As the Little Dutch Boy can attest, a leak can be a pretty troublesome thing. And that’s exactly what we got this past week thanks to a clerk at the US Supreme Court. Normally, this would be as exciting as watching Al Gore painting grass, but this time the leak involved a certain controversial Supreme Court decision that both the Left and the Right freak out over: Roe v. Wade. While President Pudding Cup tries to figure out the context where someone would row or wade, the rest of us know it as the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.
Yeah. We’re going there.
Roe v. Wade
What the Left thinks it means – the linchpin of women’s rights, especially personal autonomy
What it really means – a bad ruling made worse by politicians
Before we dive back into the muck, I have to admit I don’t like writing about abortion for a number of reasons. First, it’s a messy moral and ideological issue where there are always going to be more gray areas than black and white ones. Second, it’s such a charged issue that even the slightest bit of nuance, justified or not, can get people pissed off and ready to attack. Finally, there’s not a lot of funny in the termination of a pregnancy. Just ask Michelle Wolf. Having said all of that, the fact Roe v. Wade is back in the headlines and on Leftists’ mind…s(?) overrules any misgivings I have on the subject.
I’ve discussed my feelings on Roe and abortion in general before, but for those of you just joining us, let me give you the Cliff’s Notes version. Roe v. Wade was a bad Supreme Court decision based on provable lies designed to get a certain outcome the dishonest lawyers (I know I’m repeating myself) wanted. For that reason (and the whole killing babies thing), I am pro-life, but I also know my opinion means jack shit in the larger context. As much as I hate the notion of a woman getting an abortion, I hate forcing any other human being to live by my moral code just as much. This may make me seem wishy-washy, but it’s where I stand. You don’t have to stand with me, and I won’t hate you for it.
Unless you’re a Cardi B fan. Then, we might have issues.
Just kidding!
To bring everything back to the current day, the aforementioned leak suggests the Supreme Court is about to overturn Roe v. Wade, which made Leftists scream more than that one protestor did at Donald Trump’s inauguration. Since the leak became public, Leftists have been going from depressed to angry to motivated to downright stupid. And that’s just Elizabeth Warren!
To put it mildly, the Left has been overreacting to the point of hyperventilation on Twitter and other social media. It’s going to be the end of abortion as we know it! It’s going to create a Handmaid’s Tale style theocracy where women are merely receptacles without any autonomy! “Hook-up” culture will die out (and I wish I were fucking kidding about this one, but someone actually posted this idea online)! Yet, with all of the sound and fury, there is one fact the Left isn’t talking about: abortion isn’t going away if Roe gets overturned. All that happens is the decision whether abortion is legal will be left to the states, where I feel it should have been left in the first place.
But isn’t abortion favored by a majority of people, according to Leftists? Welllll…that’s one of those murky areas of the abortion issue. Polling data swings back and forth like a pendulum at different points in time. Sometimes, more people favor allowing abortion. Sometimes, more people favor restrictions on abortions. This tells us two things: 1) we are a conflicted nation, and 2) polling data on the topic are absolute shit.
For the sake of argument, let’s say the Left is correct about public opinion on abortion. Why wouldn’t they want a 50-state referendum on legalizing abortion? Simple. It’s because they would lose money and power in the process. Surprise, surprise, surprise!
Roe is the key to both for Leftists. Since the original decision came down, the federal government has been the only body calling the shots on abortion. The problem is it violates the Constitution, specifically the Tenth Amendment. Basically, the Tenth Amendment limits the power of the federal government to what is specifically granted to it. Anything that falls outside of that specific limitation goes back to the states and/or the people. And guess what Supreme Court decision defies that?
Can you say Roe v. Wade, boys and girls? I knew you could.
