Category: Science

In the Meme Time

Yet again the Left gives itself another opportunity to be ridiculed. And this is one of the dumbest memes I’ve seen in a while. And like most Leftist memes. There is always that hint of truth to make you question your believes and to fool the mass of useful idiot.

First up is the Truth. Alchemy is not taught alongside of chemistry. Well no shit. This gives the meme that initial credibility to make the rest of it sound correct but it doesn’t when you actually read it with a bit of knowledge and logical thought.

Alchemy isn’t taught alongside of chemistry because alchemy is the precursor to chemistry and other areas of modern science. We generally don’t teach the precursors to something that has a modern version. And certainly not alongside it’s modern version.

Astrology isn’t taught alongside of physics. Well of course not. Astrology has very little to do with physics as a whole. Maybe alongside of astrophysics would be acceptable when there is talk of planetary motion. But nothing else within astrology is related to physics at all. Unless you count metaphysics. It a bad comparison.

But unlike alchemy, astrology itself is still taught in the schools of metaphysics. To make the point more sound it would have been better to state that astrology is not taught alongside of astronomy. That would be accurate but the Left doesn’t like doing things that are logical, accurate, or true.

Also, unlike alchemy, astrology is still used today by millions of people. From the lowest poor and enslaved to the highest leaders of many nations and the wealthiest of people. And they use astrology to make decisions that impact not only themselves but others as well.

Most of our modern sciences had their roots in the 18th or 19th centuries. That’s the 1700s or 1800s for those not paying attention. A good number of these early scientists were priests or monks. Exploring the natural world and the heavens to glorify God and His creation.

So the atheist who states that creationism shouldn’t be taught alongside of biology is half right. Creationism is part of every scientific area of study. It is an integrated and inseparable part of biology and every other science.

I’m sure the author quoted in the meme, if they are indeed even a real person, truly meant to beat down on Creationism vs Evolution. Where Evolution is just a theory. It is not fact or even proven at this point. But Creationism is absolute.

God created the heavens and the earth. God created the vegetation that grows upon it. God created the fish of the seas, the birds of the air, and the beasts of fields and wildlife. And God created man in His own image.

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

To put it mildly, this past week on Capitol Hill was more explosive than a Chipotle restaurant on the Hindenburg. Our favorite member of the Squad, the Socialist Socialite, went on the warpath attacking popular online figure LibsofTikTok for…sharing videos that Leftists upload themselves that ultimately make them look like amoral fuckknuckles. Well, the Socialist Socialite accused LibsofTikTok of inspiring bomb threats at the Boston Children’s Hospital for performing gender affirming surgery on teenagers as young as 15.

The concept of gender affirming surgery is a relatively new one, but it’s one the Left has been trying to protect under any and all circumstances. And since we don’t have a Chinese balloon to hold our attention this week, we might as well discuss it.

gender affirming surgery

What the Left thinks it means – necessary surgery for trans people to feel more like the gender they feel they are

What it really means – Leftists preying on young people being stupid

Being a teenager is rough. Not only are you dealing with hormonal changes with the frequency of a bad news day for Hunter Biden, but you’re caught between being a child and an adult. You’re still very impressionable, but you’re also gaining new responsibilities and expectations that come with maturity. Even under the best of circumstances, being a teenager is Ground Zero for fuck-ups.

Now, imagine being confused about your gender on top of all that. All you want to do is fit in, and being trans is still seen as alternative. As a society, we’re still getting used to the idea of the transgender community, so Mom and Dad may not be able to help you like they might be able to help you with your homework (provided it’s not “New Math”).

It is in this wasteland of physical and emotional distress that the Left operates. And by “operates” I mean “referring impressionable young people to doctors to get operations.” The Left offers not only the environment, but also the simple cure: if you don’t feel like you’re in the right body, it’s okay! Just change clothes and we will support you every step of the way! And if that doesn’t work, there’s surgery so you can look like you feel! It’s perfect!

Except…it’s not.

Gender affirming surgery is a nicer way of saying gender reassignment surgery. Instead of giving potential patients the feeling this surgery is serious and requires a lot of thoughts about the pros and cons, gender affirming surgery sounds lighter, breezier, a lot less taxing on the patient. In other words, the change of one word has taken all the gravitas out of the decision and makes it seem like trying out a new hairdo.

But unlike the hairdo, when the professional starts cutting, your genitals don’t grow back. That shit is permanent. If you regret your decision a few years later, there is no addadictomy that will get your penis back. Ditto with the labia. Once the doctor turns your love canal into a dick, you’re stuck with that decision for the rest of your life.

And remember, kids, Leftists are okay with letting teenagers make this kind of decision. The same teenagers who are going through one of the roughest stretches of life any person has to endure while feeling like they’re alone. How do I know this?

