Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

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

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

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

competent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I mean, aside from Leftists.

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

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

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

President Joe Biden gave a joint speech before Congress last week, which I think is as close to a State of the Union Address we’re going to get from him this year. In it, the President talked about a lot of topics, some of which were actually in English, but one of them that has become a focal point is systemic racism. Much like air or pop singers who use AutoTune, systemic racism is everywhere from your local police to pancake syrup (and I wish I was joking about that last one). Yet, the Left feels confident they can combat systemic racism and win because…well, they’re Leftists!

While the Left finds systemic racism under every rock, very few are willing to tell us what it is, only where it is. So, leave it to your humble correspondent to lift the veil on this controversial topic.

systemic racism

What the Left thinks it means – when entire systems discriminate against people of color

What it really means – an easy explanation for a more complex issue

Let’s be fair here. America’s history is rife with racism, and we’re still dealing with the repercussions of that history today. And we still haven’t gotten a handle on how to address the past and make progress, at least from a governmental perspective. The Left recognizes this and has a strategy to deal with it.

1) Find the system
2) Find the racism
3) Complain about the racism
4) ?
5) Profit

Right now most of the Left’s plans to deal with systemic racism is stuck in Phase 4, but they’re still able to move to Phase 5 when it’s time to elect more Leftists. Yet, with all of the systemic racism that’s supposed to be out there, why it is the systems themselves aren’t being torn down or reformed?

It would negatively impact Phase 5.

Politicians of all stripes love crises because they create opportunities to expand their power base, get a little more scratch from people, shore up support for ideologically-driven goals, and so on. If a problem gets resolved, though, that avenue dries up. Thus, any issue that can be exploited will be exploited until it no longer generates the desired upsides. Then, the issue mysteriously goes away! Amazing how that happens, isn’t it?

Of course, the Left has no problems taking actions that benefit themselves while giving the black community the shaft. Remember the 1994 crime bill? That resulted in higher numbers of blacks being prosecuted and incarcerated for drug-related crimes. Remember the “three strikes” sentencing initiative? That also negatively impacted the black community due to the number of repeat offenders. In fact, I can’t really point to anything the Left has advocated that has wound up helping the black community in any meaningful way over the past couple of decades. They’ll throw money at the problem, which generates votes, but doesn’t move the needle towards actual progress.

That brings us to systemic racism. It’s a nice idea in theory, at least to Leftists, because it allows people of color to blame their woes on a nameless, faceless system rather than actions taken or untaken, and it allows white Leftists to show solidarity to people of color without actually helping. And by tacking on as many systems as possible, the concept of systemic racism will continue to live on ad nauseum. (And, no, that’s not a typo.)

Here’s the problem, though. The concept doesn’t seem to reflect the wider reality. Even with America’s racist past, our present and even our future are far removed from that past. Look around you. I’m willing to bet most of you live in integrated areas where you’re around people that don’t look like you. In some cases, there will be strife because some people haven’t gotten the memo about getting along, but most of the time, we coexist without issue. At least, that’s the impression I get from the “Coexist” bumper stickers and, oh yeah, the utter lack of violence, destruction, and general mayhem. You know, aside from Portland.

This opens up a whole lotta questions, the first one being where is the systemic racism? If it’s as extensive as the Left wants us to believe, it should be, well, everywhere. The fact we can’t see it may not be absolute proof it doesn’t exist, but it’s hard to argue it’s there if there aren’t concrete examples. If mortgage banks contribute to systemic racism (as the Left believes), there wouldn’t be as much, if any, intermingling of cultures and people of different racial backgrounds. We would be gentrified.

You know, like white Leftist neighborhoods?

That leads to more questions, each one damning the idea of systemic racism further. Think of it like a game of Jenga on the San Andreas Fault during a 4.5 earthquake. You might appear to have a strong foundation, but sooner or, well, even sooner the whole thing comes tumbling down.

That’s not going to stop the Left from making systemic racism a thing because it still leads to Phase 5, and there are enough people willing to believe it exists. Unfortunately, there’s nothing we can do to convince those who believe to look at the reality of the situation. Instead, let’s focus on what we can affect: the systems themselves. Just because systemic racism isn’t a widespread problem doesn’t mean it isn’t a problem where it exists. And right now, there’s one prominent group where systemic racism is prevalent and pervasive.

I call it the Democrat Party.

