Since the end of the 2023 NCAA Women’s Basketball tournament, there’s been a lot of talk from fans and pundits alike. Not because it was an exciting game, but because of a gesture, or more precisely two gestures.
On one side, we have University of Iowa player Caitlin Clark, who used John Cena’s “U Can’t C Me” gesture during the tournament. Then, in the waning moments of the title game, LSU player Angel Reese did the same gesture (among others) back to Clark. When criticism of the latter started coming out, Leftists and their minions went right to playing the race card. Some even went so far as to say Clark’s post-game reaction (which was more gracious than anything said about her from the aforementioned Leftists) was a rejection of MAGA culture.
And, not surprisingly, they’re missing the point. Several points, in fact.
Remember when Leftists were pushing for more civility waaaaaaaaay back in 2020? Yeah, well, they’re fucking liars, but you already knew that. In this case, civility was thrown out the window because…Clark did it first. Yes, they went there, just like a four year old might. And just like a four year old’s argument, it doesn’t make it right. Whether you believe Clark’s gesture was inappropriate shouldn’t make a similar gesture by another player right, either.
But, I guess when you’re white, you always have to say you’re sorry.
To her credit, Clark has defended Reese and tried to put the controversy behind her. Which, of course, the Left can’t do because racism! To them, calling out Reese was tantamount to a double standard (which are the only standards Leftists have), instead of recognizing the lack of sportsmanship. If anything, Reese’s actions were dismissed as “trash talk” that only offended anyone who never did anything competitive in their lives.
Yeah, about that…
Without going too much into my less-than-illustrious basketball career, I’ve set foot on a basketball court and have felt the joy of victory and the agony of doing champions after a defeat. What Reese did was the height of disrespect and poor sportsmanship at a time when a lot more people had their eyes on the game than in previous years.
Because of Caitlin Clark.
Clark’s story is one of hard work, humility (for the most part), and being the best player on the court throughout the season. While that didn’t necessarily help her cut down the net after the finals, it’s something to be emulated. And what’s more, she recognizes who is watching her. While Reese has the championship, Clark has a self-made legacy.
But Clark and Reese aren’t the only people who deserve the spotlight here. Instead, let’s turn our attentions to two other players who truly elevated the sport I love, South Carolina’s Aliyah Boston and LSU’s Jasmine Carson.
I watched the press conference after Iowa beat South Carolina to get into the championship game, and to say I was impressed by Boston’s maturity, composure, and attitude would be an understatement. To showcase this, here is a link to that press conference because I truly lack the words to do it justice. I don’t know where Ms. Boston is going to end up, but I do know she has the right attitude and mindset to succeed.
Then, there’s Carson, whose 21 points off the bench in the first half for LSU was a difference maker. Reese might have been the star of the team, but Carson was the heart, and she seemingly could not miss in that first half, even sinking a shot to end the first half. And each time I saw her hit a 3 pointer, I saw absolute joy on her face. She was having the game of her life and the time of her life at the same time.
Two examples of players who showed more maturity and self-awareness than one of the focal points of the controversy. But who are we continuing to talk about? Angel Reese. Who is continually being defended for being a piss-poor winner? Angel Reese.
And who is ignoring the better angels in lieu of the more visible and outspoken “star”? A whole fucking lot of us.
To gin up a racial component when the real issue is a lack of sportsmanship is cynical and unnecessary. But when all you have to work with is race, everything becomes racial. Meanwhile, some of us are still content with the whole “content of one’s character” bit Martin Luther King, Jr. talked about extensively.
And for anyone who thinks I’m holding Reese to a higher standard than Clark, think again. I’m holding them both to the same standard: be gracious in victory and defeat. And yet, some people can’t help but find a way to limbo under than standard without even bending over 1 degree. Caitlin Clark may still have a ways to go, but I think she’ll be just fine as long as she doesn’t forget who she is and where she came from.
For Reese, I can’t help but pity her. She has the spotlight now and her talent will take her as far as she wants to go, but only if her attitude lets her. Fame, or infamy as the case may be, is fleeting. Without a good head space to go along with it, that fame will disappear as quickly as it appeared. I hope she learns this sooner rather than later because sports history is full of “Whatever happened to X” stories.
As far as the Left and the media (a redundancy, I know) are concerned, stop trying to make bad behavior justifiable because of race. A shitty person is a shitty person, no matter what their skin color is. Get your heads out of your own asses and call balls and strikes for once!
And now we return you to your regularly scheduled insane and somewhat humorous ranting already in progress.
Category: Media
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Granted, I’m a week late on this, but under the circumstances (namely me deciding to write about something else), I hope you’ll forgive me. And if not, well…I’ll pout.
Anyway, California is usually at the forefront of a lot of things, namely really bad ideas. Recently, San Francisco proposed a lump sum payment of $5 million to eligible blacks for reparations, among other proposals. Additionally, the state’s Reparation Task Force submitted a report to the California Legislature that Governor Gavin Newsom is expected to implement if the legislature doesn’t act.
As a result, I am stating for the record I now self-identify as a black resident of San Francisco. Please respect my privacy during my transition.
Seriously, reparations is a controversial subject to say the least, which means it’s perfect for your favorite blogger who writes a weekly series by this specific title to cover. Take that, “Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week” written by Jerry Funklemeyer!
reparations
What the Left thinks it means – monetary compensation given to blacks due to America’s slave history
What it really means – another way for white Leftists to blow through more of our money so they can feel good about themselves
The Civil War/War Between the States/War of Northern Aggression/The War the Movie “Glory” Was Based On was one of the most difficult and bloody times of our nation’s relatively young history. From 1861 to 1865, this country was more fractured than Jackie Chan’s body after doing his own stunts. But once the Union prevailed, the question was what to do next. Back then, they didn’t have Leftists to provide their sage advice about misogyny and trans rights in the former Confederacy, so it came down to a meeting between William T. Sherman and black ministers to create an attempt at reparations: 40 acres. (Mule, sold separately.)
And that attempt got scuttled by President Andrew Johnson, leaving the matter unresolved until recently.
There have been calls for reparations in recent history, but the idea really took off in 2020 thanks to the Democratic Primaries where there were…four black candidates out of 27. Five if you count Elizabeth Warren. And of those black candidates, none got the nomination, and only one (Kamala Harris) got to the White House as Puddin’ Head Joe’s Vice-President. Not too shabby for someone who I almost tied in the Iowa Caucuses and I didn’t even run.
Out of that and the shootings of blacks that occurred in 2019-2020, the idea of reparations gained new steam, which prompted California to create the aforementioned Reparations Task Force.
So, now that we’re back in the present, let’s start shitting on the reparations idea, shall we?
As a concept, reparations aren’t that hard to understand. We wronged an entire race of people by enslaving them and treating them worse than Ike treated Tina, so we want to try to balance the scales somehow. Admirable goal, but the logistical equivalent of an M.C. Escher drawing.
The biggest hurdle to the idea of reparations is the fact none of the people who are demanding it today were ever slaves. And it’s not like we can fire up the TARDIS, go back to 1865, drop off $5 million, and tell the slaves to invest heavily in Apple in 100+ years. Although time can be a big ball of wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff, it’s still bound by fixed events that can be tracked. And with the passage of time comes the birth of generation after generation that are removed from slavery altogether, save by bloodline.
