role and, thus, the First Amendment doesn’t apply. Even if you accept the notion freedom of the press is being violated by the Administration, there is a secondary problem, that being access. Just because you’re a reporter doesn’t give you a VIP pass to go where you want for a story. You see, the freedom of the press doesn’t equate to a right to access. What the AP’s First Amendment argument tries to do is establish they have a right to be where the President is.
Of course, if I were advising the legal team defending the Administration officials, I would limit that access to only when the President is in the can, but that’s just me.
More to the point, the press pool tends to be rotated and cover various beats, so the AP being excluded from certain events isn’t as egregious as they want you to think it is. And what’s more, there are these things called pool reporters who compile the news from multiple sources and pass it along to those media outlets who didn’t get the luck of the press pool draw. This doesn’t impede the AP’s ability to distort…I mean report the news, so there is no violation.
In short, get that weak-sauce shit outta here, AP!
Now for the Fifth Amendment. Let’s start with the text itself.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness agThe ainst himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The AP’s argument in this case is based on the “due process of law” element, suggesting their ban was put in place without being allowed a day in court. Aside from all the reasons I cited above as far as access, there’s also another pedantic but vital detail: there is no allegation of a crime. This whole thing, as fucking stupid as it is, surrounds the name of a body of water. Even if the Gulf of Mexico self-identifies as the Gulf of America, it matters not. The AP isn’t being denied due process so much as it’s being denied a spot at the table over a disagreement outside of any legal constructs.
No allegation of crime? No violation of due process.
Checkmate, bitches.
Of course, the AP and its defenders will try to argue the contrary and may actually score a court victory depending on which Leftist judge gets a chance to shit on the Constitution to give them a victory over the Evil Orange Man. Which will give them reason to crow…at least until the case makes it to the Supreme Court or gets laughed out of court by a judge who reads beyond an AP reporter’s grade level.
How the mighty have fallen. From globally trusted news source to the punchline of a blogger’s weekly journey into Leftist madness.
Seems they’re getting off a little light, don’t you think?
Unlocking the Keys
With all of the post-2024 Election analyses, there’s been a lot of talk about Allan Lichtman’s 13 Keys, the factors he’s used to predict 9 of the past 11 Presidential elections. A lot of talk, but not a lot of analysis, per se. Oh, you had your share of squawking heads on both pointing out how the 13 Keys failed this election, but not a lot of thought as to why.
Well, since I lack hobbies, I decided to do a bit of research and analysis of my own and what I found out might change a few minds.
Before we get into the boring stuff, we have to set our parameters, i.e. know what we’re talking about. After all, this isn’t MSNBC, so we can’t get away with spouting off without having facts.
Lichtman’s Keys are as follows:
Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the US House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
Under Lichtman’s model, a successful candidate has to win at least 8 of these Keys. And considering its track record, it would be hard to imagine a scenario where the Keys failed.
This is where things get a little tricky, and where most of the post-election analysis surrounding the Keys stopped. The consensus was the Keys were wrong, which negatively impacts Lichtman and the model itself. However, that’s far too simplistic and inaccurate an assessment. Based on my own analysis, the Keys still work and worked in the 2024 election.
Where the failure occurred is in the interpretation of the data. Whenever you do any kind of social research, there is always a chance one’s personal beliefs can find their way into the analysis of the findings. If you’re not careful, you go from letting the data drive your conclusions to rooting for a particular conclusion and retroactively figuring out how it came to pass.
To be fair, observation bias isn’t limited to the “soft sciences.” There are some prime examples of hard sciences being sucked into the wonderful world of bias. The difference is in the ability to reconstruct the experiment to test the hypothesis further. With hard science, the way to do that is clear, but with soft science, it’s unclear, if not impossible, to reproduce the outcomes. We can set up similar conditions, but the passage of time, the introduction of new information, or even just the possibility of a changed opinion limit the effectiveness and accuracy of the reproduction.
Setting all that aside (because it gets pretty close to migraine-inducing territory for me), the important takeaway is the data is the data. It’s how we interpret it that creates the opening for bias to affect the outcome.
I can’t say for certain Lichtman’s prediction that Vice President Kamala Harris would win 9 of the 13 keys was based on bias rather than a difference in interpreting the data. Prior to 2024, the only other time in recent history that the Keys didn’t accurately predict the outcome was in 2000 when he predicted Al Gore would defeat George W. Bush. His explanation for why the Keys didn’t predict the winner then? Bush stole the election.