After all, they are a power structure that benefits from keeping people of color down…

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The eyes of the world were on Minnesota earlier this year, and not because the Twins and the Vikings have been mathematically eliminated from the post-season on the same day. Former police officer Derek Chauvin was convicted on three counts related to the death of George Floyd, and the Left cried tears of joy because justice was served (according to them). Yet, there are some, including your humble correspondent, who don’t quite agree with the sentiment, thanks to people like Maxine Waters voicing opinions prior to the jury being sequestered to deliberate.

We’re going to be dealing with some lofty concepts here, kids, so grab a cold beverage and strap in.

justice

What the Left thinks it means – an outcome that reinforces our collective societal will and punishes those who try to subvert it

What it really means – an outcome where the process and the verdict support a fair result

To make things perfectly clear, I happen to agree with the verdict. What Derek Chauvin did on camera crossed the line between securing a suspect and police brutality. It’s hard to argue that (although I’m sure there are plenty of people willing to try). If the case were tried purely on the evidence, the result would be the same.

Ah, but there’s the rub. This case wasn’t tried purely on the evidence. The Court of Public Opinion, which has a track record that makes the 9th Circuit Court look like Solomon, has been trying and retrying this case pretty much on the daily. Whether it’s elevating George Floyd to heroic/deity levels or using the case as a means to promote everything from defunding/abolishing the police to rooting out white supremacists en masse, the Left has been milking this situation for all it’s worth. Judging from the recent home purchase of a Black Lives Matter founder, it’s worth quite a bit.

Even with the video evidence, there is still an important step to consider: ensuring both sides get a fair hearing. The Court of Public Opinion typically isn’t the venue for such discourse, so it falls to the actual court system. And that’s where the Chauvin verdict goes off the rails like Gary Busey driving an Amtrak route. Thanks to Leftists like Maxine Waters, Ilhan Omar, and President Joe Biden, the environment surrounding the trial made a fair hearing impossible. There is some question of whether the jury was sequestered to the point they wouldn’t have heard the aforementioned Leftists’ comments, so we can’t be sure one way or the other.

And that, ladies and gentleman, is how you plant the seeds for an appeal.

Leftists were so hellbent to get a conviction that they didn’t take into consideration what they were doing to deny justice, the very thing they claim they wanted out of the Chauvin trial. Although lack of self-awareness isn’t a bug in the Left so much as a feature, it took an amazing amount of blockheadedness to agree to the idea to let some of the most divisive politicians in modern history and Joe Biden weigh in on what the jury “should” do.

Speaking of which, Speaker Pelosi? Call your office, provided you’ve extracted your feet from your mouth after thanking George Floyd of “taking one for the team.”

Anyway, the Left’s approach to justice, real or whatever make-believe version they want to promote today, is based on their general approach: the ends justify the means. In the Chauvin case, the Left wanted a guilty verdict so they can continue to perpetuate the notion police officers are killing innocent black victims constantly. (Of course, actual data shows that’s not happening, but Party of Science, kids!) As long as this perception is considered to be reality, the Left can keep bringing it up as a means to get money and power without actually doing anything about it.

Think about that last part for a moment. The Left needs these problems to continue for their own purposes. And if it takes people dying to make that happen, so be it! Who would have thought the party that supports abortion on demand would have such disregard for human life?

Meanwhile, the Left keeps slapping “justice” on everything to the point the word loses its meaning. You know, just like they did with racism! Environmental justice, social justice, economic justice, racial justice, about the only thing they haven’t touched on is actual justice, and let’s be glad they haven’t or it would get screwed up worse than it already is. And if the Derek Chauvin verdict is any indication, they may have their sights set on it.

The issues they face, however, are a bit deeper than they are. For all the times they’ve taken up for convicted cop killer Mumia Abu Jamal and the number of lawyers in their midst, you’d think they’d have figured out the American criminal justice process. Just because you hold your breath and stomp your feet doesn’t mean you get the verdict you want. There is still a matter of evidence and procedure that have to be followed or else you get a conviction that gets overturned faster than a pancake at IHOP. And that’s by design, my Leftist friends. Actual justice doesn’t begin and end with the judge’s gavel; it begins with following the steps to ensure all parties involved have a chance to be heard and present a case. I know that kinda puts a crimp in your “execute first and ask questions…well, never, really” approach, but it does make things a lot handier when it comes to, you know, actually getting a legal ruling that won’t get overturned due to a lack of procedural integrity?

In other words, if you follow the rules and don’t let Maxine Waters say something incredibly stupid about an ongoing trial, you don’t have to worry about the verdict you want getting thrown out. Granted, that may be a hell of an ask from the Left, but we can hope.