But does bloodline alone create a solid enough link to award $5 million? That creates another speed bump to payday: what about those who either didn’t own slaves or fought for the Union in the Civil War? If bloodline is enough to give away money, it should also be good enough to exempt people from being forced to contribute to this monetary transfer. I have two relatives who fought for the Union (who, by the way, fought at least in part to end slavery). Yet, I get the feeling I would be expected to open my wallet and give generously to the Give Non-Slaves $5 Million Because Fuck You That’s Why Foundation.
And don’t get me started on their telethons!
Then, there’s the question of mixed-race children. Back in the day, white slaveowners knocked boots with slaves, which resulted in the genes of both races coming together to form a new life. Would the families of such a sexual union have to pay up or receive reparations? Or maybe they would just get $2.5 million? Or would the white half have to pay the black half $5 million?
Regardless, the fact we can even ask some of these questions without the pro-reparations side coming up with answers is not a good sign. But wait, there’s more!
Dropping $5 million into anyone’s lap is going to be significant, and it opens up any number of opportunities. And if it’s bundled in hundred dollar bills, it’s going to make the males in the audience sing tenor for a few years. For most people, though, it’s life-changing money, but only if it’s used intelligently. This is where human nature comes into play. If we get any amount of money from $2 on a scratch-off ticket to millions of dollars, our first instinct is to spend it. If this sum comes with few strings attached, though, we can get pretty reckless with it because in our minds it’s “free money.”
But just as any breadwinner today can tell you, money can run out fast if you’re not careful. Or if you vote for Puddin’ Head Joe, which is pretty much the same thing as not being careful.
When we don’t know or care how we get the money, we have less of an incentive to be smart with it. And, no, this isn’t a racial thing, but rather a human thing. Economists have studied this phenomenon for decades and it always ends the same way: the further we are away from earning money, the easier it gets to spend. Hence, the reason so many big lottery winners end up blowing their winnings and winding up right back where they started.
Guess what I think will happen to the reparations money if it gets approved.
And it’s not like there isn’t precedent with this. Remember Hurricane Katrina (which, oddly or appropriately enough, was the last time Kanye West was relevant)? Well, some inventive (and ultimately dishonest) people found a way to turn tragedy into a windfall to the tune of an estimated $2 billion. Between recipients of the aid spending the money on non-essential items, including vacations and porn, and others getting relief funds for people who didn’t exist, Katrina proved to be a disaster of a natural disaster response.
But the Katrina failure was more federal, right? Nothing like that could happen on the state level, right? Wellllll…not really. Our good friends on the Left Coast racked up an estimated $20 billion in fraud related to the pandemic. Leftists bad with money? Why that’s…pretty normal, really.
Now, why would I bring up Katrina and COVID in a discussion about reparations? To underscore a point that will taint the idea: governments, especially large ones, don’t keep good tabs on who is getting the money. It’s more of a rubber-stamp process. Granted, the reparations initiative in San Francisco comes with some conditions, but I’m not sure the state government that racked up ten times the Katrina fraud is capable of making sure the conditions are met.
But then again, it’s not meant to be effective or efficient except in one area: easing the guilt white Leftists feel over slavery. And they’re willing to spend as much of your money as possible to make sure they feel better no matter how long it takes! When you consider the amount of guilt a Leftist could prevent brownouts in California if it could be converted into electricity, let’s just say you might as well give the government access to your bank accounts. I mean, if China doesn’t already have it, thanks to TikTok.
It’s at this point I need to remind the white Leftists…none of you fuckknuckles were alive during slavery. You can feel bad about what happened generations ago, but to make it a central part of your life is a bit extreme and at this point silly. Kinda like the Young Turks, but less comedic. You cannot change the past, nor can you expect any amount of money to ever make it right because there will always be people willing to prey on your guilt to get more money out of you. As long as the greedy and dishonest among us see Leftist largess as free money, the spigot will never turn completely off and there will be fraud aplenty.
The thing is the Left has made it amazingly easy to game the system, thanks to the rhetoric they’ve already presented as true. And eagle-eyed readers already know how. Remember, the Left maintains how you self-identify is as real as how you are. Rachel Dolezal and Shawn King both identify as black in spite of being whiter than a medical isolation room run by Mormon IBM executives. Yet, they were/are considered to be authentic voices on the black experience in America.
Well, shit. If they can do it, so can I. And I can think of 5 million reasons to do it!
And California can’t say shit about it. Well, they can, but they’ll look like hypocritical assholes doing it. So, win-win!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
This week was a big one for our friends at Fox News. Sure, the Left loves to talk about the Dominion defamation lawsuit against the network, but the Fox hate was cranked up to 12 (because 11 just won’t do) because of Tucker Carlson showing previously unreleased security footage from January 6th. You know, that insurrection that simultaneously could have destroyed the nation and was run by dumb Trump supporters?
Well, since both Leftists and, well, other Leftists are losing their collectivist shit over the footage, I figured it was time to take a look at the little cable network that could…bitch slap CNN and MSNBC into oblivion.
Fox News
What the Left thinks it means – a radical right wing network that lies to the country, thus becoming a national security threat
What it really means – a right-leaning network that represents everything the Left fears/hates
Fox News Channel began in 1996 from humble beginnings. Well, as humble as can be while being funded by a wealthy Australian. Anyway, Fox News was established as an alternative to the media, who lean so far left they walk at a 5 degree angle perpendicular to the ground, and it proved to be very successful. No longer did we have Leftist talking heads telling us what and how to think about the events of the day. Now, we had “fair and balanced” news.
Kinda.
It’s hard to overcome personal biases in the media, but Fox News at least tried to do it for a long time, and they still do. But try to convince a Leftist raised on Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann of that. They’ll continue to say Fox News isn’t really news because of all the lies they tell.
Seriously? Have you fucknuckles looked in the mirror lately?
Where the Left gets things twisted is a common blind spot for people: separating news from opinion. To the Left, the two are inseparable as they believe their opinions are facts. Granted, the Right does this as well, but in their defense people on the Right can be persuaded with facts most of the time. Their ego isn’t tied to being correct. The Left’s is.
But actual reporting has little to do with ego. The journalism of even the past 50 years has gone from hitting the pavement to hitting up a Leftist politician on Twitter to get a quote for a story that’s pretty much plug-and-play. Just add a quote or two, make Republicans look bad, and you’re done.
Fox News’ actual reporting isn’t anything like that from what I’ve seen. For one, they get blocked by Twitter Leftists. But more importantly the reporters on staff do amazing work. Even former Fox News contributors like Catherine Herridge found work after leaving it because of her reputation as a strong, driven reporter. And if you look at the body of her work, you’ll find a common theme: report the facts without emotional attachments. She’s like a female Data.
This blurring of lines between news and opinion actually makes the rest of the media look bad, mainly because they assume Fox News does what they do, only with more of a conservative bent. Of course, Leftists think…excuse me…AHAAAHAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAA!
So, where was I? Oh, yes, Leftist media.
Being anything to the right of the Socialist Socialite makes you incredible to Leftists, and not in a good way. Once you get branded as a conservative, Leftists no longer consider you to be human, let alone credible. Just ask Matt Taibbi, a reporter that used to work for Leftist rag Rolling Stone and is now reporter-non-grata for his role in the Twitter Files.