No, I’m not trans, but I was a teenager once. Granted, it was back in the days when we would look at cave drawings to get our local news, but I do remember how I was back then. And I was a fuck-up. It took me several years to “grow” into my body from a mental and emotional perspective, and throwing on a very adult decision on me at that time would have crushed me.

That’s the main issue I have with the Left’s push for gender affirming surgery: it’s not being taken as seriously as it needs to be. But the Left doesn’t care. They see the issue as a way to gain money and power over vulnerable people by offering solutions that have more strings attached than a tampon factory.

Or as Leftists call it, Tuesday.

But here’s where shit really goes sideways. Leftists have a…well, confusing approach to gender. As it turns out, they have as many positions on gender as they have genders, which is to say a metric fuckton. Here are a few of them.

– Gender is a social construct.

– Sex is a biological designation, while gender is more psychological/emotional,

– Gender is assigned at birth.

– Gender is developed over time.

– Sex and gender are different.

– Gender is a spectrum.

Granted, these positions have evolved over time, but I would be remiss if I didn’t point out the contradictions and Marquis de Sade-level of tortured thinking involved here. For now, let’s focus on that last one because it has a direct relationship to gender affirmation.

Some members of the medical community laid out 16 genders in 2022. Others have gone as high as 72, while still others put the number at 81. Go to some online forums (the source of all great thought), and you’re liable to find multiple variations on the same theme, only a lot less grounded in science or, well, reality.

Meanwhile, most of us believe there are…let me check my notes here…two fucking genders. No more, no less. Two. And before the Leftists try to confuse the issue, let me ask a simple question.

If gender is a spectrum, how come the gender affirmation surgery is currently either male-to-female or female-to-male?

This is because God, nature, science, William Shatner, or whatever authority you believe/worship/tolerate have already figured that shit out. Even if you believe sex and gender are different, there are only two choices on the menu, chocolate or vanilla, chicken or fish, Godzilla or Mothra. Leftists can’t bullshit their way out of the simple fact there are only two genders being affirmed with the surgery they say is necessary for trans people to feel like they belong.

But they can bullshit people into thinking they actually care about trans people. What they actually care about is creating more trans people who the Left can use to their ends without improving the trans community one iota. And why is that? Because it’s a lot easier to stoke fear than it is to fix stuff.

Look, I don’t care if an adult gets gender affirming surgery because it’s none of my business. Just don’t be an asshole about it. Now, the operative word in that first sentence is “adult.” If you’re not old enough to vote in an election, you’re too young to elect to get this surgery. In fact, research suggests the human brain doesn’t fully mature until age 25 (please check local listings for brain maturity ages in your area). By then, you have a better idea of who you are as a person, usually because you’ve graduated school or served in the military and have had to make a living.

So, why should we permit gender affirming surgery for someone well below the age when we get our shit together? The short answer is we shouldn’t. The longer answer is we shouldn’t because it’s a recipe for disaster. Leftists are willing to create more victims to advance their own agenda. Even if the patient is emotionally mature at 15, it doesn’t mean he or she has the wherewithal to know whether they’re actually trans or just trying to fit in by dressing up with clothes from a Boy George or Tilda Swinton garage sale.

The Left has one thing right about trans people, though. Trans people, and teenagers in general, need to feel loved and accepted for who they are. Even if you think it odd, there is still a human being underneath, someone who could use a shoulder to cry on or a supportive word. Don’t shut them out because their vision of the world doesn’t match yours. This is how we can make real positive change in this country.

And you don’t have to lop off a dick or pair of tits to do it!

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…





We’re At a Tipping Point…Again

It seems like we’re seeing old favorites (The Little Mermaid, The Lord of the Rings, a music scene without Nickelback) being revised for a new generation with little twists to make them seem different (a black Little Mermaid, The Rings of Power, Nickelback putting out another new album). The same can be said for political and social issues.

Former Vice President and Internet creator Al Gore resurfaced, which typically means 6 more years of global climate change talk. And, true to form, he was talking about…global climate change. But instead of pushing a doomsday scenario, he talked about the world reaching “a positive tipping point” thanks in part to the Inflation Reduction Act. I’m not sure what fighting inflation has to do with climate change, but hey, I’m not a biologist.

But I’m also not a dumbass with the memory of a goldfish with ADHD. It wasn’t that long ago that Gore pushed less-optimistic predictions concerning climate change.

It was waaaaaaaay back in 2006 when Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth” warned us we had 10 years to avoid “a point of no return” unless we took serious action to combat climate change. Sixteen years later, we’ve blown past that point and are now at a positive tipping point? What changed?

Absolutely nothing.

No new government programs. No societal commitment to green energy. Not even a Prius in every solar-powered garage. Just more of the same that’s been going on since 2006 and before.