Regardless of how you feel about the Derek Chauvin verdict, it’s hard to say whether justice was actually served. On the one hand, he has been convicted of contributing to George Floyd’s death. On the other, the environment surrounding the trial made the conviction all but certain, but not in a good way. When that happens, it’s a good thing Lady Justice is wearing a blindfold or we’d be due for a series of rampant scale-whippings.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

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

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

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

CNN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which the Left hates.

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

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

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

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

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

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

It’s Spring (no thanks to Punxatawny Phil), and you know what that means, right? Neighbors starting to mow their lawns again! Being able to break out light jackets most days! The Chicago Cubs being mathematically eliminated from the post-season by the end of the National Anthem on Opening Day!

And talk of infrastructure.

Sure, infrastructure isn’t the most exciting topic to talk about, but it’s become one of the central themes of the Biden Administration. Well, that and circling back on questions Jen Psaki isn’t prepared to answer at the time and then never circling back. It must have caught on because Leftists are talking about it almost non-stop. Everything from schools to health care is being touted as being infrastructure.

And we wouldn’t be talking about it if they weren’t trying to pull a fast one on us.

infrastructure

What the Left thinks it means – services essential to running America successfully

What it really means – stuff we should be spending money on instead of stupid stuff

For once in a great while, the Venn Diagram between what the Left believes and I believe cross. I do see there is an infrastructure problem in America, as the potholes big enough to cause echoes exhibit. Where we part company is in how we address it. The Left wants to throw enough money around to fill the potholes in perpetuity, while I want to actually, you know, fix the fracking potholes! And why do our approaches differ so widely? It’s simple.

The Left doesn’t want to fix anything. They would rather leave a pothole where it is, no matter how many cars get swallowed up whole in them. A problem solved is a funding opportunity lost. And when I say “funding opportunity,” I mean funding opportunities…for themselves. The Left has found a way to turn government projects into ATM machines where your balance is never zero and you always have millions in deposits being made by good ole Uncle Sam.

This isn’t to say the Right is any better. Instead of funding studies on the mating habits of the 14-toed albino shrub sloth, the Right spends money on war. With the billions needed to fix roads, bridges, and buildings, I think the Department of Defense could do without 3 or 4 screwdrivers for the cause.

Yet, without fail, when the temperatures turn warmer, politicians start thinking like Norm Abrams and thinking they should fix the problems they find. Their problem is they’re as good with tools as Tim Taylor from “Home Improvement” and their version of Al Borland is just as inept. And on this edition of “This Old Country” we’re going to watch what manicured politicians do when they’re expected to get their hands dirty: absolutely nothing!

When you really think about it, and I have because I lack actual hobbies, this humorous aside uncovers the reason why everybody in Washington talks a good game, but never plays the infrastructure game. How many DC politicians and/or staff have to drive on the same city streets you and I do? How many wonder if the bridge they’re driving on could collapse like Lindsey Lohan on, well let’s be honest, any day ending with “day”? And how many do you think would put up with buildings less stable than Gary Busey after a bender with the aforementioned Ms. Lohan? Oddly enough, the answer is the same for all three questions.

Zero. Nada. El Zippo. The Big Bagel. The amount of self-awareness Eric Swalwell has.

Because it doesn’t affect them, the DC types (especially Leftists) don’t care about who it impacts.  

The funny thing about infrastructure is you can make an argument that anything is related to it. Remember the game Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon? It’s just like that, only more expensive and without a “Footloose” film credit. Even so, the Left’s attempts to shoehorn everything under the infrastructure tent are as bizarre as they are humorous. While some elements like high-speed rail or a pipeline would certainly fall under infrastructure, most of the Left’s additions, like paid leave, child care, and caregiving (according to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand) are more of a wish list than actual infrastructure.

Now that we’re over 700 words into this beast, maybe it’s time we set some ground rules. For me, infrastructure has more of a concrete and definite benefit to people and, in some cases, the greater societal need. Filling a pothole may not seem like much, but people will notice it when they don’t have to worry about wheel damage driving down a particular street. Rebuilding a downtown area affected by rio…I mean mostly peaceful protests or tackling a community project like building a park have tangible results that can be mapped out on a timeline.

While there is an argument to be made about child care, caregiving, paid leave, and other more esoteric ideas being infrastructure, I’m less inclined to include them for a couple of reasons. First, there isn’t a clear connection between the action taken and the result of said action. You can give a child all the love in the world, but if his/her aspirations go no further than being a YouTube celebrity, nothing of tangible value is gained. And you’d be hard-pressed to come up with an argument anything of esoteric value is gained, for that matter.