Yet, this is lazy thinking. Dismissing a source solely because of political leanings is silly. You need to take the time and really look at the body of work before you determine how badly they suck. Then, you can dismiss them.
In the case of Fox News, I can’t completely dismiss them for having no credibility. Their news side is consistently running circles around the competition by being good at their jobs. It’s the commentary side that ultimately hurts the network. Sure, they have solid contributors like Brit Hume, Greg Gutfeld, Tammy Bruce, and Tulsi Gabbard, people whose opinions aren’t hidden and even-handed.
Then, there’s the hard pro-Trump side like Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity, neither of one I can stand because they just find ways to say the same things over and over again night after night. If I wanted to hear Trump talking points, I would go right to the source, not filtered through people whose opinions I care less about than the insane homeless man I see on my way to work. Although the homeless guy did give me some great stock tips…
Regardless, Fox News is doing something right because they continue to dominate the cable news ratings. Granted, ratings doesn’t always mean quality. I’m looking right at you “Friends.” You owe me 3 years of my life back watching Ross and Rachel. And no number of times singing “Smelly Cat” will make up for it.
Yet, Fox News has enough crossover appeal that it gets people on the Left and the Right to watch. This link is from 2019, so the numbers may have changed, but the fact Fox News continues to dominate month after month, year after year, makes it harder to dismiss the network as niche. Even with the Dominion lawsuit looming over them, it just doesn’t matter.
And that’s what pisses off Leftists the most. No matter what they do, no matter how many boycotts or hashtags they come up with, Fox News keeps chugging along, making CNN and MSNBC fight for the scraps. Or scrap for the scraps, if you prefer (and I do).
Of course, the Left can’t let that happen, so they’re doing what they can to attack Fox News. Hence, the accusations they’re a threat to national security and lie all the time. And hence the reason they have to lie about what Fox News is.
A lot of the “Fox News is a national security threat” bullshit arose in the aftermath of January 6th, a dark day in our history where…let me check my notes…a bunch of people attended a rally in Washington, DC, to protest an election they felt was stolen and some asshats decided to be destructive dicks. Apparently, protesting the results of a contested election is a national security threat to the Left.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries? Please pick up the white courtesy phone. You may be a national security threat.
Where Fox News comes into the picture is related to the Dominion lawsuit in that the network is alleged to have lied to its viewers about the 2020 Presidential election being stolen, which prompted the January 6th “insurrection,” which as we’ve been told is worse than 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and another “Scary Movie” sequel…combined.
I won’t dispute Fox News had a hand in the “stolen election” narrative. What I do dispute is that they knowingly lied. I didn’t vote for Trump or Puddin’ Head Joe, so I don’t really have a dog in the hunt, but I can’t completely dismiss the idea there was some funky shit going down at the polls. Polling places running out of ballots, allegations of renewed counting after most of the vote counters had left, and other irregularities became the coin of the Trump realm. I can’t say every accusation of election irregularities could be substantiated with facts, but there were enough to make me question whether the results we got on Election Day 2020 were real or Memorex. And, me being the curious boy I am, I want to get to the bottom of it.
And apparently Fox News did, too. When the rest of the media dismissed the possibility of election fraud out of hand (while saying the 2016 election was fundamentally flawed because of Russia, Russia, Russia), Fox News became the contrarian and started to look at what happened with a critical eye.
You know, like reporters are supposed to do?
But is this questioning a threat to national security? In a word. In two words, fuck no. In three words, fuckity fuck no. In four words…well, let’s just say there’s a lot more variations of “fuck” used.
The First Amendment says Congress cannot pass laws prohibiting the redress of grievances against the government. If a rally about possible election fraud isn’t a redress of grievances, I don’t know what is. At the very least, the January 6 protestors had a Constitutional right to do what they did. Once they breached the rules of decorum to commit criminal acts, that protection goes the way of Kamala Harris’ Presidential hopes in 2024.
On top of that, the concept of January 6th being a “riot” or an “insurrection” is being undone by the security footage being shown. Most of the people at the rally stayed outside, and those who gained access to the Capitol mostly…took a tour, some with the help of the Capitol Police on duty that day.
But wait a minute! Wouldn’t that prove the Left’s narrative about January 6th is full of shit? Why, yes…yes it would! But they can’t just say “The real reason we lied about January 6th is because we got scared by a bunch of non-violent Americans who disagree with us” because it would go over as well as giving David Duke an NAACP Image Award.
And not to put too fine a point on this, but who was President on January 6, 2021? That would be Donald Trump, not Puddin’ Head Joe. There was no transfer of power, no transition (except maybe for some members of the Biden Administration), and no attempt to overthrow the government. For January 6th to be an actual insurrection, the protestors/”rioters” would have to be seeking to overthrow…the man they supported for President in 2020. Fox News broadcasting security footage doesn’t make the lack of logic behind the “insurrection” go away, nor is it nearly as horrible as the Left wants to make it out to be. The only real threat with releasing the security footage isn’t to national security, but to the security of the Leftist narrative.
Now, for the lying. Not on my part, but to the allegations Fox News misinforms its viewers. Let’s just say any major media outlet that pushed even one-tenth of the stories about Russiagate being real should take all the seats. Much of what passes for reporting these days revolves around lying, whether it be omitting context, fabricating stories to advance a narrative, or spinning events to make one side look better than the other. In fact, most of the “reporters” today should get an additional pay for being the DNC’s steno pool.
Fox News is no different, except for the DNC steno pool bit. They do exactly what the rest of the media do, only for the Right instead of the Left. That’s not meant as an excuse, but rather an observation built over 35 years of studying the media both formally and informally. It’s hypocritical for the Left to hold Fox News to a higher standard than they hold themselves, but it’s par for the Alinsky course. Not that you’d ever get an actual admission of dishonesty from the Left, mind you. They’re still clinging to the “very fine people on both sides” lie as though it were a security blanket.
So, is Fox News as bad as its critics say it is? Yes, and no. They are a product of the current media environment and are guilty of at least some of the sins attributed to it. Overall, they’re no better or worse than any other media outlet, and much of the criticism levied against it is the result of partisan hyperbole. Having said that, Fox News has a lot of room to improve. Don’t fall back on reciting RNC/Donald Trump talking points and go back to reporting that lives up to the “fair and balanced” standard.
Oh, and fire Geraldo Rivera. He’s as useful as tits on Michael Moore.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
After 3 years of COVID-19 coverage, we’re starting to come to a new understanding of what happened or could have happened. Of course, it was Russia, Russia, Russia!
One of the early hypotheses about COVID’s origins was it originated in a lab in Wuhan, China, and got out. Of course, the Left said it was bullshit and went about limiting even the illusion of a debate by getting social media companies to censor those who advanced the idea as plausible. Now, the FBI, Department of Energy, and other government entities are starting to say there might be something to the lab leak theory.
Which means we get to talk about it a bit more!
I know you’re out there. I can hear you groaning.
lab leak theory
What the Left thinks it means – a plausible, yet not seriously considered explanation for the spread of COVID-19
What it really means – a prime example of the Left controlling a narrative until it no longer benefits them
Just in case any Interwebs Po-Po are reading this, I must say I am not a doctor, nor should anything I say be considered medical advice. I’m just a guy who paid a little attention in high school science classes and occasionally makes humorous comments about the absurdity of life. Do not take my commentary seriously and don’t take any actions that goes against your legal and moral best interests without checking with your doctor, your religious leader, your family, some guy name Earl, or a tax professional. Hell, talk to them all just to be safe!