That suggests to me he may have a bias issue when it comes to elections he feels strongly about, and he has made it clear he’s not a Trump supporter by any means. Having said that, I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt here and chalk the 2024 election prediction failure to just having an off night. More grace than he deserves? Maybe, but feel free to excoriate me in the comments.
Lichtman’s prediction for 2024 were as follows:
The following nine keys line up in favor of the incumbent Democrats.
Contest Key 2: The Democrats have united in near unanimity behind Harris.
Third-Party Key 4: In recognition of his fading support, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. suspended his campaign. His endorsement of Donald Trump does not impact this key.
Short-Term Economy Key 5: It is too late for a recession to take hold of the economy before the election. The National Bureau of Economic Research, which provides the most reliable assessment of recessions, typically takes a few months to establish that the economy has fallen into a recession (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2020).
Long-Term Economy Key 6: Real per-capita growth during the Biden term far exceeds the average of the previous two presidential terms.
Policy Change Key 7: Biden has fundamentally changed the policies of the Trump administration in areas such as the environment and climate change, infrastructure, immigration, taxes, and women’s and civil rights.
Social Unrest Key 8: Despite sporadic demonstrations, social unrest has not risen to the level needed to forfeit this key: massive, unresolved unrest that threatens the stability of society as in the 1960s and early 1970s.
Scandal Key 9: Republicans in Congress have tried and failed to pin a scandal on President Biden. His son Hunter’s crimes do not count as scandal, which to do so must implicate the president himself and generate bipartisan recognition of wrongdoing.
Foreign/Military Success Key 11: President Biden and Biden alone forged the coalition of the West that kept Putin from conquering Ukraine and then undermining America’s national security by threatening its NATO allies. Biden’s initiatives will go down in history as an extraordinary presidential achievement.
Challenger Charisma Key 13: As explained, Trump does not fit the criteria of a once-in-a-generation, broadly appealing, transformational candidate like Franklin D. Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan.
Seems like a lock, right? Not quite.
I have no dog in this hunt since I didn’t vote for either Trump or Harris, so my analysis shook out a bit differently. Instead of focusing on just the 9 keys Lichtman thought Harris would win, I think a look at all 13 would be helpful.
Here’s what I came up with.
Party Mandate: Although the 2022 midterm elections didn’t quite swing as far right as the GOP would have wanted, the fact remains they regained control of the House of Representatives. On that, Lichtman and I concur. Advantage: Trump.
Contest: Lichtman gave this one to Harris, but the conditions under which she received the nomination makes this a bit harder for me to concede this Key to her. At the beginning of the election cycle, Ms. Harris was still considered to be Vice President, in spite of the thoughts at the time she might be a drag on the ticket. The unity behind her didn’t come together until after the nomination process was truncated and she was allowed to take over for Joe Biden. Trump, on the other hand, went through a primary process where he had challengers of varying degrees of ineptitude. Even with that being the case, the GOP by and large got behind Trump from the outset. Thus, I have to give this one to the GOP. Advantage: Trump.
Incumbancy: Once Joe Biden dropped out, this Key became a moot point. Neither Trump nor Harris could claim this, so neither one would get the advantage from it. No Advantage.
Third Party: There was no significant third party presence in the 2024 election. The closest we had was Robert Kennedy, Jr. No Advantage.
Short Term Economy: Now, we’re getting into the fun stuff! Lichtman was correct when he said there was not a recession in play here. However, that doesn’t automatically mean the economy is strong. We may not have had a recession, but we still had to deal with an economy voters felt was in decline because, well, it was. Even if you consider the drop in the inflation rate to be a step in the right direction, it didn’t resonate with voters. For that reason, I cannot give Harris the nod as Lichtman did. Advantage: Trump.
Long Term Economy: Second verse, same as the first. Advantage: Trump.
Policy Change: Again, Lichtman correctly stated the Biden Administration changed policies put in place by the Trump Administration, which were certainly big, but for the wrong reasons because they were historically bad changes. (Inflation Reduction Act, anyone?) When asked what she would do differently, Harris couldn’t come up with anything, which meant she knowingly or inadvertently signed off on the policy changes Biden made, which were ultimately unpopular. Staying the course when you’re about to hit the rocks isn’t smart in real life or in politics. Advantage: Trump.