Second, and this is a big one, there is no discernable end-point. With rebuilding a bridge, you can not only see the progress, but you can see the end of it. With something like child care, there is no such indication we’re done. And when it comes to Leftists, if you do something for one group of people, it has to be spread out to every group for as long as they deem because if you don’t, you’re a bigot. (Of course, Leftists throw around the term like Randy Johnson in his prime, so…) So, no matter how deep you think your pockets are, be ready to keep turning them out with the Left’s idea of infrastructure.

For me, the biggest knock against the Left’s infrastructure calls is the Left doesn’t have a good track record when it comes to actual infrastructure. Remember “The Big Dig”? Sure, it’s one example, but it’s a disaster 25 years and several billion dollars in the making. Can you imagine what the Left would do with a bridge project? The Big Dig would look like a crack in the pavement, and it would be an eyesore and a financial drain for generations.

You know, like a Barbra Streisand concert ticket?

In the meantime, we need to resist the urge to throw anything and everything in the infrastructure bucket and focus more on what is infrastructure. Although most of what needs to be done is way outside of our respective paygrades, there are still some things we can do in our own backyards to fix the problems we see. And, the best part is we can do it without the federal government directing us. You will still have to deal with state and local authorities, but I guarantee they’re going to be a lot easier to deal with than the national folks are going to be.

As far as the Left’s Great Spending Spree Forward is concerned, just remember they aren’t above emotional manipulation to get what they want. And they will. Of course, they will also use absurdly stupid concepts to try to get what they want, so it makes it easier for us to a) recognize it, b) neutralize it, and c) laugh at it.

And extending Senator Gillibrand’s logic just a bit, mocking her is infrastructure!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

I know we just talked about conspiracy theories last time, but something has come up recently that might make them seem more credible, and we have COVID-19 and Leftist power grabs to thank for it. I’m speaking of vaccine passports, not the ones that allowed coronavirus to spread here like cream cheese on a bagel.

What the Biden Administration and its fluffers…I mean media supporters have suggested is to require people who have gotten vaccinated to be able to provide proof of such so businesses and the general public know. Seems pretty innocuous, doesn’t it? Wellll…let’s just say this one is going to be fun to digest.

vaccine passports

What the Left thinks it means – a necessary measure to ensure public safety

What it really means – totalitarianism with clown makeup as to not scare the kids

One of the biggest problems we’ve faced since COVID-19 became the viral equivalent of “Baby Shark” is we don’t know a lot about it. Even after a year of “two weeks to flatten the curve” we’re barely scratching the surface of what it can do and whether our medical responses are adequate. We don’t even know for sure whether the vaccines developed will do anything to it or us.

Before we go any further, though, let me clarify. I am not anti-vaccine by any stretch of the imagination. As a science geek, I happen to like the knowledge medical technology has evolved to the point that a shot in the arm can protect against most illnesses. Where my hesitation comes into play is when government gets involved, whether it be through funding testing and development or giving the okay to distribute drugs to the public. That hesitation isn’t without merit. Remember Olestra? Yeah, that got the government green light and it wound up making people’s pants brown, if you know what I mean.

While the effectiveness of President Donald Trump’s Operation War Speed can be debated (and, following various Twitter conversations on the subject, is), I can’t quite get behind the notion everything’s fine. As I’ve noted previously, government isn’t in the problem-solving business because they don’t have a vested interest in solving problems. If anything, they need the problems to continue so they can continue to bleed taxpayers dry. And as we’ve seen with some Democrat governors, they have no issue making things harder on their constituents, but easier for themselves.

By the way, Governor Cuomo? You might want to check with your office regarding a bunch of New Yorkers outside with pitchforks and torches.

So, why does the government want us to get vaccine passports? To the Left, it’s for the public good, which is admittedly a good reason. And if it was just for that reason, I might be a little more lenient. However, thanks to Leftist Twitter (which is pretty much the same thing), I get the feeling there’s a lot more below the surface that we should consider.

You know, like…totalitarianism.

Some Leftists have said the quiet part out loud and said those without a vaccine passport should be denied service, put on lists to prevent them from interacting with others who are vaccinated, taxed more heavily for the additional burden to our healthcare system, and a few other onerous actions designed to force compliance. At this rate, I’m surprised they haven’t gone the Hester Prynne route and just made non-vaccinated people wear a scarlet letter. (Yes, I could have gone with the Nazi route, but at some point Godwin’s Law comes into play. Besides, with so many people throwing the Nazi word around like Tom Brady during a playoff game, it’s better to try some fresh references.)