In fact, you could count on Captain Hook’s, well, hook the number of times Gore’s predictions have been correct and still have the ability to hail a cab. But that hasn’t stopped the former Vice President from claiming his predictions have come to pass. Which brings us back to the original logical problem: if Gore was right all along, where is the ecological disaster we were promised?

That’s the beauty of Gore’s scam…I mean activism: it doesn’t have an expiration date because science keeps evolving. Back in the 1970s, we were told the world would freeze. Then, in the 1980s and 1990s, the planet was burning up because “the science is better now than it was then.” And in another 10-20 years when this year’s climate change fear porn doesn’t happen, the same asshats who told us the world would be experiencing climate disasters out of Irwin Allen’s fever dreams will tell us the predictions they made today were wrong, but the ones they’re making later are the right ones. Just trust the science!

Provided the science isn’t full of bullshit, that is.

Since I’ve been following the climate change debate in the early 1990s, I’ve noticed the Left has been bastardizing and lionizing science simultaneously. Since science when done properly follows a logical and consistent set of events, Leftists can’t feel their way to a correct answer. So, when the facts don’t fit the narrative, change the facts so they do! The Scientific Method be damned if it doesn’t come up with the results we need to force more government down our throats!

Meanwhile, the Left also makes it impossible to disagree with the science (that they’re rewriting on the fly) by appealing to the human need for community and acceptance within it. How many times have we heard “the science is settled” and just so happens to coincide with what the Left claims is happening? Well, I don’t know how to put this, but…that’s not how science works. Every hypothesis and theory is subject to testing and revision to see if the established conclusion is still valid. In other words, science is rarely, if ever, settled, and anyone who says differently is a fucking idiot.

Or they’re trying to sell you something, namely the “fact” of climate change.

Of course, they have a bit of a problem with their sales pitch: they’ve been wrong. Consistently. I’m talking make-your-local-weather-forecaster-look-like-Nostra-fucking-damas wrong.

With a track record of failure that long and spectacular, even the most ardent climate change worrier would pause to reconsider. Or they would if they were being honest, which the global climate change cult cannot allow for fear of being exposed as the frauds they are. To keep the gravy train of sweet fear porn cash coming, the narrative must be protected, even at the expense of the credibility of those pushing it.

Then again, it can be argued Al Gore has no credibility to lose…

The only tipping point we’re at right now is whether we will continue to believe the climate change bullshit we’ve been fed since the first Earth Day. I’ve long advocated for an honest discussion on the science behind climate change and to call out the bad actors on both sides so we get a clear picture of what we face, if anything at all. That won’t happen in today’s climate (see what I did there?) because there are too many people with a vested interest in maintaining the facade.

Such as a former Vice President whose two movies on the subject have made him a lot of money in spite of the fact he’s not a scientist, nor did he stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Take it from me. Someone truly concerned about rising tides due to climate change doesn’t buy up beachfront property.


Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

If you’ve been to the grocery store or gas station, you’ve noticed things costs a bit more than they used to. And by a bit, I mean you might need a second mortgage to fill up your tank, and that’s if you’re driving a sub-compact hybrid. Good thing there’s not a war involving a major oil producer going on riiiiii…oh wait.

As you might expect, the Left is using the current clusterfuck to promote clean energy alternatives to oil and coal. (At least they believe in recycling, even if it’s limited to talking points.) They make it sound so simple. All we need to do is switch to solar, wind, and other green energy sources and everything will be great! The skies will be cleaner! Global warming will go the way of New Coke! Nickelback will break up!

But is it really as simple as the Left wants us to believe it is? Let’s just say the self-designated “Party of Science” doesn’t quite understand science well enough to give us an accurate picture.

clean energy

What the Left thinks it means – alternate green energy sources that will protect the environment and be a viable replacement for oil and coal

What it really means – all talk, no power

Before we get into the political aspects of clean energy, we need to take a short trip into Science World. The idea of clean energy is based a bit of deception. No matter what fuel source we use, we will have to deal with the byproducts of the inefficiency our technology has built into it, and at no additional cost! With the internal combustion engine, we have exhaust. With coal-burning factories, we have smoke. With hybrid vehicles, we have smug assholes who think they’re better than everyone else. So, not a pretty picture all the way around.

Where the deception comes into play is in describing the byproducts of clean energy sources. Leftists will have us believe there are none, but that’s not strictly true. Solar, wind, and other allegedly clean energy sources have their own issues, namely the environmental impacts required to make them somewhat viable. Wind power requires building giant blades that, surprise surprise, aren’t biodegradable. Manufacturing solar panels require mining for certain minerals that damages the environment. And even before you can generate one Watt of electricity, you may need to figure out how to store it once it’s generated.