Now that we’ve got that out of the way, let’s fuck up a narrative!
As faithful readers know, I like to do mental exercises to see how plausible an idea is. When there are breaks in the logic that can’t be explained away with an equally plausible explanation or after a couple of drinks, I dismiss it.
The lab leak theory? Not as easily dismissed as the Left made it sound.
Before COVID-19 became a household word (mainly because we weren’t supposed to leave the house), lab leaks weren’t uncommon. In fact, it keeps happening over and over again. At this rate, security guards in California are more secure than some labs!
So, this raises the question of why the Left’s tune changed with COVID-19 if they knew lab leaks were fairly common in recent history. It’s simple: President Donald Trump. After seeing Trump beat Hillary Clinton in 2016, the Left had a Paul Bunyon-sized ax to grind and would resort to any means to get rid of Trump.
Even denying the science they claimed to be following from the jump.
And, yes, I’m just as shocked as you are that Leftists would lie so brazenly and expect us not to pay attention.
Yet, in spite of their best efforts to keep it quiet, the Left couldn’t completely drown out the lab leak theory because there was just enough there there to keep it alive. That’s the way all conspiracy theories work: find a kernel of truth (i.e. there is fluoride in our drinking water), expand it a little bit (i.e. the federal government is putting fluoride in our drinking water), and then add to it to absurd lengths (i.e. the federal government is putting fluoride in our drinking water for mind control).
Come to think of it, that sounds a lot like what global warming cultists do…naaaaaaah!
Even so, the lab leak theory never got to the last stage, but the Left made it look like it was there through the media coverage and their government lackeys. But, as so many matters originally dismissed as conspiracy theories these days, the truth started to make its way out and made the conspiracy a reality. Then, the media started to change their tune a bit to lessen the blow by admitting there was merit to the lab leak theory, but it was Trump’s fault it wasn’t taken seriously.
In other words, Leftist default position 1.
But this narrative falls apart because it’s an example of a logical fallacy called poisoning the well. In short, it’s when a party tries to discredit another party’s claims through character assassination rather than an actual argument. In other words, Leftist default position 2. Regardless of how you feel about a source, when he or she tells the truth, it’s the truth and should be recognized as such.
The fact Donald Trump was the most vocal and visible advocate of the lab leak theory made it easier for Leftists to dismiss it, but now the government they voted into office is saying he may be right after all makes it harder to dismiss now. And justifiably so. The possibility of COVID-19 escaping from a Chinese lab isn’t that far-fetched and seemed much more plausible than wet market bat-du-joir theory.
Now, the Left’s entire approach has been rendered more worthless than a Pauly Shore NFT, and they’re scrambling to memory-hole what they said before. The Left hates to be proven wrong on anything, so when it happens, they treat it like most children do: ignore it until it goes away and lie about it throughout. And as any parent will tell you, it doesn’t work.
And it won’t work here. Or it won’t work if we’re willing to stand firm on the side of the truth. Every time a Leftist comes around to accept the lab leak theory (rarer than how Dracula takes his steak tartare, but I’m trying to be optimistic), thank them for joining you on the right side of this issue and welcome them to the truth. And if they don’t run away screaming like they’ve been doused with holy water (or soap and water for that matter), show them the grace they didn’t show you. Not only is it the right thing to do, but it will piss them off to no end because it will be another Leftist idea that is proven wrong.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
If the Left didn’t hate Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy before now (spoiler alert: they did), giving access to tens of thousands of hours of surveillance footage from January 6th to Tucker Carlson. With Leftists already believing Carlson is a Russian asset, this has given them the opportunity to talk about national security. After all, letting a Russian asset (in their opinion) gain access to security footage from January 6, the most horrifying day in American history up there with Pearl Harbor and 9/11 (again, in their opinion), has to be a national security risk, right?
Well, to paraphrase the Commander in Briefs Bill Clinton, that depends on what your definition of national security is.
national security
What the Left believes it means – ummm…they’re still working on it
What it really means – a concept that means less and less with each passing year
To put it mildly, national security is a pretty big fucking deal. It’s essential to all of our lives, even if we don’t give it a first thought, let alone a second thought. It allows us to live free, or at least as freely as the Puddin’ Head Joe Administration will allows us to live. It ensures we don’t have to worry about foreign countries invading us and destroying America.
By the way, I’ve got my eye on you, Canada! No trying to get us to adopt the metric system on my watch!
If you really think about it, and I do because I have to entertain myself somehow since prices are higher than Willie Nelson on any day ending in day, national security touches every aspect of our lives on some level. So, why do we take it for granted?
A huge part of it is how invulnerable we’ve felt as a country since the Cold War. After the Berlin Wall fell, there were no more superpowers to challenge us. The Soviet Union was no more, China was years away from firing up its economic power, and the Middle East was, well, the Middle East. For all intents and purposes, we were untouchable.
Then 9/11 happened. That woke us up, at least for a little while, to how vulnerable we could still be. Granted, the warning signs were there if we had bothered to put 2 and 2 together and come up with something other than potato (thanks to Simon Miller for that joke). After all the outpouring of sympathy, all the brave words that we’d find who was responsible and bring them to justice, all the patriotic bunting and good feelings, we promptly…forgot about it after a year or so. But in our defense “Friends” was on, so…
Since then, our approach to national security has been spottier than a freckled-faced Jackson Pollock impersonator using a cheetah for a canvas. (Not something I’d recommend, by the way, especially if your clothes are dry clean only.) It’s become a stock talking point for both sides that has a level of gravitas and a seemingly untouchable nature about it that prevents Joe Sixpack or Taemmi Soylatte from thinking any deeper about it than “It’s good.”
And that’s where both parties fuck us at the drive-thru.
For decades, our national security has been tied to how much we’re willing to spend on it. With Republicans, it tends to be neat new weapons, gadgets, and tech, and with Democrats it tends to be more “soft” spending on diversity, diplomacy, and making sure other country’s fee-fees don’t get hurt by us. Yet, with all of that spending, we aren’t that much safer. If anything, we’ve gotten more lax due to an unhealthy cocktail of political gaslighting and social media.
Let’s start with the gaslighting since it’s the most pervasive and, thus, more fun to talk about. Both sides use this tactic to bolster their own version of national security. If you don’t approve of spending $450 on a screwdriver you can get at Home Depot for $8, the Right thinks you support China, North Korea, or dare I say it Trinidad Tobago marching down our streets and making us their bitches. If you don’t agree to using military (i.e. taxpayer) dollars to combat global climate change, the Left thinks you want to pollute the Earth to the point only cockroaches and the Kardashians would survive.
Both sides are wrong in the same bipartisan way. It doesn’t matter how much you spend on a security system if you never turn it on. And guess what, kids? We have been forgetting to turn it on for decades, all the while keeping every door unlocked and all our valuables in one convenient and highly visible spot for anyone to come along and take them.
And, yes, I’m about to talk about the balloon incident.
On January 28th, a Chinese balloon was able to fly over Alaska, western Canada, and parts of the United States before it was shot down over the East Coast. On February 4th. Even if you buy the multiple excuses the Left gave for why the balloon wasn’t shot down over, well, Alaska, the fact remains it took 8 fucking days and an entire cross country trip for us to do anything. And then, as if to try to balance out the dumbfuckery, we got hyper-vigilant and started shooting down balloons that weren’t even Chinese.