This raises more than a few questions, of course, not the least of which is what happens if someone gets vaccinated and it doesn’t take. Getting a passport saying you’ve gotten the poke means nothing if you can still contract the disease and spread it. Aside from a boon for medical liability attorneys, such a scenario doesn’t help anyone, but opens people up to a lot of hurt.

Then, there are those who are unable to get the vaccine due to pre-existing conditions. These cases may be rare, but they do exist. How would that impact the whole “you need to get a vaccine passport to do anything” approach? Plus, since we’re dealing with pre-existing conditions, how can the Pro-Passport Posse reconcile this position with what is likely their support for Obamacare? And since this is the government getting involved in personal medical decision, how will the pro-baby death movement react?

Spoiler Alert: they can’t square that circle, and they won’t even try. They’ll just tell you it needs to be done because shut up.

The fact some dude in the Midwest can think up these potential drawbacks when our elected officials haven’t should be concerning regardless of your position on the vaccine passport idea. And it’s not like these drawbacks are too obscure or preposterous to consider. They should be front and center and, dare I say, addressed without mockery, shaming, coercion, or undue oppression by government or Leftists. The fact the self-professed “Party of Science” can’t even acknowledge the potential downfalls of its approach isn’t a good sign.

Plus, there’s this whole personal liberty thing to consider. As much as I can see the general good of getting a COVID-19 vaccine, it should remain a choice because not everyone is me. I would rather take my chances contracting COVID and respect another person’s agency than to force that person to forcibly conform. It’s in my best interest to take precautions, but it’s also in my best interest to let others attempt to come to the same conclusion. It’s the same reason I still wear masks and wore a seatbelt before it became illegal to drive without one: enlightened self-interest. If someone else doesn’t see things the same way, so what? Last time I checked, life was a terminal condition. Well, there was this one guy…I think he was a Jewish carpenter or something.

Anyway, the point is not everyone is going to dance to the tune you play, so you either need to convince others to shake their respective booties or accept it. Trying to force people to do the Macarena because you like it shows a) you care more about personal power than the good of the collective, and b) you have crappy taste in music. Vaccine passports work along the same lines, including the crappy taste in music. The fact so many Leftists are on-board with the idea to the point of punitive enforcement against those who don’t agree is a no-go for me. The thing I’ve found with Leftists is they will try to force agreement when they lack the ability to persuade others to agree. Although it’s a lot less work, it’s going to guarantee pushback from parties that might have been persuaded otherwise.

In the meantime, don’t forget to celebrate the one year anniversary of “two weeks to slow the spread”!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Since its inception, the Internet has been home to three main things: porn, cat pictures, and conspiracy theories. Whether it’s “exposing” the Bilderbergs or finding the CIA’s connections to if the cat can haz cheeseburger, there are parts of the Information Superhighway that lead to sketchy neighborhoods.

During the Trump Administration, the Left heaped scorn on QAnon, a movement sharing pro-Trump information and finding conspiracies where there weren’t any. Now, the Left has its own QAnon group, nicknamed “Blue Anon.” And, as with most things the Left is involved in, it’s divisive. There are some who take Blue Anon as seriously as the footnotes in a Buzzfeed article, and others who take it very seriously as the Leftist hackery in a Buzzfeed article. In either case, it’s worth further mockery…I mean examination.

Blue Anon

What the Left thinks it means – Ummmm…let me circle back with you on that…

What it really means – a sign not everything is rosy in Bidenland

In my lifetime, I’ve watched as the Democrat Party went from a political party to a collective of loosely-connected voting blocs, often working at cross purposes, who vote the way they do because “they’re better than Republicans.” In the past two Presidential election cycles, though, there is a core of activists who don’t necessarily agree the Democrats are better than the Republicans and feel the party needs to move further Left. Apparently because these activists want to lose more elections, thus ensuring they will be “oppressed” with their iPhones and Starbucks lattes.

And it’s in these pockets of resistance where Blue Anon thrives. With Donald Trump out of office, they have to find a different Boogeyman to sustain their narrative that has the cushiest oppression this side of a 4 star day spa. Guess what, Leftists? They’re gunning for you now! Or they would if they didn’t believe guns were a tool of white supremacy or the Patriarchy or some such.

Regardless, Blue Anon isn’t happy with the current crop of Leftists running things, as is evidenced by watching the Socialist Socialite and the Squad take pot-shots at Nancy Pelosi whenever it’s politically expedient to do so, but to walk in line behind her most of the time. Say what you will about the Squad, they’ve picked up the Washington Cha-Cha pretty quickly. But they’re still committed to a more progressive Democrat Party in the near future, and the sooner for them, the better. As a result, there are people who not only buy into the idea Karl Marx had some good ideas, but also believe the current Democrat Party leadership is working against them.