Guess what storage batteries are made of, kids.

At best, the clean energy sources are cleaner, but not clean per se. Leftists will argue this is merely semantics, but it’s really not. When you use such a definitive term without modifiers, it makes a concrete impression, complete with all the implications of said impression. When you use a different variation of the same word by adding -er or -est, it changes the impression and, thus, the implication. This works both ways, depending on the context and what is being compared.

Now, we’re getting into English grammar. A few more rabbit trails and we might just be able to recreate your elementary school course load!

With clean energy, the comparison being made is to energy from more traditional sources (i.e. oil and coal) which are considered dirty. The Left wants us to think there is no middle ground, which there is. Even “dirty” energy is getting cleaner. Whether it’s as clean as “clean” energy is a matter of opinion, but the fact the Left wants to leave out this context in favor of the clean/dirty dichotomy should give even the most ardent Greenpeace member with an understanding of grammar reason to second-guess the Left’s honesty.

It won’t, of course.

But it wouldn’t be a Leftist narrative without there being another level of dishonesty. Seems the clean energy advocates don’t like all clean energy sources. I’m referring to nuclear energy. Granted, disposing of nuclear waste is a concern as well as the source of a lot of bad 80s sci-fi/horror films, but it’s still a part of the clean energy family. Then, there are geothermal and hydroelectric which are just as clean, but surprisingly don’t get the love wind and solar do. Ditto with bio-diesel, which brings recycling and environmentalism to whole new levels. So, why are Leftists being so picky when it comes to clean energy?

Money.

Over the past few years, Leftists have put our money where their mouths are in the form of federal subsidies, which translates into…political contributions for Leftists. And that doesn’t even take into consideration any private investments into clean energy companies, which can turn into…more money for Leftists so they can continue to live high on the clean energy hog. After all, it takes a lot of money to buy private jets and stretch limos to attend climate change conferences. Just ask Al Gore. And if you do, bring a lot of energy drinks because he tends to drone on.

If you don’t, and I can’t say as I blame you for not wanting to hang out with ManBearPig, keep in mind the Left’s commitment to clean energy is so full of holes the Swiss Cheese Federation is suing for copyright infringement. And as Vladimir Putin found out recently, when you get the Swiss to eschew neutrality, you done fucked up.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

There are many great mysteries in life. Why are we here? How did we come into existence? Who keeps greenlighting Madea movies? But the one that has the most impact right now is whether you’re fully vaccinated. And not unlike the questions I asked previously (especially that Madea one), there doesn’t seem to be a clear answer.

You would think there would be, though, because it seems to be a yes-or-no question. Ah, but thanks to our good friends on the Left, it’s gotten more complicated than the network used to buy Hunter Biden’s paintings. Yet, these same Leftists insist everyone should be fully vaccinated to do anything from going outside to walk your dog to gaining entry to restaurants and bars. Why the duplicity? Glad you asked!

fully vaccinated

What the Left thinks it means – a social responsibility that must be maintained so we can overcome COVID-19

What it really means – a constantly changing metric with little to do with overcoming COVID-19

When the first COVID-19 cases hit the US, we weren’t sure how to deal with it. Some people got very worried while others pretended it was no big deal. Eventually, though, most of us came around to the idea COVID wasn’t anything to sneeze at, and we started the process of combating it. It was during this time of uncertainty that Leftists went from dismissing it to embracing it because they found a way to make money on and take power from it.

It started with Democrat governors initiating lockdowns and mandating masks to attempt to try to contain the pandemic. By the way, happy second anniversary of “two weeks to slow the spread.” When that worked as well as President Joe Biden’s Afghanistan exit strategy, the restrictions continued with dissenters (i.e. anyone who could follow basic logic and saw the fail-fest for what it was) being called out as being evil assholes who just didn’t understand the severity of the pandemic and should be shamed as much as possible.

If you’re seeing parallels between that situation and the current vaccination situation, give yourselves a gold star because it’s the same strategy. As cases continue to mount, Leftists are using vaccination in the same way they’ve used being masked: as a means to pick out the “good” from the “bad.” (No word on the “ugly” at this time.) Using that simplistic measuring stick, the Left stroked their own egos like Bill Clinton stroking his…cigar at a Playboy shoot. It became a moral litmus test and they all rushed to prove how moral they were.

You know, after spending the latter months of the Trump Administration saying they didn’t trust any vaccine that he pushed out.

Anyway, the standard for being fully vaccinated changed with the wind. First, you needed one or two shots, depending on the brand you chose. Next, you needed a third shot. Now, there’s the possibility of a fourth shot being necessary to be considered fully vaccinated. With the way things are going, the next vaccination card you get may be “Get 9 and Get the 10th Free” variety.