It’s one thing to double down after making a mistake. But the Puddin’ Head Joe Administration decided to double, triple, and quadruple down on the mistake just to show how serious they were. Which is to say not serious at all. The very fact a single balloon made it into American airspace, was recognized, and was allowed to go coast to coast without so much as a dart thrown at it is a serious breach of national security.
After all, we don’t know what kind of equipment the balloon had, if it had any. We are just being told that it was either harmless due to spy satellites giving better information or that it was made harmless because we jammed any transmissions (neither of which, I might add, has been established with any factual information). In other words, Leftists want us to believe the same balloon was ineffective because shut up.
After the Chinese balloon debacle, it’s a good thing there wasn’t a train derailment or…oh, wait. Never mind.
Even with what people observed, we had to endure Leftists telling us it wasn’t a big deal and people who said we should have shot the balloon down sooner were “bedwetters” as Senator Chris Murphy put it so inelegantly. To try to get Puddin’ Head Joe as far away from the blame as possible, they even tried to pull Donald Trump into it, saying he also had Chinese balloons come into American airspace during his Presidency, a claim that was later debunked by former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe, who said it didn’t happen. I mean, it was obvious, considering it was claimed those alleged balloon flights under Trump weren’t discovered allegedly until the Puddin’ Head Joe Administration…according to the Puddin’ Head Joe Administration.
I’m as shocked as you are the Administration would lie to cover up the Administration’s clusterfuck! And to try to make us feel bad or foolish for not buying the bullshit? That’s lower than an earthworm’s belt buckle.
Now, onto social media. Granted, I don’t have a high opinion of social media to begin with, but there’s one out there that is actually being used for surveillance against us. I’m speaking of TikTok, a popular app that has been linked to spying on journalists and has the potential to track information of American citizens and government workers.
Oh, and it should be pointed out the Trump Administration called this out in 2020, and people mocked them for it, saying it was a conspiracy spun for political advantage. Yeah…chalk up another “conspiracy theory” that wound up being a fact.
Before we take a victory lap at the Left being wrong again, consider the implications of what we know. China has access to information, which is in and of itself a matter of national security, not just because government employees might be doing a stupid dance for tens and tens of people to see. The thing that makes TikTok so dangerous is the fact so many Americans voluntarily give up this information.
In our society’s rush to be “Internet famous,” we have opened ourselves up to invasions of privacy and, yes, security. Say what you will about the Chinese, and believe me I have, but they have figured us out in 2023 America. Just give us a dopamine hit for meaningless videos and we’ll let them mine our data. Brilliant!
Although neither major party has it exactly right, I do have to say Republicans take national security more seriously. After all, the Left keeps saying domestic terrorism is the greatest threat to our national security right now. And by “domestic terrorism” they mean “anybody who disagrees with us and aren’t afraid to say anything about it.”
Look at how they painted parents who were concerned/outraged over pornographic books teaching children about homosexuality and blow jobs in elementary school. You would think these parents were one step below the Manson Family the way the Left talked. But when you get people of all stripes to come out against what you’re trying to push in elementary school, it’s no longer a matter of hatred, fear, or even national security. Maybe, just maybe, your ideas suck ass.
While the Left gets their collectivist panties in a bunch over people pretending to be badasses, we still have real issues with national security we need to address. And with China and Russia united over a) hating us, b) wanting to fuck our shit up as much as possible and c) having the means to do both electronically, we can’t afford to be asleep at the switch anymore.
But we need to be honest here. Neither major party is doing jack shit about protecting ourselves, mainly because we continue to confuse the definition to fit their ideological needs at the time. Is ANTIFA a national security threat? No, nor should they be considered such. Are Trump supporters national security threats? No, and they shouldn’t be considered such either. Once you start pulling away the layers of this fetid onion, you get closer and closer to the core of what national security actually looks like.
And what does it look like? A strong and vigilant population who strive for the same goal of protecting America regardless of their ideological differences. As we’ve seen since Kevin McCarthy’s actions involving January 6 footage, we’re a long ways off from that.
But, hey, at least we can still use TikTok, right?
Perot 2.0?
The year was 1992. Jay Leno became the host of “The Tonight Show” following Johnny Carson’s departure. We were still five years away from Hanson MMMBopping their way into our hearts. And a funny little man from Texas had the attention of a nation with some pretty radical ideas for the time.
I’m speaking of the late Ross Perot, two-time Presidential candidate under the Reform Party and favorite target for late night comedians. What has been lost to time has been just how impactful Perot was on politics in his relatively short time in it. Without his presence in the 1992, we might not have gotten a President Bill Clinton, a Vice President Al Gore, and a First Lady Hillary Clinton. Of course, we might not have had that if George H. W. Bush had campaigned like he wanted a second term as President, but that’s not important right now. What is important is how some people can impact an election merely by being in it.
What does that have to do with the upcoming 2024 Presidential election? Two words: bacon cheeseburger. And two more words: Donald Trump. Although Trump has already announced he is running as a Republican in 2024 (as his early attempts to attack Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis show), there’s still a part of me that thinks he will go third party if he doesn’t get the nod.
Can you say “Ross Perot 2: Electoral Boogaloo”? I knew you could.
Right now Trump has a significant, but not total, amount of support within Republican circles, especially with the grassroots. Much like Perot before him, Trump has advanced some unique ideas that, shockingly, make a lot of sense. And also like Perot, Trump has a level of unpredictability that makes him damn near impossible to figure out. But there is one thing that isn’t that hard to figure out: Trump loved being President.
And apparently I’m addicted to using colons.
Anyway, being President was clearly Trump’s favorite position because it afforded him more power than he’s ever had, along with more attention than he’s ever had. From a brand standpoint, there is no real downside because even negative attention is attention. Just ask Kim Kardashian. Even now, people can’t stop talking about him, whether it be blaming him for train derailments and Chinese balloons flying over the country, praising him to no end, or screaming about how he’s getting away with everything and should be thrown in jail.
So, completely rational mentions.
What happens if the Trump Train goes off the rails and he doesn’t get the nomination? There are going to be a lot of pissed-off people, enough to…oh, I don’t know…convince Trump to run as a third party candidate. And guess who gets the biggest benefit, even though he’s been an inept fuckknuckle as President?
Puddin’ Head Joe.
If Trump goes third party, is weakens the Republican candidate, whoever it is. That adds a lot of pressure on him or her to sway Trump voters, which may be a fool’s errand. Most Trump voters are Ride or Die with him, no matter what. And anyone who isn’t living a Boo Radley type existence knows it, which means Leftists will pick up on it in a couple of weeks.
Although the conventional political wisdom says third parties hurt Republicans more than Democrats, it’s only been an issue in recent history because third parties have siphoned enough votes away from a candidate to weaken the primary party candidate. Whether it’s Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, or Jill Stein, third parties get the rap for a candidate underperforming. With Trump, though, it is all but a certainty he will be the cause of a Republican defeat.
There are two ways to avert this scenario: let Trump win, or nominate someone who can sway Trump voters to vote for him or her. The former sets up a rematch with Puddin’ Head Joe, while the latter opens the door for a Trump third party run, thus ensuring history repeated itself. And a Trump-Biden rematch isn’t a guaranteed victory for the former President, even with Biden having the Midas Touch in reverse. There’s still enough hatred of the former President out there to make it tougher for him to win.