Normally, this wouldn’t be an issue for Leftists because they typically don’t give a shit about states rights, but with Roe…well, let’s just say it proves how little they care about states rights. Roe gives the Left the federal muscle to mandate abortion without having to actually make an argument in favor of the practice, as in the “settled law” approach. With the power to decide going back to the states, the Left will lose the one-size-fits-all-poorly approach and will have to make the argument to all 50 states. With some states like California, you could call it the “Yeah, We Want To Kill Babies In The Womb Bill” and Leftists would line up around the block to vote for it. With other states, like Texas, the argument would be a non-starter. The point is the Left would have to put actual effort into making abortion legal across the country, and given how they tend to be adverse to work…
Along with this, the Left would either have to raise and spend more money or budget existing funds to make the argument. Neither one of these is sustainable for very long because of the way most Leftists behave, but both would have to come to pass if Roe were overturned because Leftists would lose fiscal security that comes with not having to defend abortion to anyone but the faithful. No wonder Leftists are so up in arms…well, not really arms, per se, since they’re not fans of guns and the like, but that’s neither here nor there.
There is one factor the Left might have working in their favor even if Roe v. Wade goes the way of original stories on “The Simpsons.” Society has changed a lot since Roe was first argued and the fact it has repelled so many legal challenges over the years has made abortion more acceptable, or at least made people less likely to fight it. I’ll leave it up to you to decide whether it’s a good or a bad thing, but it is what it is. If you wear down people’s resistance enough, even the slightest push back will net the desired outcome.
This is what the Left is counting on as they try to codify abortion rights via legislation. Although I can’t say I’m a fan of the desired outcome, I can’t find fault with the process, aside from the aforementioned Tenth Amendment conflict. At least the issue will be brought up to a vote, which is a hell of a lot better than having 9 men and women in black robes that hide whether they’re wearing clothing underneath make the call. Instead, that decision will be made by hundreds of men and women who we will not wonder if they’re wearing clothes because very few of us would want to think of them naked.
Regardless of whether the Supreme Court upholds or overturns Roe v. Wade, we are still feeling the after-effects of the original decision and will continue to feel them for decades to come. Like eating at Chipotle, but with less vomiting. Where we go from here is anyone’s guess, but we shouldn’t automatically assume the worst on either side of the issue. Even with the most controversial issues, Americans have this amazing ability to adapt to and adopt societal changes given enough time. Hell, we turned polyester leisure suits from fashion statement to garage sale leftovers to popular Halloween costumes in my lifetime, so anything is possible!
Category: Social Issues
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Last week the Biden Administration finally took action on an issue that consumed our nation’s attention. And I, for one, want to give the President credit due him for taking a bold stand against…ghost guns.
Confused? You should be. This was a new one for me, considering the only ghost guns I knew of came from the Ghostbusters and they were fictional characters. However, the Left wants us to believe ghost guns are a real threat to society, which obviously means it is…to Leftists.
ghost guns
What the Left thinks it means – a dangerous variant on the already escalating gun problem in America
What it really means – the inevitable result of gun control laws
To put an actual concept to the term, ghost guns are firearm kits or weapons that can be purchased online without a background check. What makes them so concerning to Leftists is the fact they are untraceable and lack a serial number, so they can’t be traced back to an individual. Although the Left wants to frame this as a public safety issue, there’s a more obvious explanation of why Leftists are freaking out about ghost guns.
Ghost guns avoid Leftist gun control laws and the licensing fees connected to them.
Whenever you come across a Leftist issue like this that doesn’t seem to make much sense to introduce at a particular time (so, basically, any Leftist issue), most likely it’s being brought up because of money, power, or both, since these are the motivating factors behind anything the Left does. Altruism doesn’t enter into the picture unless it’s spending other people’s money to accomplish it. They’re in it for purely prurient reasons.
Case in point: gun control laws.