And here’s the kicker: Leftists are admitting the vaccines don’t actually prevent COVID-19, but merely mitigate our body’s reaction to getting it. I guess they had to change the narrative after the vaccinated started spreading COVID like they claimed the unvaccinated did. You know, I’m starting to think the bulk of the people telling us to “follow the science” might not know what science is…

Naaaaaaaaah! It’s just a coincidence these folks continue to be wrong about just about everything COVID-related.

At the heart of the Left’s approach to the pandemic is the concept of coercive power, how much people are willing to do to avoid negative consequences at the hands of the powerful. This goes waaaaaay beyond naming and shaming the unvaccinated. There are Leftists, some who have considerable political and social stroke, who want to punish people for not being fully vaccinated. Read that again. Punished not for refusing to get shots, but for not getting enough shots.

Replace “shots” with “health insurance” and you have Obamacare.

Given what we know now about the nature of COVID-19, there remains an unanswered, yet vital, question: what is Plan B if the current Plan A fails? Nobody on the Left seems to have thought that far ahead, which is disappointing, but not surprising. While concepts like natural immunity and herd mentality that were initially dismissed as not being supported by science are now being embraced because it turns out they were all along, the people who tell us to get vaccinated keep repeating the same mantra as a cure-all. And still people resist for any number of reasons.

That is what fucks over the Left most. When people are allowed to choose what is best for them, they may not choose what the Left’s option. Leftists want more of a controlled choice where you must choose between what the Left wants and what the Left wants. And, no, that’s not a typo. They want the illusion of choice more than they want actual choice, like elections in the former Soviet Union where voters chose between two members of the same Communist Party. Come to think of it, that’s pretty much the same as the 2020 Democrat primaries.

Either way, being fully vaccinated should be a personal choice. I am fully vaccinated and will get booster shots as needed due to my medical history, and I will continue to wear masks in closed public spaces for the same reason. Beyond that, I don’t care. It’s your call, and I support it because I’m not an authoritarian asshole. COVID symptoms suck regardless of how severe they are and no amount of virtue signaling moves changes that.

Regardless of whether you’re unconvinced of the effectiveness of the vaccine or get more pricks than an orgy in a gay porn movie, the negative motivations behind getting everyone vaccinated are hard to ignore and even harder to explain away. And the Left isn’t making an effort, or if they are it’s at their usual energy level. Either way, there is one thing you can do to annoy Leftists and point out the folly of this issue using their own logic against them.

Just say you identify as being fully vaccinated.

And don’t be wearing your good clothes when you do. The head explosions in the aftermath may get messy.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

There are times when current events bring back policy issues from the past. This week, Roe v Wade was a hot button topic on the Left, mainly because the Left is ginning up fear that it will be repealed by the Supreme Court. On the docket there are two cases that the Left feels will do away with a woman’s right to choose if the High Court rules in a certain way, and with three Trump-era picks on the court, they’re afraid it’s going to be a slam dunk against them.

When you really think about it (and I because I don’t have a life), the Left puts a lot of weight on the Roe decision, but there are a lot of underpinnings that make it far more controversial than it is. And when  you’re dealing with anything related to abortion, anything that adds more controversy is bad.

I promise my analysis will get better in this piece.

Roe v Wade

What the Left thinks it means – a Supreme Court decision essential to ensuring women’s rights

What it really means – a poorly-crafted Supreme Court decision with tragic implications

Before we get started, I know a number of people will dismiss this piece because I’m not a woman. It’s okay because I self-identify as one. Seriously, though, it’s frightfully easy to dismiss male opinions on abortion because of who is giving them. Maybe the Left missed the memo on this, but that’s sexism. After all, it takes two to tango, as it were, and men’s voices should be heard on the subject thanks to the fact men contribute half the chromosomes to make a baby. Until science figures out how to change the dynamic, men and women have just as much of a right to speak on the subject.

Even so, you think I’m going to get a bunch of Leftists silence me? I’m just too much of a jerk to let that happen.

At the heart of the Roe decision is a medical, philosophical, theological, logical, political, and moral question: when does life begin? For Leftists, life begins when the baby comes out of the birth canal and, thus, can be used to vote for Leftist politicians. From a physiological standpoint, life begins when the zygote is formed. Oddly enough, this is one time the Left doesn’t want us to follow the science.

On a related note, I’m going to use “baby” instead of “fetus” for the reason stated above: I’m following the science. When Leftists say it’s not a baby, they’re hard pressed to tell us what it is if not a baby. A muskox? Fairy dust? A perfectly preserved 1956 Chevrolet? So far, the best the Left has been able to come up with is it’s a bundle of cells.

Which, by the way, is technically all humans. including the Pussy Hat Brigade who want to be able to terminate some bundles of cells because…reasons.