So, fucked if you do, fucked if you don’t.
Good luck with that.
2023 State of the Onion Address
My fellow Americans. Oh, and you, too, Leftists.
2022 was an interesting year for the media. Sure, they still haven’t figured out how to get their favorability ratings above Hitler, Stalin, and Nickelback, but they really tried.
Just kidding. They still suck.
What made 2022 so interesting for the media was how many stories they got wrong, either on purpose or by accident, and how quickly (relatively speaking) they corrected these errors. One thing they weren’t shy about, though, was labeling news stories “conspiracy theories.” It’s gotten to the point parody news sites were doing better journalism than the serious ones.
The merging of opinion and news continued unabated, as did the elevation of certain stories/narratives along with the suppression of others. And, surprise surprise, much of the latter was done under the auspices of battling misinformation. Well, the problem was these fuckknuckles were too busy creating misinformation to bother with doing even basic reporting.
Let’s start with COVID-19. From the jump, media squawking heads put down anyone who wasn’t 100% behind getting the jab, wearing more masks than a Halloween costume model working straight commission, and worshiping at the altar of Saint Anthony of Fauci. Even negative stories about the good doctor, like the fact he supported gain of function research after saying repeatedly he didn’t, were turned into cudgels with which to beat the infidels.
And by infidels, I mean the people who were right to be skeptical about how cultish the pro-vax side had gotten. I have seen Macy’s Thanksgiving Day parades with less marching in lockstep than I saw during the height of COVID. And, yes, that sentiment remains today, even as more and more shit comes out about how full of shit the pro-vax side was. Even they could see the writing on the wall and started trying to play off their stridency as a “whoopsie doodle”!
And the media not only played a role in creating the “vax or you’re scum” environment, but unironically tried to get us to forgive and forget as though nothing major happened.
And the media wonder why people don’t trust them.
If I could offer some perspective (and I can because this is my post), a lot of it comes down to how far the media are willing to lie to us about what we’re seeing right in front of our eyes. We saw the start of a regime change within Twitter, which ruffled Leftist and media (but I repeat myself) feathers to no end. Elon Musk went from eco-friendly visionary to reactionary maniac hellbent on pushing right wing narratives. All because he saw what so many of us saw: Twitter wasn’t enforcing its own rules with any degree of fairness or obvious logic. Even now, most media types are ignoring or dismissing the Twitter Files instead of following up to either prove or disprove the information within them.
Oh, but the screamingly obvious that even Ray Charles can see (which is pretty damn impressive for a dead guy) has to be a figment of our imaginations.
Then, on the other ends of the impressiveness spectrum, we have media whore…I mean darling Taylor Lorenz. Words cannot express just how low my opinion of her journalistic skills is. The best way I can say it is if my opinion was any lower, it would bore through the Earth and come out the other side without stopping. Yet, because she starts shit, gets hit, and cries about it all, the media put her on a pedestal and gave her Most Favored Victim status. Whenever the topic of toxic online culture was brought up, you can be Ms. Lorenz was there to pick up a paycheck and pimp herself even more than a self-employed prostitute.
This isn’t to say the media on the Right was any better. Remember the “red wave” that was supposed to happen during the midterm elections? The one that was a lock and would cause Leftist heads to explode from sea to shining sea? Yeah…about that. So much bravado lead to so few seats being picked up by the GOP. And it didn’t help matters that media heat magnet Donald Trump used the same high quality judgement in picking candidates that he used to pick Cabinet posts. Trump went through staffers like most people go through chewing gum.
Although most Trump-backed candidates won (mostly because they were in safe Districts or were running unopposed), the media had a field day focusing on the more spectacular dumpster fires like Dr. Oz, who was as much of a Pennsylvanian as Gavin Newsom. This is because the media love a shitshow, and Trump’s presence in 2022 was a 25/8 shitshow because 24/7 just wasn’t long enough.
But there is a downside to all the media attention spent on Trump: Trump Derangement Syndrome. I’ll admit I was late to the party on this, thinking it was just a meme the Right used to mock the Left. After the media coverage from 2022, I’m a believer. It’s real, and it’s seriously affecting the brains of the media. Granted there’s not much to affect in the brains of most reporters, but even a mild case of TDS was enough to turn them from frothing-at-the-mouth Trump haters to…well, even bigger frothing-at-the-mouth Trump haters.
Yet, for all the intense scrutiny the media gave to every Trump foible, the media couldn’t wait to look the other way when it came to President Puddin’ Head Joe. On nearly a daily basis, the PHJ Administration embarrassed themselves, being over their heads in a political mud puddle in the Sahara. Whether it was Puddin’ Head Joe’s invention of nonsense words (which was and is attributed to stuttering) or Vice President Kamala Harris laughing at the most inappropriate times like she was huffing nitrous oxide on the daily to Administration officials being more tone deaf than William Hung, it was a 947 ring circus solely staffed by clowns on the daily.
But no mean tweets, amirite, kids?
Want proof? I have three words for you: Hunter Biden’s laptop. The media coverage of this story was more scarce than a Japanese fishing village when Godzilla came to town for a weekend bender. Instead, they were playing defense for Puddin’ Head Joe and Hunter “I’m Not a Crackhead, But..Wait, What Was I Saying” Biden at every turn, usually by…you guessed it, bringing up Trump. Let me give you media types some free advice: when your main defense of a politician you like revolves around smearing a politician you hate, your dude fucking sucks!
With the 2024 Presidential election right around the corner, the media are focusing on who they believe the next Republican candidate will be, and that person is…Donald Trump. Or Ron DeSantis. You know, whomever they want to shit on that day. Be prepared to see a lot more of what’s happened since 2016 to continue, only at a louder and more shrill volume. If current trends continue, media complaints about Trump and/or DeSantis are going to only be heard by dogs before the first ballot gets cast.
So, buckle up, kids. This year is going to be off the charts, and not in a good way!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Leftists can find a way to be outraged by just about anything, even sources that are outside of their usual frames of reference. This past week, we saw Leftists get their panties in a bunch over…get this…the death of a professional wrestler, or more specifically how some of the wrestler’s colleagues chose to honor his memory.
Jamin Pugh wrestled under the name Jay Briscoe for many years and recently died in a car crash. He was beloved by his peers, with some offering condolences using the phrase Rest In Power.
It was these three little words that made Leftists shit themselves in outrage. Of course, if they were in San Francisco, you wouldn’t notice a difference, but the use of those three words became a personal affront to them because…get this…Jamin Pugh was…a white man! And Rest In Power? That’s a black phrase.
Better sit down for this one. The stupid is going to fly!
Rest In Power
What the Left thinks it means – a phrase to honor deceased blacks that should never be used by white people
What it really means – a phrase to honor a human being that doesn’t belong to anyone
To dig further into this situation, I went to where all self-respecting scholars go, Urban Dictionary. They define the phrase thus:
Phrase meaning that a deceased cannot rest in peace until society changes due to the circumstances of a death.
Well, that explains the boom in zombie movies and TV shows…
Dictionary.com provides this definition:
A variation on rest in peace, rest in power is used, especially in Black and LGBTQ communities, to commemorate a person whose death is considered unjust or wrongful. In this way, rest in power is a call to continue the struggle for social justice and as a show of solidarity.