Have you noticed the number of gun-related deaths in cities and areas with strict gun control laws? Why, it’s almost as though…criminals don’t follow laws or something! But instead of packing it in and realizing they are walking definitions of insanity, Leftists double down (or would it be double-barrel down) on more gun laws, knowing they don’t work as well as they want us to believe. But they do work in generating income and creating a power dynamic that allows the government to dictate to peons…I mean citizens. In some places, a cat can haz cheezburger before even law-abiding citizens can get a gun permit, and it’s even worse in “may issue” states where you can be denied a permit even if you jump through the legal hoops to get one simply because the government says so.
But remember, kids, Republicans are the ones who want to dictate to us how to live our lives because Leftists say so.
It is said necessity is the mother of invention, but being able to piss off Leftists is a pretty good motivator, too. Instead of knuckling under to Leftist demands, people have been figuring out ways to make working firearms and making money off it and keeping the Leftists out of the process altogether. It’s the American Dream as written by the NRA!
By making it more difficult to own firearms, making moves to make it harder and more expensive to get ammunition (which, by the way, is also a DIY project), and doing next to nothing about the proliferation of violent crime, Leftists laid the groundwork for ghost guns to be a thing. Nothing like a self-own to make a Leftist idea go up in flames like the Hindenburg.
Which brings us to another reason the Left introduced the ghost guns issue right now: the Biden Administration has been the political equivalent of a flaming bag of dog shit put on America’s front porch while Kamala Harris rings the doorbell. Between the never-ending Hunter Biden scandals and the numerous bouts of political, economic, and foreign policy incompetence, Joe Biden needed a win. Unfortunately for him, this ain’t it. Most people don’t know even know what a ghost gun is, but the President decided to make it the focal point of a Rose Garden event. It’s like letting Hannah Gadsby headline a comedy show, or the opening of a Blockbuster Video for that matter: those who know are already going to go, but most people won’t and there’s not enough interest to attract them.
I know this is going to be a risky prediction to make, but dammit I really think this one’s going to pan out. Any laws or regulations concerning ghost guns is going to fail. I’m no Nostradamus, but given the track record of gun control laws and their failure to address gun violence in any meaningful way, I’m confident this will end the same way and for the same reason: Leftists don’t think far enough ahead to see the fatal flaws of their ideas. Which makes it better for us because a) it lays the groundwork for those ideas to be challenged and eventually defeated, b) it gives us ongoing topics for blog posts, and c) it provides endless opportunities for humor!
Unlike Hannah Gadsby.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
This week the Left experienced a great disturbance in the Farce…I mean Force, as if thousands of voices cried out and were silenced. Did they finally see what was on Hunter Biden’s laptops? Did the Socialist Socialite decide not to run for office again? Did Nickelback announce a new album? Nope! Something far, far worse.
Elon Musk bought nearly 10% of stock in Twitter, giving him a seat on their board.
The Leftist meltdown has been a joy to behold because it gives us an insight into how little the Left understands the underlying concepts at work here and how they’ve managed to screw up something so simple. Plus, it’s funny watching Twitter Leftists with hair color matching their blue checkmarks get triggered.
Twitter
What the Left thinks it means – an influential social media platform run by a private company
What it really means – the online equivalent of a SuperFund clean-up site
Now, for the “Star Wars” fans out there, I was tempted to compare Twitter to Mos Eisley (a.k.a. “a wretched hive of scum and villainy”), but that wouldn’t have been fair. Mos Eisley is far less toxic than Twitter and I don’t want their Chamber of Commerce on my ass for comparing the two.
Anyway, as you might have guessed, I have a pretty low opinion of Twitter, and that’s not without reason. The primary reason for this is the multitude of really dumb things said on it that other Twits…I mean Twitter users think are profound and worthy of further investigation. I point you in the direction of the Tweets of Bette Midler, Keith Olbermann, and my personal favorite Cher, among many, many others. Politicians, celebrities, athletes, and political and social movement spew whatever comes out of their pointy little heads and the world can see it. I know sunlight is the best disinfectant, but too many Twits…I mean Twitter users are using it as a spotlight.