Where the Roe decision really gets off the rails more than an Amtrak train being driven by Lindsey Lohan is in the interpretation and application of English common law. Under its direction, children in the womb received life, called quickening, at the first sign of the baby moving. (Good thing they hadn’t invented Taco Bell yet!) In other words, the baby was alive before he or she was born.

Once this point is established, it creates a domino effect on multiple levels, but most importantly in this case legally. However, the lawyers who argued in favor of a woman being able to terminate a pregnancy before birth twisted the story a bit. Instead, they claimed English common law didn’t specify it, which allowed for more flexibility. After all, if the fetus isn’t considered life, it removes a lot of the personal elements from the procedure itself.

Hmmm…I wonder why the Left would lie about English common law when it would advance their political…ohhhhhh! I get it now!

And really, this is utterly predictable, like Rep. Eric Swalwell making an asshat of himself on Twitter. Out of all the things the Left loves to politicize, sexual matters are at the top because, well, they’re immature. As much as they like to pretend they’re more sophisticated than the rest of us, the truth is the Left are like horny teenage boys at a strip club. Because of this, they look at such matters simplistically. You know, for people who claim to know all about nuance, they don’t practice it that much.

This brings us back to Roe. From the Left’s perspective, getting rid of Roe is akin to taking adult women and turning them into chattel without agency or independent thought. And that’s the Left’s gimmick! If Roe gets repealed, it leaves the decision of whether to allow abortion to the states, which takes it out of the federal scope and, thus, forces Leftists to take their loopy arguments to all 50 states. Oh, and it will force them to spend more of their/our money to get what they want. Ultimately, though, it dilutes the Left’s power to affect the change they want. Instead of clinging to a bad ruling like Linus clings to his blanket, they would actually need to do the legwork to get their agenda in place nationwide, and since there are some states who don’t take a liking to abortion, they won’t be able to force compliance with the force of judicial fiat.

Which would be fine if the Left’s talking points were anywhere accurate. According to them, legal abortion is favored by a majority of people polled, but it’s rarely brought up to a public vote. Why? Because putting it up to a vote opens it up for the measure to fail, which also means the talking points would be rendered as null and void as Chris Cuomo’s CNN contract. Talk about adding insult to injury! If you think Leftists are sensitive now, just wait until they get defeated by voters! If they do what they normally do with public referendums that don’t got their way, they will run into a hurdle, namely the fact the USSC overturned Roe. Oops.

The Left has a lot at stake with the two Supreme Court cases involving Roe v Wade, so it’s not hard to imagine they’ll pull out all the stops to win. Yet, what they win has to be balanced against what’s being lost: potential Democrat voters and Leftist foot soldiers. Although there are plenty of young people filling those roles right now, at some point there will be a drop in those numbers, either through aging, changing opinions, or simply just seeing how bat-shit insane the Left has gotten.

It strikes me as funny the Left is doggedly holding onto a Supreme Court ruling that, while flawed, is the key to their destruction (in Minecraft and other places). The longer Roe remains in place, the lower their numbers will eventually get. But to right that ship, they would need to do a 180 on Roe, which they won’t do because it would mean they’ve been wrong for 40+ years and their ego can’t take it.

Even so, as pro-life as I personally am, I have to know where my limits are. I’m not going to force someone to take my position. All I can do is make my opinions known and hope they’re persuasive enough. I urge you to take a hard look at the information that’s out there on both sides regarding Roe v Wade and be willing to do what the Left doesn’t want you to do: ask questions.

And take baths. They hate that!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

At long last, the details of one of the proposed infrastructure bills became public knowledge thanks to the New York Times. Although the details of the expenditures aren’t known yet, some of the details came out with a particular focus on fighting climate change. And a big focus on fighting climate change involves fossil fuels.

No matter where you go, the same people who keep telling us the planet is doomed tell us the way to prevent the inevitable is to do away with fossil fuels and convert to renewable energy. Although I haven’t seen any of the main proponents of renewable energy travel via solar vehicle, it’s worth exploring what the Left thinks of fossil fuels and why they’re so keen on making them as obsolete as the career of Yahoo Serious.

fossil fuels

What the Left thinks it means – sources of energy that are killing the planet with diminishing returns

What it really means – the only energy came in town for now, and possibly ever

The self-professed “Party of Science” has been after fossil fuels for a while now, but it wasn’t always the case. Back in the heady days of the 70s, some climate scientists suggested adding more pollution to the atmosphere to ward of global cooling. As we’ve since figured out, they were wrong, and as a result, the Left doesn’t take those dire predictions seriously or as valid. Instead, they have their own dire predictions to push, namely global warming/climate change/climate catastrophes/whatever they’re calling it this millisecond to generate fear.

And the scientists the Left are relying on for their proof? Turns out they’re wrong, too. Funny how that works out, isn’t it?