Welcome to the Blue Anon Petrie dish!

To be fair, Blue Anon does have a point. The Leftist leadership wants nothing to do with advancing a more progressive agenda. A progressive agenda, yes, but not nearly as progressive as Blue Anon wants because of one thing: the Leftist leadership wants to stay in leadership. Losing elections because you took a hard stand to protect the Twin-Billed Yellow Sapsucker at the expense of a few thousand jobs isn’t something the leaders relish. Oh, they’ll pay it more lip service than Andrew Cuomo with his subordinates, but for some strange reason, they promptly forget it once they’ve secured enough votes to keep their butts Crazy Glued to their seats for the next millennia. It’s this reality of politics that escapes Blue Anon like most prisoners at Stalag 13, and it’s also the fuel for their conspiracy theories.

The thing to remember about any conspiracy theory is there is usually a nugget of truth in it. You may have to dig for it, but it’s there. With Blue Anon, the nugget of truth is there in the open, mainly because political Leftists aren’t afraid to show their contempt for people they consider inferior (i.e. not them). Where Blue Anon goes off the rails is when they attribute every bad outcome on the same nugget of truth even when there is no connection. To be fair, this is the same problem QAnon has, but it’s a feature of any conspiracy theory worth its salt.

Another feature, which is the fatal flaw, is the fact it can be reasonably explained away with common sense. In order to believe any conspiracy theory, you have to simultaneously believe the powers that be are so clever as to get into positions of power without being noticed while simultaneously being stupid enough to let the “real facts” get leaked to the conspiracy theorists. Now, I’ll admit I’m not an expert on stuff like this, but if the only people who know the truth are people you wouldn’t trust not to injure themselves with a plastic spork, I’m willing to bet they and the truth aren’t on speaking terms.

That is what makes Blue Anon so funny to me. These are people so convinced of their mental superiority while at the same time getting suckered in by an absurd con solely because it feeds into their preconceived ideas. That’s the hook, kids. Blue Anon works for Leftists because it reinforces their beliefs, no matter how silly or unrealistic. And before Leftist leaders can say “Et tu, AOC?” Blue Anon will start asserting their perceived power in an attempt to create political power.

And most of the time they will get crushed in the process. Ask Cindy Sheehan about trying to take on Nancy Pelosi.

On a bigger scale, Blue Anon represents the biggest failure of the Biden Administration to date: the inability to unite the country. There will be more failure to come, I assure you, but the failure to unite the country (which was one of the cornerstones of why Joe got the gig in the first place) will certainly be hard to top. And, yes, I know Leftists are blaming Trump and conservatives for this, which is fair. But you supported Joe Biden on the basis that he wasn’t Donald Trump and could bring the country back together again. Also, don’t give me the “he’s only been in office for X months” because Joe Biden was in office for most of my life, and I’m 51 as of the date of this writing. The fact he’s had decades to come up with a cogent vision isn’t undone because he just moved into the White House. Not to mention, he was Vice President for 8 years under Barack Obama, so it’s not like he’s been hiding in his basement…oh, wait.

Seriously, though, Blue Anon is going to be a thorn in the Left’s side for months to come because they can’t just dismiss them like they dismissed QAnon without political consequences, namely the 2022 midterm elections. Yet, they can’t simply accept Blue Anon at face value because the conspiratorial stink will rub off on them.

Welcome aboard the Kobiashi Maru, kids!

Recent Mass Murders

In the wake of 2 mass murders the Left is again talking about gun control. And the Left does want to take guns away from the people, all the people, so only the military and the police will be armed. That is the ultimate goal of the Left. The State cannot impose it’s will with a well armed population.

There are already a multitude of laws both federally and locally that are under the guise of safety. Where did they fail in these two resent cases? Instead of investigating that failure, the Left just wants to place more restrictions on ownership of weapons which is a clear and present violation of the US Constitution and therefore any such law is automatically unconstitutional and invalid.

Many of the useful idiots, as Stalin called them, don’t understand the plain language of our Constitution. The 2nd Amendment states:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Many get tripped up by the word Militia. Thinking that means the armed forces, the standing military of the United States. This is wrong thinking. The word was chosen and capitalized for a reason by the Founding Fathers. Here, Militia, means every able bodied citizen capable of defending the Constitution.