Granted, that is more of a personal thing with me, but Twitter’s application of its own Terms of Service is more far-reaching. Since the advent of President Donald Trump, Twitter and other social media companies have taken it upon themselves to act like information gatekeepers, fact checkers, and Internet cops all in one. And they were as effective as the Weekly World News, PolitiFact, and Paul Blart all in one. From holding conservatives ultra-accountable for infractions (real or imagined) that Leftists get away with repeatedly without consequence to out-and-out banning accounts for “misinformation” for the unforgivable sin of providing information about COVID-19 that wasn’t getting covered otherwise, let’s just say Twitter’s track record in applying inconsistent standards, let alone consistent ones, isn’t good.
Then, there’s Hunter Biden and his laptops. Twitter and other social media actively ran interference for President Joe Biden by punishing people and organizations who decided to, you know, pay attention about something Leftists didn’t want to address right before the 2020 Presidential election. But Russiagate and its offshoot Pissgate are given a wider berth than Michael Moore at an all-you-can-eat buffet. But it’s not like Twitter has been slow to restore accounts they erroneously termina…oh, wait. We’re still waiting on Twitter to man up and restore the accounts.
Let’s just say I’m not holding my breath on that.
Having said that, Elon Musk jumping into the Twitterverse and buying enough stock to make the world take notice may turn out to be a bigger blessing than the Left wants to admit. Within the past few days, he has already shown to be an active listener to the users and actively ask them if they wanted an Edit feature added to Twitter. You would think he was handing out free tickets to a Scandinavian orgy the way Twitter users responded. Whether that comes to fruition is yet to be seen, but I’m going to guess Musk is going to bring Twitter into the 20th Century by allowing something Microsoft Word has had since, oh, Bill Gates had a decent haircut.
As you might expect, Leftists aren’t happy that Musk is getting involved in Twitter because they’re afraid he’s going to change the current model, which is “Let Leftists have all the perks, privilege, and protection while fucking over everyone else.” Who knew such a short-sighted approach would have negative consequences? Even the threat of Musk making slight changes to how the Terms of Service is applied has Leftists screaming about how fascist he is. I mean, more than usual.
For years, Leftists have relied upon Twitter being a private company as a defense against anyone accusing the social media giant of censorship and violation of free speech rights. To be fair, though, they do have a point. Twitter is a private company and can write and enforce whatever rules they want. But with that flexibility comes an expectation to enforce the rules evenly. Even with my already low expectations of Twitter, the brain trust there keeps figuring out ways to limbo under them when it comes to enforcement.
Ah, but there’s the rub. Under the current status quo, Leftists have all the power, thus turning Twitter into an echo chamber of Leftist ideas. Even the most extreme ideas are held on equal footing with merely stupid Leftist ideas, all because a good chunk of Twitter employees think it’s their job to promote “right” thinking. Put another way, these folks are the Ministry of Truth in the cyber world. If someone they agree with says 2 + 2 = 5, you had better be ready to Tweet it without question.
That should scare you more than Elon Musk scares Twitter.
While the Left tries to figure out how to hold onto their Ministry, we can enjoy the shitshow for what it is: well, a shitshow. As far as getting a Twitter account or maintaining it, I would hold off for now if only to see what Elon Musk does with his newfound social media power. I wish him all the best, regardless of what he does, because he’s going to need all the good vibes he can get.
But, to be crystal clear, I won’t get a Twitter account until someone adds a lot of chlorine to the social media swimming pool.
Leftist Lexicon W0rd of the Week
If you want to make a simple concept more complex than it needs to be, leave if to the Left. This past week saw an example of this fall in our respective laps, and it involves a woman. Or, more specifically, what a woman is. Now, most people can figure it out, but that hasn’t stopped the Left from trying to cast doubt on the answer.