Undeterred by the lack of global catastrophes directly linked to fossil fuels, the Left has made it their aim to get us to move away from fossil fuels in the name of protecting the environment. And they’ll fly all over the world and drive in long lines of cars to go to events in large venues using more electricity than Las Vegas during Christmas telling us about the dangers that await us if we don’t stop using fossil fuels.

As you might have guessed, I have more faith in convenience store sushi than the Left’s commitment to fighting climate change.

Aside from the blatant hypocrisy even Ray Charles can see (and he’s dead), the “Party of Science” hasn’t figured out why fossil fuels are still in use today. Not surprisingly, it’s dirt simple: fossil fuels work. No matter how many solar panels you put up, no matter how many Priuses there are on the road, no matter how many windmills you erect, fossil fuels tend to work better than alternative fuels, at least for now. And I say that as someone who has driven through typical Iowa winter conditions with a gas-guzzling SUV passing hybrids stuck in the snow. To be fair, though, the hybrids were traveling up a 0.000000000001 degree incline, so they were really at a disadvantage.

Seriously, though, nobody has been able to figure out a viable alternative to oil, coal, and gas yet. What people have done is build upon the existing framework fossil fuels have built, in some cases literally. Even with these alternatives, fossil fuels are more effective and in some cases better for the environment. (See ethanol for an example of this.)

Put simply, we can’t do away with fossil fuels yet because so much of our economy still runs on it. I’m not just talking about fuel here, kids. Fossil fuels are used to generate electricity, because we kinda like to power our devices and, oh, not freeze ourselves to death in the winter or boil ourselves to death in the summer. Then, there are some of the byproducts of fossil fuels, namely plastics, that would be the metaphorical rochabeau to our economy if the Left gets their wish.

But no one ever accused the Left of knowing anything about economics.

There is one alternate fuel source out there that has shown to work well independent of fossil fuels, but the Left doesn’t like it, so it doesn’t get mentioned. And that alternate fuel is…nuclear power. Granted, the Left’s opinions on nuclear power haven’t changed since Three Mile Island, but it’s important to note two things. One, nuclear power is currently being used in some parts of the world without there being meltdowns on a regular basis. And, two, the main reason the Left doesn’t like nuclear power isn’t because of their commitment to safety, but rather their commitment to sowing fear and providing seemingly the only answers to “solve” the climate problem.

I call this the Oprah Effect. Back in her heyday, Oprah Winfrey seemed to thrive on the idea she could see all the problems we (i.e. suburban white women) face and come up with a ready-made solution that not-so-coincidentally helped her pocketbook and ego. The Left uses the Oprah Effect to great success on climate issues for the same reason Oprah was so successful in peddling her brand of problem-solving.

Most people are uninformed, gullible, and lazy. (But not you, faithful readers.)

Since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, people have sought ways to work smarter, not harder, and have utilized whatever means available to do so. The only problem with that approach is eventually we think we run out of ways to make things better, so we rest on our laurels, which America has done for, oh, seven decades or so. As a result, our interest in thinking has waned like the interest in people watching Hannah Gadsby do “comedy.” After all, thinking is hard, dammit! So why not leave it to the experts?

Five decades of wrong predictions on climate change should be a clue.

And to be honest, none of the people pushing for the elimination of fossil fuels are experts, either. I still think alternatives to fossil fuels are possible, but until they can become viable alternatives, they are just possibilities. We need to work with what we have, and the eeeeeevilllll fossil fuel companies are finding new ways to extend the life of the industry and minimize damage to the environment. You know what the anti-fossil fuel side has done?

Talked a lot.

Oh, and stoked a lot of fear of an ecological disaster coming in the near future without anything like they predict ever happening.

With this kind of uninformed resistance, I think fossil fuels will be around for a while longer.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Regardless of where you fall on the “to vax or not to vax” question, it’s easy to see there are a number of Americans who aren’t getting the COVID-19 shot, and the Left is having a hard time figuring out why. They’ve done everything they can think of: commanding, coercing, and even bribery, but there is still a significant portion of the population passing on the “Fauci ouchie.” So, the Left has adopted a new term to describe those who absolutely refuse to get the COVID-19 shot: vax-hesitant.

Is the Left right…I mean correct? Are they completely more off-base than a shortstop looking to steal second against a pitcher and catcher who come from the Pee Wee Herman School of Athletics? Only one way to find out. Well, technically there are more, but there’s only one that will allow your humble correspondent to write a lot of words with the occasional joke thrown in for good measure.

vax hesitant

What the Left thinks it means – people who are still scared to get the COVID-19 vaccination for whatever reasons

What it really means – people who are exercising a choice concerning their bodies that the Left doesn’t approve of

When you really think about the situation, it boils down to a matter of personal freedom. Whether you’re a hardcore anti-vaxer or someone who is merely vax hesitant, the point is there are people out there who have an issue with a government body telling them they have to get an injection to be part of society. They feel, and understandably so, these types of medical decisions should be personal, private, and a kept between a doctor and a patient.