Social Unrest: One of the candidates got shot at twice after years of being called a fascist, and the other was Kamala Harris. That tells me there’s social unrest. Advantage: Trump.
Scandal: Sorry, sir, but you think President Biden was devoid of scandal, I have swamp land in Death Valley I’d love to sell you. This was one of the biggest blunders Lichtman had with his 2024 Keys because it ignored one of the biggest stories of last year: Biden’s declining mental faculties. That in and of itself (as well as the media’s cover-up) was a big enough scandal to swing this Key to Trump. Advantage: Trump.
Foreign or Military Failure: That was Joe Biden’s M.O. even back in his Congressional days. As we saw with the mess that was the Afghanistan withdrawal, there was no way for Biden to escape blame for it. And Harris was pretty much either a ghost on the scene or nodded in approval at whatever harebrained idea Biden came up with at the time. Trump didn’t have that problem because, well, he wasn’t Commander In Chief. Advantage: Trump.
Foreign/Military Success: Unless you count making President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine super rich, I got nothing. Advantage: Trump.
Incumbent Charisma/Hero: Even if you count Harris as the incumbent, she was a popularity void, as evidenced by the number of people who walked out of her rallies after the musical performances by big-name stars concluded. And Trump wasn’t the incumbent. It’s a wash. No Advantage.
Challenger Charisma/Hero: Say what you will about the man, Donald Trump has charisma and he imposed his will on the Harris campaign. Lichtman got this one completely wrong. Advantage: Trump.
So the final score from my analysis is 10 Keys for Trump, 0 for Harris, and 3 for No Advantage. And considering Trump won the White House, I’d say the Keys worked pretty good once possible bias (and definite missed calls) were accounted for. It may not have been the result Lichtman wanted, but from where I sit, the Keys worked to perfection, even if he didn’t.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
This was another week where you couldn’t swing a dead cat without hitting a potential Lexicon entry. Although I’m not sure why you would want to swing a dead cat around, but I’m not here to kink shame. Let your freak flag fly, baby!
Out of all the potential subjects, one really stood out for me. In a move that shocked, well, not that many people, Mark Zuckerberg announced Meta and all the social media sites under it would be moving away from its “fact checking” model (which literally fact-checked obvious jokes, thus making the model itself a joke) and moving more towards a Community Notes standard like what is being used on the Social Media Site Formerly Known As Twitter. This got Leftists all atwitter (or would that be aX) at the notion. Journalists (0r whatever the fuck Brian Stelter is) and Leftist hacks were up in arms at Zuck’s decision.
Which obviously means it was the right decision.
And it makes it perfect for a Leftist Lexicon entry.
fact checking
What the Left thinks it means – a vital service that should only be done by professionals
What it really means – finding out the truth and calling out the lies
One of the hardest things about being informed today is knowing who you can trust. Modern journalism is a hodgepodge of shitty sources sucking up to even shittier people so they can get invited to dinner parties with yet even shittier people. The Fourth Estate has become Leftist stenographers more than the bulldogs that will relentlessly seek the truth. Anymore, any journalists are lucky to stumble into the truth, and even then there’s a better than average chance they’ll completely miss it.
On its face, the idea of fact checking is a good thing, especially given the modern journalism as described above. We want to be informed, or at the very least seem informed to impress others. To that end, we look for sources that break things down for us and teach us things we didn’t know. With the sheer deluge of information sources, it’s hard to find a way to control the output of the fire hose.
Enter the fact checkers, doing the research for you so you don’t have to! It’s so easy and cheap to do, it’s a wonder why people don’t do this more often!
And that’s the problem.
When you pawn off anything you should do yourself, you are subject to the outcomes the other party produce. It’s like when you hire a contractor who farms out the work to a subcontractor. The job may get done, but it may not up to the standards the contractor has. Then it becomes a matter of people pointing fingers at one another trying to figure out who’s responsible for the kitchen sink being put in the attic.
When it comes to information, it’s a lot harder to fix the fuckups, mainly because no one wants to take responsibility for your being misinformed. You don’t want to admit you were a dumbass for believing a fact checker. The fact checker doesn’t want to admit fault because a) it looks reaaaallllly bad when a fact checker can’t figure out the truth, and b) it hurts their widdle fee-fees. The entity that hired the fact checkers doesn’t want to take the hit for the reasons mentioned above and because it erodes the trust the entity has, which ultimately costs them money.