Whether it’s a NCAA woman’s swimming champion sporting a penis, proclamations about trans women getting pregnant in spite of lacking the necessary parts, or a Supreme Court nominee who seems to think you need a biologist to know what a woman is (while being a woman herself), the Left has made being a woman a lot more difficult.
woman
What the Left thinks it means – anybody who identifies as a woman
What it really means – an adult biological female
Now, the Left will tell us my definition doesn’t include trans women and, thus, I’m a transphobe. Of course, if they knew me, they would know a) I don’t hate trans people, b) I don’t fucking care what they call me because c) I trust week-old convenience store sushi more than the Left’s ability to accurately judge a situation. And, to put it mildly, they’ve completely misread the situation with women.
For decades, women flocked to the Left for various reasons, including their desire to kill unborn children at will. And that worked well…until the Left got invested in trans rights. Now, Leftists are showing how much they actually cared about women’s issues: not a hell of a lot.
The Left believe the ends justify the means. If that means they have to lie, cheat, and steal to achieve a goal, they’ll do it, and they’ve done it with women’s issues. They’ll throw out vague threats (Republicans are going to outlaw abortions if they get back into power), nice-sounding but ultimately meaningless slogans (childcare is infrastructure), and ideas with no basis in reality (the gender pay gap) to keep women voting for Leftists. Yet, in spite of promising to fight the patriarchy, nothing of substance gets done. Part of this is because Leftists are mostly incompetent, but the main reason is because they need problems to continue for them to keep votes coming in for Leftist candidates. Blather, rinse, repeat.
Then, trans women came into the scene. Although most are predisposed to vote for Leftists, the Left doesn’t want to take any chances. So, they played around with the language and came up with the idea to consider trans women as actual women. On the surface, it doesn’t seem to be that troubling, but then trans women started to get involved in women’s sports. And not just succeeding here and there, kids. Absolutely dominating them.
Congratulations, ladies. You lost the War of the Sexes to men, thanks to Leftists.
What’s worse is the Left doesn’t even want to consider the fact their overly gracious definition of women is wrong. They’re the smartest people in the room (just ask them). Well, there are a couple of key points these “smart” people have overlooked and to much hilarity.
First off is science. Now, the “party of science” doesn’t want you to consider basic biology to realize there really are two genders, male and female. While the Left pushes the bullshit idea that gender is a social construct put upon babies upon birth, the actual science says just the opposite. In order to be born female, a baby has to have two x chromosomes. Once that happens, nature takes its course and the girl develops as girls tend to do, no doctors designations needed.
Then, there is the numbers game. Right now women make up a little over half of the population. Meanwhile, 1.4 million adults identify as transgender. Out of a US population of 329.5 million people, that makes a whopping…0.004%. So, Leftists are gambling on pissing off over half of the population just to appease a group that was already inclined to vote with the Left in the first place.
So, how does that ass-fucking feel, ladies? It gets worse, though.
Thanks to the Left’s love of trans women, there are going to have to be new interpretations of existing rules, laws, and regulations. If you’re upset over Lia Thomas dominating NCAA women’s swimming, just consider the implications for Title IX. For those of you playing along at home, Title IX is designed to prevent sex discrimination at any educational institution that gets federal funding. That’s right, kids. Soon men will be allowed to get Title IX protection merely by identifying as women. They don’t even have to get their…well, hot dogs…removed.
If you’re sensing a pattern here, it’s because there is one. For all of the “progress” being made with trans women, it’s at the expense of women who were born women. Say, isn’t there a term the Left uses for power systems that favor men? Isn’t it called…the Patriarchy? Why, yes, yes it is! Am I saying the Left’s supporting the Patriarchy by going so overboard with the trans woman issue? Why, yes, yes I am!
Maybe it’s me, but sometimes the irony tastes like steak. This is one of those times.
To put it simply, trans women aren’t women. I don’t say this to be mean or hateful; I say it because it’s the truth. There is a lot more about being a woman than just slapping on a skirt and make-up. As conservative commentator and all around good egg Tammy Bruce explained it, women are the sum total of their unique experiences, experiences men don’t have and, thus, can’t shape their lives like these experiences do for women. Although, I do think of the day my mom got me my first bra…unschweiger. Yeah, that’s it!