Hmmm…now, where have I heard that kind of logic before? Could it be…from the Left when talking about abortion? Why, yes! Yes it is!

The fact the Left hasn’t discovered the duplicity of their positions between abortion and getting a vaccine is huge, yet not surprising. After all, these are the same folks who conflate speech they don’t like with violence. But it opens up an interesting dilemma, especially with the ones who insist there needs to be a government mandate to get vaccinated. You can say “my body, my choice” all you want, but this is an actual situation where your actions need to match your words or else it can and will be used against you by Republicans, most specifically pro-life Republicans. In other words, you’ve just given them the victory on abortion. Oops.

Then, there’s the racial aspect of this. Yes, I know I’m playing the race card here, but for once it’s appropriate. Although the vast majority of anti-vaxxers are seen as white Trump supporters, the fact is there is a significant number of vax hesitant folks aren’t white. In fact, they’re members of the black and Hispanic communities who may have taken the advice of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris when they said not to trust the vaccine coming from the Trump Administration. You know, the same folks who are now saying the vaccine can be trusted even though nothing has really changed…except the President and Vice President? Yeah, they’ve been paying attention along with the rest of us and finding the numerous flip-flops that makes John Kerry sue for copyright infringement more than a little concerning. Plus, there’s this history of other medical advances being tested on blacks in particular. Can you say “Agent Orange” boys and girls? I knew you could.

But wait, there’s more! The Left is attempting to lump in the extremes of the anti-vax side into the same group so they can be disregarded with the same wave of the hand. The issue is they really can’t be lumped together very well. Yes, there are the hardcore anti-vaxxers who will drag their feet no matter what, but there are two other groups: the aforementioned vax-hesitant group, and the anti-vax mandate group. We’ll get to the former in a bit, but I want to focus on the latter for a moment.

The anti-vax mandate group has a position worth discussing. It’s not anti-vax per se, but it’s anti-forced-vax. There’s an old saying about the camel’s nose in a tent. Well, the vax mandate has the potential to be not just the nose, but a whole caravan of camels taking up residence inside the tent and putting a Vacancy – Camels Welcome sign outside of it. And, to be honest, they’re right. Recent history alone has numerous examples of how government doing something for the common good has turned into the government taking more power than originally promised. And once the government takes power, they’re more likely to get along than to give it back. The anti-vax mandate crowd just wants us to make up our own minds about whether to get vaccinated and to not stick our noses (camel or otherwise) into the business of others. You know, treat people like adults?

That brings us to the vax-hesitant crowd. Although it’s similar to the anti-vax mandate group, it’s less about personal freedom and more about a lack of confidence in the process getting the vaccine into the public’s hands. Even the most strident pro-vaxxers promoting the COVID-19 vaccine are hard-pressed to hand-wave away the facts, namely how the current vaccines were developed under emergency circumstances and haven’t been fully tested. Put another way, we are the Beta test, and oddly enough it may cause people to get the Delta variant. And that lack of testing is a valid concern. Speaking as someone who has gotten the shots, I can say I haven’t been negatively affected. If anything, I’m getting 5G from my brain alone!

Seriously, though, the vax-hesitant have legitimate concerns that the Left can’t counter with dismissal, appeals to authority, or, their favorite, dishonest mockery. If we are to trust the science, as the Left wants us to do (unless the science contradicts them), it can’t be based on anything but the facts. You can’t take short cuts and get favorable results. At least, that’s what the guys who allegedly came up with cold fusion found out the hard way

What makes the Left’s obsession with getting everyone vaccinated so funny to me is how much they have to risk for the expected reward. Giving up on favorite voting blocs and bedrock issues won’t mean much if they fail to grab the power they want. And the Left tends to overreach like a poker player confident he or she has won a big pot before another player reveals a better hand. As we’ve seen in New York, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and California, the power grab is already making the Governors of those states less popular than the Chicago Cubs management right now.

If you want to fight for your right not to get the vaccine (and your right to party, coincidentally), recognize the Left’s attempts to make anyone opposed to getting it look like selfish meanie-heads. They are really pushing for full vaccination for some reason, but they aren’t giving us solid reasoning behind it; just “because science.” Just like with global climate change, the more the Left threatens and dismisses legitimate questions, the weaker their arguments are. And with the COVID-19 vaccinations, the arguments are wet-paper-sack-versus-Freddie-Kruger weak.

It seems the Left is going to a lot of trouble for little pricks. And for the vaccinations, too!