In other words, when you rely on fact checkers to do your research for you, more often than not, you’re their bitch.
Then, there’s the lovely little problem of bias. In the early days of Facebook fact checking, the people doing it leaned so far left they were parallel to the ground while standing up. Once that got called out, Zuck tried to balance out the fact checkers and the checking itself, but only made it worse because some of the fact checkers had bias issues. Not a good look, kids!
Regardless of which side of the political/ideological aisle you’re on, bias fucks up your ability to be truly informed because it limits your scope of information sources. Social media has turned us back into a tribalistic society where anyone who deviates from what you consider to be normal, just, and right is an infidel and, thus, not even worthy of even basic human decency. When you face information from one of those “unclean” sources that contradicts your mindset, you have two choices: adapt, or reject.
I bring this up to underscore the problem with biased fact checking. If you have the opinion information from one side or the other is untrue (regardless of whether it’s factual), you are going to more inclined to reject it. And if you have the power to shape what other people see on a social media website like…oh I don’t know…Facebook, you are going to be tempted to hide the “bad” information and go after those who want it to be known.
There’s an old saying that applies here…something about absolute power and corruption…I’m sure it will come to me.
Anyway, the Facebook fact checkers fell into this trap, which caused a lot of accounts to get warnings, suspensions, and even terminations. And in some cases, actual news stories shared online got slapped with misinformation tags (I’m looking at you, Hunter Biden) and were subsequently suppressed. Oh, and I forgot to mention Zuck said he got pressure from the Brick Tamland Administration to suppress the laptop story.
And who got punished for suppressing this legitimate news story? The entities who shared it. I mean, why would people who actively worked towards misinformation by absence see any punishment for making people misinformed? That’s just crazy talk, man!
But it also exposes the danger of trusting fact checkers without verifying whether what they’re saying is factual. Just because you tell me you’re honest doesn’t mean I’m not gonna test you. And you shouldn’t just trust and believe either. News stories that sound too good to be true should be the first ones that should make your Bullshit Meter light up like the…biological discharges…in an hourly rate hotel room when you scan it with a blacklight flashlight.
Not that I know anything about that, mind you…
This is going to be a bit of an ask, but it’s going to make more sense if you do it. Question all of your sources while reaching out for alternative sources from a wider array of ideologies. Then, let common sense be your guide. If something sounds factual and makes sense, be open to accepting it. If something sounds like more full of bullshit than the world’s largest cattle ranch, then don’t trust it. Consider it mental calisthenics that will make you stronger, faster, better. And without the need for bionics!
I would be remiss if I didn’t point out how the typical Leftist sources are so upset Mark Zuckerberg is going in a new direction with fact checking. The way it was set up initially, the Left had the power over what got considered factual. Now, thanks to the advent and popularity of Community Notes, they no longer control the flow of information and can be called out for pushing misinformation while pretending to guard against it. And if you’re a Leftist media shill, the worst thing you can do is strip them of the power and the prestige of being information brokers and letting the hoi polloi point and laugh when you fuck up.
If I may offer a suggestion, media folks, maybe stop parroting Leftist squawking points and start doing your fucking jobs. There’s a reason used car salesmen are considered more trustworthy than the media and their fact checkers these days, and I can draw a pretty clear conclusion as to why. But I’m sure if you really put your hivemind to it, you’ll figure it out by the end of January.
Of the year 3843.
Leftist Lexicion Word of the Week
Yep, we’re back talking about the 2024 Election again.
Since Donald Trump became the 47th President, the Left has been trying to figure out what went wrong. I have a thought: don’t run Hillary Clinton with a tan on a shitty platform focused on abortion rather than the cost of groceries. And as simple as that is to understand, the Left are still trying to figure out a way to right the DNC Titanic.
One idea that caught on was finding left-wing versions of Joe Rogan and Elon Musk. Spoiler Alert: you had them. They were called Joe Rogan and Elon Musk. But instead of taking a step back and realize running on bat-shit insane policies, they’re trying to find a way to reach out to white men.
Enter Dean Withers, affectionately called “the Bro Whisperer.”