An armed citizenry is necessary to keep a nation free of tyranny from forces that would take away its freedoms. Even if those forces originate from inside the nation or outside of the nation.

That is why the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And that means impeded, circumvented, restricted in any way shape or form.

The Left likes to state that the Founding Fathers didn’t mean for this amendment to be used for civilian ownership of military weapons. But that too is also a wicked lie. The Founding Fathers didn’t come back from a hunting trip. They came back from attacking the largest and most powerful nation and military on the face of the earth at the time. Using weapons of war that were owned by the individuals firing them.

The 2nd Amendment wasn’t written to allow American’s to go hunting on the weekend. It was written for Americans to keep their Republic from a tyrannical government that would take it away from them. Even if it was elected into place by foolish Americans.

There is an odd thing that happens in cases of violence. If one commits murder and assault with a knife. The attacker is punished. If one commits murder and assault with a blunt instrument, a baseball bat for example. The attacker is punished. If one commits murder and assault with a vehicle. The attacker is punished.

But if one commits murder and assault with a firearm. Then the firearm is punished. Others that own firearms are punished and tracked like sex offenders. And maybe the attacker gets punished to if they didn’t have a bad childhood that is stated to be the cause of the violence they committed.

The loss of life recently in these cowardly attacks is heartbreaking. I weep for the loss of life. I lift up prayers to Almighty God to comfort the families in their time of grief. And I will say again the Left’s gun control is not the answer.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Even though the Presidential election has been over for 4 months, we’re still talking about it. I know elections have consequences, but I didn’t think one of them would be being bored out of my mind while watching people with zero clue about how government works argue over simple concepts. And the normal people trying to educate them can be frustrating, too.

Lately, the conversation has revolved around election security, and, no, I’m not talking about the possibility of having armed guards at polling places. Leftists are doing everything they can to not only say anyone who rejects the notion the 2020 election had issues with voter fraud, but also to say future elections are subject to voter fraud.

Yes, they are that contradictory.

But what to Leftists mean when they speak about election security? It’s not what you think…

election security

What the Left thinks it means – methods to expand the voting base

What it really means – methods to ensure Leftists win more often

When you look at the various proposals Leftists have come up with to promote election security (and I have because I have no life), it’s astounding what they’ve managed to lump together. Here are some of the high/low/no lights

– Abolishing the filibuster in the Senate
– Preventing gerrymandering
– Promoting mail-in voting
– Working against any new laws requiring a photo ID to vote
– Electing more Democrats/Leftists
– Making it easier to register potential voters

Maybe it’s me, but there seems to be a lack of security in the Left’s election security proposals. Between the ridiculous (preventing gerrymandering) to the sublime (blocking Voter ID bills), I have yet to see how any of these would lead to the kind of widespread election security the Left say they want.

Unless…this isn’t actually about election security at all!

And it’s not. The Left has any number of ways to create electoral chaos, from voter registration fraud (hi, former ACORN nuts!) to ballot harvesting to “helping” seniors fill out ballots for Democrat candidates to accepting and counting votes from the posthumous. The Left has a vested interest in keeping the chaotic status quo because these aforementioned election shenanigans would go the way of Andrew Cuomo’s popularity with the elderly in New York.

Keep this in mind the next time Leftists claim Republicans can’t win elections without cheating.

The scary thing to acknowledge is that some of the Left’s election security ideas have merit. I’m okay with eliminating gerrymandering because it turns Congressional districts into an Etch-A-Sketch. Just when you have the lines drawn the way you want, someone else can come along, shake it all up, and force you start over. As current state-level politics lie, Republicans have the Etch-A-Sketch in a majority of the states, so it’s no wonder the Left wants to get rid of it. In doing so, however, they remove the power they would have if/when they win back the states. Not to mention, the Left have used gerrymandering for the express purpose of getting more minorities elected to Congress. As we’ve seen with Congressional geniuses like Hank “Guam Is Tipping Over” Johnson, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Maxine Waters, this is a brilliant idea that can in no way make the Left look bad.

To any Leftists reading this piece, that last sentence was sarcasm.

Although I agree with the elimination of gerrymandering, it shouldn’t be involved in any discussion about election security (nor should it be involved in any discussion of Senate elections, yet it happens). On the other hand, there are potential solutions, like voter ID, that should be involved in any discussion about election security, but get dismissed by Leftists because…they might work.