Anyway, the important thing to keep in mind here is women are different than men. Always have been and always will be. And that’s a good thing! What isn’t so good is the notion women have to take a back seat to trans women in the name of equality, diversity, and tolerance. You ladies have worked far too hard for far too long to gain equal, and in some cases superior, footing in society just to let Leftists toss it all aside for the Lia Thomases of the world. Stand up for yourselves and let the Left know how you feel. Sure, you’ll get pushback and even some harsh rhetoric thrown your way, but it doesn’t matter because of one little detail the Left can’t refute.
You are smarter than a Supreme Court nominee because you don’t even need to be a biologist to know what a woman is!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With everything going on in the world today, it’s a good bet someone is going to get upset about something. And if that person is motivated enough, he or she may decide to whip up support by protesting that thing.
For Leftists, it happens on a day ending in, well, “day.”
Yet, for all of the protesting the Left does, they don’t always support protesting, as we’ll see in a bit. But first, a little housekeeping in the form of a definition.
protest
What the Left thinks it means – exercising a First Amendment right to express an opinion
What it really means – exercising a First Amendment right to express a Leftist-approved opinion
Among the myriad rights outlined in the aforementioned Amendment are freedom of speech and the right to redress grievances with the government. (Although, I’m not sure I want to know how the grievances got naked in the first place.) These combine like Zords into a Megazord we call protesting, and it’s a right many Americans exercise more than they exercise, literally.
Protesting is one of the rights the Left hold dear because otherwise they might have to get jobs and be productive. However, they have a two-tiered approach to it, and as the definition I provided shows, it’s based on ideology.
I’m going to call this next section “A Tale of Two Protests.” And hopefully the estate of Charles Dickens doesn’t sue me into oblivion. Our first protest is one that has made the rounds in conservative media circles because of its sheer intensity and literal volume. Jeff Younger is running for the Texas State House in large part because of the way the courts treated him. You see, Younger is the father of a young boy who has been convinced by his mother he’s a girl. After a lengthy court battle, he won a small victory by a judge’s decision barring his now ex-wife from giving his son drugs that would restrict puberty and essentially transition him from male to female.
Well, Younger appeared on the campus of the University of North Texas and the Left showed up in droves to disrupt his speech because…transphobe? Actually, I can’t quite make out the logical arguments they made because a) I don’t speak Shrill Leftist Harpy, and b) they didn’t make any. They were simply there to cause chaos, go viral, and take a stand against trans hate. As a fan of the First Amendment, I can’t begrudge their protest, no matter how asinine it was, and the Left agreed. The students protesting were in the right.
Now, we move on to a different protest, the American version of the Freedom Convoy. If it’s anything like the Canadian version, be prepared for the utter chaos of…honking horns, music, and a sense of community. A worse hellscape than anything Clive Barker could come up with, I assure you.
Seriously, though, the Freedom Convoy by and large was and is a peaceful event with generally good fellowship mixed with a good helping of traffic disruption. Sure, there were some asshats who went overboard, but you’ll get that and they were the exception instead of the rule. And as you might expect, the Left has gone out of their way to denigrate this protest, insinuating it’s backed by Russians, white supremacists, neo-Nazis, conservative media, the Koch Brothers, and a few other groups. As of this writing, I’m not sure if the Freemasons (or even the Reasonably Priced Masons) have been invoked, but it’s still early in the year. And now that the impending war over Ukraine is looming like Michael Moore’s shadow over an all-you-can-eat buffet, Leftists are dismissing the Freedom Convoy protest because “there’s more important things to worry about right now.”
Like…allowing young boys to transition to young girls, apparently?