Hoo boy. This one’s gonna sting, kids.
the Bro Whisperer
What the Left thinks it means – a way for the Left to reach out to young men to persuade them to vote Democrat
What it really means – proof positive the Left still doesn’t know what the fuck they’re doing
Leftists have had a pretty significant footprint (carbon or otherwise) in the mainstream media. Most major newspapers, the three networks, PBS, and some online spaces such as Facebook and YouTube. Even the Social Media Network Formerly Known As Twitter had the loving and diverse jackboot of the Left on its throat for a long time.
But as anyone who is even vaguely familiar with the rise of talk radio can tell you, that only meant the Right had to create their own niche in the market. So, they did. Whether it was Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, or Truth Social, the Right found a way to take the good parts of what the Left shit on, clean them off, and make them work.
Unfortunately for the Left, they’re not so successful in reversing the political polarity and being successful. And this whole “Bro Whisperer” thing is bound to tank more than Michael Dukakis in a tank.
First off, the concept is utterly demeaning to anyone with an IQ above Kate Moss’s waist size. Which is why the Left thinks it’s a great idea, by the way. As much as the Left loves to push back against negative gender stereotypes when it comes to women (and, more recently, men who claim to be women but have a five o’clock shadow that would make Bigfoot look like Dr. Evil), they’re resorting to the characterization of potential young male voters as early 90s-era frat boys. Instead of doing some introspection and working on an actual message, turn them all into “bros.”
Fucking brilliant.
Of course, this runs counter to the way the Left has seen men in recent decades. Potential rapists, gun nuts, control freaks, hyper-macho gym bros, colonists, misogynists, homophobes, intellectually and emotionally stunted, and the hits keep coming. And those are the names they use if they like you!
Seriously, though, the Left has been pounding the drums that men suck for a while now. Even now, the big brains on the Left blame men for Queen Kamala the Appointed’s election loss, but this time it’s men of all colors, not just whites, who get the blame. Apparently, men are afraid of strong women leaders, but the Left hasn’t presented any to us aside from Tulsi Gabbard. Most of the time, the Left’s idea of a strong woman is weaker than the drinks at a fourth-rate strip club.
Not that I know anything about that, mind you…
Let me help you Leftists with an important concept that will come in handy sooner or later: not everything you think can be boiled down to sexism is actually sexism. Unless you’re taking the same drugs Joy Reid is, Harris ran a horrible campaign and wasted a shit-ton of money in the process. She didn’t really make much of an appeal to men, instead focusing on abortion (which Leftists keep telling us “no vagina, no say” so men would be further excluded from the conversation). And aside from doing a horrible fucking job on tasks President Brick Tamland gave her, she could list the number of successes she’s had on the one hand of the world’s unluckiest woodworker. It’s the lack of outreach on her campaign’s part that cost her the male vote.
Say what you will about Trump, he at least appealed to potential voters from all walks of life. That’s what drew in voters and political and social figures like the aforementioned Rogan and Musk. He didn’t talk down to them. He didn’t throw them out of the movement if they dared to consider the Right might not be the second coming of Hitler. Now that Queen Kamala the Appointed got stomped like a vat of grapes in an “I Love Lucy” episode, some on the Left are now willing to listen.
Hence, the “Bro Whisperer” bullshit.
But remember what I said earlier about the Left not exactly being successful in adopting ideas of the Right? Yeah, this is another one of them. On the bright side, though, it gives us an opportunity to remember the good old days of Air America. Yeah, that was an enjoyable three days (fewer if you take out all the commercials).
Now, typically I try to avoid making superficial comments about a Leftist’s looks or personality. Unfortunately, I’m going to have to break that rule this time because the “Bro Whisper” is the least Bro-ish Bro to ever Bro a Bro, Bro. But the Left are looking to him to help bridge the gap between themselves and the segment of the population they’ve shit on for decades. All I gotta say is good luck, kid. Maybe you’ll be Bro Rogan, but I’m gonna go out on a limb and say you won’t.
This on-again-off-again political romance with male voters shows the duplicity of the Left’s approach, as well as the cynicism behind it. The thing to remember is the Left thinks we’re dumber than a bag of hammers unless we say, think, and do exactly what they do. They see us as goldfish with a blackout drinking problem: short of memory and not terribly clear on the details. Anyone who backs the “Bro Whisperer” concept is perpetuating that idea. They think going from blaming male voters for not giving us Queen Kamala the Appointed to asking for their votes (and money, of course) is no big deal because we won’t remember how they called us fascists.