Rest in power is also used to pay respect to a person, especially a person of color, who made a difference in the lives of minority communities. It is sometimes used to note the death of a person felt to have died too soon or senselessly, or a person who was influential or meaningful to people more generally.
At the core of both of these definitions is Leftist ideology. Victims of an unjust system are saluted with a Rest In Power, but the presumed oppressors can’t even utter the words because…well, they’re still trying to figure that part out. And they’re not the only ones.
Seriously, though, the phrase is believed to have originated as a way to honor a street artist, but was popularized in the black community as a way to memorialize people killed by violence. Oh, and rappers. With the death of Michael Brown and the suicide of a teenaged trans girl, Leelah Alcorn, Rest In Power got put behind rhetorical red velvet ropes complete with a bouncer to make sure only the “right” people got to use it.
Then, it got co-opted by white people and everything went to hell. Ain’t that always the case?
Although I can respect the origins of the phrase, I have to call bullshit on its presumed limits on usage. Once a phrase enters the cultural lexicon, the ownership transfers to society at large. Take the word “cool” for example. It started off with black jazz musicians, but evolved to the point of being universal. Now, there are grandmas walking at the mall who say something is “cool.” I don’t know if they can scat to a jazz riff, but that’s not the point.
Language is one of the most fluid things we have as human beings that isn’t actual fluid. As such, there is a lot of cultural cross-pollenization through diverse sources from music to fashion to cartoons. It doesn’t always work (see the drop-off in the use of “wack” in the past 20 years), but when it works, it works well.
So, why is Rest In Power exempt? Because…reasons?
The real reason is because Leftists need to control the language, even within communities already sympathetic to Leftist causes. By limiting who can use it, the Left acts as gatekeepers in the spirit of elevating the oppressed. Not that doing this actually elevates anyone, mind you…
What good does limiting who can say “Rest In Power” do when it comes to the Left’s stated goal of dismantling the current power structure and making it more equitable? It’s a SBD fart in a hurricane. The needle doesn’t move at all, nor will it ever. But it makes Leftist voting blocs feel good, so…yay, I guess?
Within this strategy is another Leftist concept, equity. Note, equity is not the same as equality, even though they share many of the same letters. Equality means everyone gets the same treatment across the board, no matter what. Equity allows for a bit more leeway in treatment because it allows for different circumstances to affect the outcome. And guess who currently pulls the levers on equitable treatment.
Leftists. Either that or an amusement park ride operator.
Setting standards on who can use “Rest In Power” is the Left’s commitment to equity writ large. But the entire concept falls apart like a balsa wood love seat at Michael Moore’s house when you consider the Left’s adoption of Rachel Dolezal and Shaun King. Two white people who are considered black because they identify as black in spite of being as white as an Edgar Winter concert in the middle of a blizzard after a typing correction fluid explosion.
I take that back. The aforementioned concert would have far too much rhythm to be truly white. My bad.
And guess what? That’s a joke comedians of all colors have been telling for decades, and yet no one has tried to limit who can tell it. Sure, the wording will be different, but the concept remains the same, and it has no one trying to gatekeep.
I never thought I’d be putting “cool” and “whites have no rhythm” on the same level, but here I am killing it!
And let me also point out the limits Leftists put on “Rest In Power” are completely arbitrary and, thus, rooted in logic shakier than the Biden White House’s response to why classified documents were found within 500 feet of Hunter. After all, whites make up the largest section of the LGBTQWTFFUBARLMFAO community. So, that means whites can use “Rest In Power” but only if they’re gay, lesbian, bi, trans, queer, etc.
How’s that dicking feel, straight white Leftists?
It’s these kinds of rules that make Calvinball look like Candyland. Yet, it’s the insanity of these rules that makes the best argument against this rhetorical version of Affirmative Action. If no one knows the rules, they are impossible to enforce, and even when you try to enforce them, they can easily be circumvented. Why, it’s almost better not to have any rules on who can say “Rest In Power” in the first place!
Yes. Yes it is.
And that’s the point. People should feel free to use whatever wording they want in honor of a fallen friend, a late family member, or even a respected figure in the community. Yes, there are still going to be consequences if somebody takes it the wrong way, but that’s the risk you run when you say anything. You could post on Twitter that you like chocolate, and some asshat with a checkmark will take it that you hate vanilla and try to troll you back to the Stone Age. (In computer terms, that’s 1980.) But does that mean you can’t or shouldn’t say you like chocolate? Not at all!
There is a reason we have free speech in America, and it’s because even loudmouth assholes should be able to speak their minds, if only to make it easier for us to figure out who to stay away from in the future. Limiting speech, especially as innocuous as “Rest In Power,” doesn’t help anyone, literally and, well, literally. Oh, I almost forgot. Some of the people posting “Rest In Power” to the late Jay Briscoe happen to be members of the groups Leftists say get to use the phrase in the first place.
Checkmate, motherfuckers.
What a Bunch of Gasholes!
As jaded as I’ve become in my later years, there are still some things that make me shake my head in a “Are you fucking kidding me” way. Usually, this comes from the federal government, online culture warriors, or media types, but recently, we had the perfect storm of fuckery, thanks to a federal agency.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission announced it was considering banning natural gas stoves, citing health concerns because of course. Recent peer-reviewed research published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health found an alleged link between the use of gas stoves and childhood asthma, a danger further underscored by co-author Brady Seals of the Rocky Mountain Institute. More on this later.
Once this news became public knowledge, online culture warriors went to work to amplify the CPSC suggestion, which promptly made the media go into “Republicans Pounce” mode. At first, the CPSC tried to deny what the commissioner, Richard Trumka Jr., clearly said, which as we all know makes everything instantly better! Then, Trumka, who made the initial statement “Products that can’t be made safe can be banned,” issued a tweet “clarifying” his statement, saying they weren’t coming after gas stoves after all, and any new regulations would only apply to new products.
It got so bad that CPSC chair Alexander Hoehn-Saric had to issue further clarification, and stated the organization was evaluating the health risks in light of the aforementioned research. Furthermore, Hoehn-Saric said no new regulations were on the table right now.
Meaning, they’re still on the table, but they’re being hidden behind the boiled radishes that nobody wants to eat until they can be reintroduced as though nothing had happened.
And believe me they will.
This is because the Left and its government stooges (but I repeat myself) love to have as much power over us as possible. Controlling how we cook our food, as meaningless as it is in the grand scheme of things, is exactly the kind of shit they’d do if given the chance…or if they take the chance.
But then they fucked up by not only giving away the plot, but by assuming the opponents wouldn’t have receipts. Oh, but they did. Lots of receipts. They even got the Socialist Socialite to defend her use of gas stoves while simultaneously doubling down on the science.
And just what was the science, you ask? Remember the peer-reviewed study I referenced earlier co-authored by Brady Seals? Well, turns out she might have a vested interest in the outcome, given her association with the Rocky Mountain Institute. If you look at the Board of Trustees, you’ll notice a few different themes and some familiar names in Leftist circles. Of course, none of this is ever discussed in the news pieces citing the paper Seals co-authored. After all, why let a little thing like complete transparency get in the way of a good scare piece?