Take voter ID, for example. Having potential voters show some form of identification before they vote is (or at least should be) the cornerstone of election security. The fact the Left pushes back so hard on this should be a red flag as to their commitment to secure elections. More to the point, though, voter ID laws speak to actual election security because they address a major problem with voting as it stands now: in many cases, we don’t know who is voting and whether they’re eligible to vote. Granted, it’s not foolproof given the number of fools out there willing to test the boundaries, but it’s a step in the right direction. The underlying issues of availability and cost to get the necessary identification are related, but not to the point that they negate the positive impacts.

Since it doesn’t perpetuate the problem and the stereotypes connected to it (namely, that Leftists believe minorities are too poor and/or stupid to get ID cards), the Left will never go for it. Which is why we have to. As with personal security, election security starts and ends with us. That’s going to require a bit of effort on our part, but it’s going to be worth it if for no other reason than to watch Leftists’ heads explode as their strategies face the failure that comes with honest men and women doing the right thing.

In the meantime, be careful of Leftists bearing promises of election security. Unless, of course, you think the election equivalent of Barney Fife might do a good job.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

There are times when I shake my head in disbelief at what the Left takes seriously. This is one of those times.

It starts with New York Times tech reporter Taylor Lorenz taking her role to new depths by attempting to publicly shame a conservative mother online through bullying her daughter. Rightly, Lorenz has been called out for this behavior. Then, she started complaining about online harassment she’s received, which caused many a Leftist to ignore the utter garbage she did to warrant the attention. Thanks to Tucker Carlson naming Lorenz and using a photo of her available on the Times website, the victimhood meter got turned up to 11 through the invocation of a magical phrase the Left has been using for the past few years, “online violence.”

Let’s demystify this term, shall we?

online violence

What the Left thinks it means – mistreatment of minorities and women online, including taunts, insults, and trolling

What it really means – a made-up controversy with real-life inspiration

With the advent of the World Wide Web (thank you, Al Gore…not!), American society changed forever. Even though we were able to chat with people around the world, our worlds shrank inward. Things we wouldn’t say to people in public were said online, often with our real names attached to them. And don’t get me started on Rule 34. If you don’t know what that is, please don’t ask. You really don’t want to know.

Out of that change came troll culture, which then turned into American culture. And as exchanges got more heated, egos got more fragile. People on social media go from bully to victim in a matter of keystrokes. Hell, I’ve been shit-talked by 12 year olds playing Call of Duty.

Does it cross lines of civilized society? Absolutely. Should we be trying to do better than throwing more shade at people than Rosie O’Donnell sunbathing? No doubt. Is it violence? In a word, no. In two words, fuck no.

Words, by definition, cannot be violence because they lack the ability to be physical. When spoken, they are the expulsion of air through the mouth combine with muscular actions. Even a literal tongue lashing doesn’t involve actual lashing of the tongue. Words can inspire violence (i.e. fighting words), but the words themselves don’t commit the violence.

Now, let’s add in the online element. This may come as a shock to many people, but online life isn’t real life. Even if you believe words are violence (which just confirms you’re a dumbass), the fact the words occurred in the cyber-ether renders your opinion more useless than Eric Swalwell’s security clearance.

So, why are so any people convinced online violence is really? One, online life has made people dumber than a bag of hammers. More importantly, though, it’s a clever play on words the Left uses to convince people it’s a serious problem by playing to their emotions through the negative implications of violence. Let’s be honest. There are very few positive aspects to violence, and those that are positive usually cost at least an extra $50…not that I’d know about that, mind you…

Where was I again? Oh yeah, Leftist word play. By invoking the concept of violence, the Left counts on us to fill in the blanks and assume the worst. Adding the word “online” makes it seem widespread and a direct threat to us personally because everybody and their Grandmother is online these days. Although I get a chuckle imagining an octogenarian trolling a 20 year old over his or her taste in anime, the desired effect is to get us afraid of what could happen.

And by creating that fear, the Left can take your voice, equating legitimate criticism with the modern equivalent of an elementary school taunt, only with more vulgarity. As with other times the Left attempts to manipulate us through creative wording, the key to countering it is to recognize it for what it is and call it out. What Taylor Lorenz and her enablers are trying to do is to escape responsibility for being reprehensible to someone with less power than they have. With Tucker Carlson calling her out, the shoe is on the other foot and now Lorenz is getting a taste of karmic justice.

Let’s just say she’s not a fan. Which makes it all the funnier to me. So, win-win!

Meanwhile, don’t fall prey to the emotional manipulation the Left is using here. They want you to avoid using your brain and simply believe, just like one of the Left’s online darlings Anita Sarkeesian says: Listen and Believe. But when what you’re being told to believe is absurd on its face, you have my blessing not to listen.