Even though it was literally a week or two before Election Day. I’m sure Queen Kamala’s positions have changed since then and she wants to make up for slamming men more than Nancy Pelosi slams shots at an open bar. She’s matured in that nearly 2 month period.
And if you believe that, I have some swamp land in the Sahara Desert I’d love to sell ya.
The best part of the “Bro Whisperer” (at least to me) is how confident the Left is it’s going to work. The Left has a serious ego problem (but that’s a blog post for another day) and it’s their sheer arrogance in their shitty ideas that will make the inevitable flop all the more enjoyable. In today’s political environment, the Left is Wile E. Coyote and we’re Acme.
I’m sure the “Bro Whisperer” is going to give it the old community college/votech try and the Left will marvel at the tens and tens of listeners he’s going to get, but it’s too late for the Left to mend fences. You’re going to have to be real going forward to regain the male vote.
On the bright side, you still have the men pretending to be women vote on lockdown!
Noses Up, Thumbs Down
As a recovering Leftist, I could go on for days about everything I see wrong with the current Left, mainly because they tend to be the same problems I saw when I was among their ranks. They’re not even original enough to recycle their problems!
The one common aspect that flows through all of these issues is arrogance. Regardless of the circumstances, Leftists always think they’re the smartest people in the room and aren’t afraid to let you know it. And they’re obviously better than you because they’re Leftists.
If that logic were any more circular it would give me motion sickness.
And that’s on top of the nausea I get when listening to Leftists expound upon their brilliance with takes worse than letting Lindsey Lohan be your AA sponsor. Just look back at any of the Leftists livestreaming the 2024 election. Down to the one, they all had the same take: Queen Kamala the Appointed was not only going to win, but ran a flawless campaign. Only the worst possible people could possibly vote for Donald Trump!
Yeah, about that.
Not only did Leftists double down on the “everyone else is stupid” rhetoric (which always brings people to the polls…to vote against them), but they also did what they did with climate change “research”: start with the answer and work backwards, ignoring anything that contradicts the desired results. In doing so, the Left has become the personification of the Principal Skinner “No, it’s the children who are wrong” meme.
To this day (see local listings for Leftist insanity in your area) the Left will do anything they can to avoid the one thing they need to do to move forward: admit they were wrong. And to their credit, some Leftists are starting to do just that, whether it be out of a crisis of conscience or a crisis of potential irrelevancy. Most of them, however, are confident it’s everyone else who is to blame for their own fuck-ups.
That’s the thing about egotists. They can never fail; they can only be failed. When they make a mistake, it’s always someone else’s or something else’s fault. And guess who is using this very tactic to explain away the 2024 election debacle and prepare for the 2028 election debacle?
You got it. The same people who gave us Queen Kamala the Appointed.
And it’s not just in politics where the Left claim to be smarter than everyone else. The Leftist smug reaches in to academia, especially science. Climate change predictions that never come true, COVID-19 guidelines based on utter bullshit, people who make Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson the de facto experts on all things science (even when the science is not in their respective backgrounds), the adoption of 72 genders (Spoiler Alert: still just 2), the acceptance that trans women are no different than biological women, and many more anti-science takes from the self-professed “Party of Science.” And if you dare speak out and present data that proves them wrong, you’re a heretic and must be dismissed, censored, maligned, called a conspiracy nut, and so on.
And if these Leftist science fans are proven wrong, that information gets memory-holed faster than Eric Roberts accepts a role. An example of this is evolution. Growing up, all the Leftists (myself included) said man evolved from apes. It was repeated so much that it became the common truth, in spite of the fact there wasn’t much science to back it up. Years later, I was in an AOL chat room (ah, those were the days) and mentioned this. A Leftist then told me no scientist actually believed that and that I was making it up. No matter what sources I used or firsthand direct experience I had to the contrary, it was never enough to satisfy the Leftist. Their orthodoxy had changed, or should I say…evolved.
I’ll see myself out.
But before I go, there is one more thing I have to point out. A lot of the Leftist bravado comes with little-to-no justification. They think they’re smart because they all believe the same things, but if what they believe is utterly stupid, it’s not a sign of brilliance. When you press them on any significant issue, most of the time they wind up looking like an idiot. Or worse yet, Cenk Uygur.
And yet they think this attitude is a real winner. Keep thinking that, kids. Just try to act surprised when this shit blows up in your face. Again.