But before you damn me for guilt by association, let me also point out one other tiny problem with the paper: it’s fundamentally flawed. What’s more, the problems raised in Seals’ paper and in the subsequent media stories can be addressed somewhat by using a range hood. So, banning or even adding new regulations for the use of gas stoves isn’t even necessary.
But it is necessary if you’re trying to persuade people to adopt an alternative to what we currently used.
Surely, electric stoves are better for the environment, right? Oooooh, sor-ray. Turns out it takes more energy for an electric stove to do what a gas stove does. And since most of our energy production comes from fossil fuels, that means to use the allegedly safer technology, we have to create more pollution. Brilliant!
Oh, and the best part? Natural gas is cleaner than fossil fuels. Even Leftist eco-nuts (again, I repeat myself) admit that, but they always love to throw in the “but X” to explain why natural gas isn’t the good deal it’s made out to be.
“But the study was peer-reviewed!” some might say. My response is that peer review is only as good as the intellectual rigor used by the peer reviewing it. As we’ve seen, peer review has its flaws and scandals that have tarnished its reputation for being, well, reputable. And the fact it keeps happening year after year after year doesn’t help make the case why a peer reviewed paper is more valid and truthful than a paper a puppy pees on.
But the Left needs people to ignore the problems and “trust the science” because it plays into one of their favorite logical fallacies, appeal to authority. If you are impressed by the credentials and don’t look into the facts, you can be persuaded to adopt an idea as true basely solely on who says it. But titles in and of themselves don’t necessarily mean the person with them should be listened to on a given subject. Remember, Neil deGrasse Tyson says some stupid shit.
But the Left count on people being ignorant enough to listen and believe and not listen and mock mercilessly. However, the online culture warriors unwittingly give the Left ammunition (which is ironic given how the Left hates guns) to dismiss all criticism. Although the critics were mostly right factually, the way they presented the facts made it sound like a crazy conspiracy theory. And remember the media love to do the “Republicans Pounce” thing to cover the Republicans’ response to a Leftist scandal instead of the scandal itself. This rhetorical slight-of-hand takes attention away from the actual story to get people to pay attention to the distraction.
Even so, the culture warriors don’t seem to get this. Oh, they’ll mock/complain about the “Republicans Pounce” tactic, but their passion turns into the distraction the Left needs to escape responsibility for being utter fuck-ups.
Almost.
Once you see the bait and switch the media pull (see the recent scandal related to Puddin’ Head Joe and classified documents for evidence), you can’t unsee it. Like a Micheal Moore porn video. But unlike “Fahrenheit 9-11 Inches” or “Balling for Columbine” you don’t need brain bleach, therapy, and a Men In Black memory wipe to function after witnessing it.
The moral of this story is to be skeptical of a gut reaction given amplification by people with a Paul Bunyon-sized axe to grind, even if you agree with them. A little information can go a long way towards finding the truth, often found in between the extremes. But there are still some pretty good rules of thumb that are easy to follow.
Whenever the Socialist Socialite talks about anything other than, well, herself, believe the exact opposite because she’s a fucking idiot.
Hmmmm…maybe there’s something to the science saying gas stoves affect cognitive ability after all…
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Ever see the movie “Catch Me If You Can“? If not, it’s a movie about a real person, Frank Abagnale Jr., who made a name for himself by scamming people. Well, recently Republicans found their own Frank Abagnale in the form of George Santos, incoming Republican Congressman from New York. Seems he lied, like, a lot.
In other words, he was well-qualified for the job.
Leftists, never known for being honest or consistent, have jumped on the controversy to try to demand he resign and start state and federal investigations into his campaign. Although I really don’t have a problem with any of that, the Left’s reaction is a bit of a tell, as we’ll see in a bit.
George Santos
What the Left thinks it means – a Republican politician who should not be allowed to represent anyone because he lied about his past
What it really means – a man being held to a different standard by the Left to hide the real reason they want him gone
This is going to come to a shock to some of you, but politicians lie. I’ll give you all a moment to compose yourselves after such a revelation.
Okay, that’s long enough.
What makes Santos a different breed of cat, according to the Left, is the extent of his lies. He’s claimed to be Jewish, gay, a financial advisor to Goldman Sachs, and any number of things, both about himself and his family. Hmm…that sounds a lot like a former Vice President, but I can’t remember who…
Oh, well. Guess I’ll have some pudding.
While the lies themselves are troubling, what’s more troubling is the underlying reason for the Left’s reaction. No, they haven’t decided to turn over a new leaf and become truth seekers. Instead, their reaction is based on something more…base. And if Meghan Trainor taught us anything, it’s that it’s all about that base….
For more context, let’s take a trip to New York. See, Mr. (or Doctor or Monsignor or whatever title he’s given himself) Santos committed a mortal sin in Leftists’ minds: he beat a Democrat. What’s more, it was a seat formerly held by a Democrat, meaning it flipped with Santos’ election. That alone would make Santos a target for Leftist hate, but the over embellishment of his resume gives them a legitimate hook on which to hang their disdain and hide their real agenda.
Of course, getting Santos to either resign or have House Republicans not seat him won’t affect the fact Republicans will still hold a slight majority. But that’s not the point. The point is to make Republicans live up to their own standards, as our good friend Saul Alinsky taught in Rules for Radicals. And knowing how many House Republicans have spines of Jello, there’s a good chance this strategy will work.
Provided, of course, some House Republicans don’t use the Santos situation to expose the Left’s hypocrisy, that is. And it’s not like they will have to do a lot of legwork because conservative commenters on Twitter have already done it. It is just a matter of playing the Left’s game better than they do. Make them defend their silence/defense of Puddin’ Head Joe’s multiple lies, and don’t let them off the hook. After all, these are the same fucknuckles who said former President Donald Trump lied over 30,000 times and said it was unbecoming of a President.
Of course, the Left will call this “whataboutism” (mainly because they can’t refute Puddin’ Head Joe’s lies), which to some extent it is. My counter to this is simple: lying is never good for leaders to do, even if it’s infrequent. Whether it’s 30,000 lies or just 30, each time a political leader pulls a Tommy Flannagan it undermines public trust. Or at least that’s what my wife, Morgan Fairchild, says.
But a key for this to work is consistency. Republicans need to hold Santos to the same standard as Biden, and not quietly in either case. And, while we’re at it, let’s follow the Left’s logic a bit more. Santos should be punished, whether it be by the House Leadership or by his constituents, and so should Puddin’ Head Joe. Then, sweeten the pot by pointing out how Leftist darlings Nancy Pelosi, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth “Chief Running Mouth” Warren, Eric Swalwell, Richard Blumenthal, Adam Schiff, and others should be held to the same standard the Left wants to apply to Santos.
Then, when Leftists point out Republican liars, say, “Sure. Throw them out, too.”
Then, grab a bottle of water as the Leftists run off in a cloud of dust that would make the Road Runner look like a sleeping sloth. But enough about Jerrold Nadler.
Let’s face it, George Santos gives the GOP a black eye (or if you’re politically correct, an African-American eye). The fact he got this far without someone at the RNC giving him the side-eye at all the red flags that came up means the party needs to seriously revamp their vetting process. It doesn’t matter if the candidate is backed by Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, or Susan Collins, Republicans need to do a much better job in 2024 to avoid embarrassments like Santos.
After all, we wouldn’t want someone like that to be President, right?