The thing to remember is both the UNT students and the Freedom Convoy should be allowed to protest, even if we don’t agree with them. The thing the Left doesn’t get about the First Amendment is it goes both ways, not just the way they want it to go. Kinda like Dennis Rodman, but with better fashion sense in wedding dresses. If the Left values the right to protest, they have to allow for the right to protest against them, but they don’t. Otherwise, I would have to be boring you with a different Lexicon topic.
The reason for the Left’s two-faced approach to protesting involves their desire to control the narrative. Once you control how events are presented, you control how they’re perceived and what the audience sees, hears, and feels. That’s creepy enough as it is, but it gets worse when an event is 180 degrees out of phase from reality. Then, the outcome gets messy and even expensive if legal recourse is initiated.
Just ask CNN or its new owner, Nick Sandmann.
Controlling the narrative is essential in protesting as well as in the media/court of public opinion. The chaos and destruction left by Black Lives Matter and ANTIFA protests is hard to ignore, but surprisingly many people only focus on the narrative presented by those groups. Instead of garnering scorn for trying to turn city streets into Beirut on a good day, they garnered sympathy because of the cause. But here’s the thing: no matter how righteous your cause, it loses its righteousness when the resulting protest turns destructive. Blocking the street with a march protesting police brutality and the unnecessary killing of citizens is inconvenient, but doesn’t cross that line. When the protest includes destruction of public property, assault, and arson…well, let’s just say you’ve missed your turn and are zooming down the highway to the Destruction Zone.
The right to protest can be a tightrope walk because of the implications of letting different sides speak their minds. If you allow, say, a Nazi rally in your town, does that mean the town is totally pro-Nazi? Not at all, but with the advent of incredibly fast social media posting and incredibly slow thinkers using them, it can become one faster than you can type OMG. That’s where we need to be a lot more libertarian in our approach to protests, meaning we support what we support and ignore what we don’t. Trust me, it makes life a lot simpler and stops you from having to continually apologize to people who wouldn’t accept your apology under any circumstances.
As with the right to free speech, the right to protest comes with some responsibilities. Just because you can carry a rifle in public doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to do so while voicing displeasure over a public official’s actions. If you feel the need to protest, put your best foot forward (and not to trip someone else, by the way). Be willing to discuss your position in a calm, rational manner. Even if those protesting your protest are screaming like banshees listening to a Yoko Ono CD on repeat, you’ll come off better by keeping cool. Plus, it drives Leftists nuts when they can’t rile you into emotional outbursts, so there’s that.
In the end, though, it cannot be overstated how the right to protest has lead to positive change in this country. It’s one I wholeheartedly endorse and support because of that fact. Even if the Left puts ideological conditions on its valid usage, we don’t need to follow their lead. We just need to allow them to march along to the beat of their own drummers so they can enjoy the fruits of their labor.
And we can enjoy mocking them. Thanks, First Amendment!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Once again, the Lexicon Gods came through in a big way this week! There was enough material for two whole installments, but one of those can keep for a while. This week, though, there was one that practically begged me to write about it.
And, no, it’s not the voices in my head. At least, not this time.
The two worst kept secrets in Washington, DC, became public knowledge this week. One involves an old man taking actions in preparation of the impending Republican obliteration of the Democrats in the 2022 midterm elections, and the other involves Supreme Court Justice Steven Breyer. After days of speculation about whether Justice Breyer was going to retire fueled by the media, he finally came out and confirmed he was, much to the chagrin of the tens and tens of his fans.
As a result, President Joe Biden may get a Supreme Court nominee in the near future. During the 2020 Presidential lock-in…I mean campaign, Biden promised to appoint the first African-American woman to the Supreme Court because…reasons? Leftists are praising the decision and pushing the President to make good on his promise because it will add, and I’m not making this up, “new lived experiences” to the High Court.
Hanging curve ball, meet rhetorical bat.
lived experiences
What the Left thinks it means – cultural insights that are not usually reflected in positions of power
What it really means – a word salad designed to give gravitas to someone just for breathing regularly
Let me cut to the chase here: everyone has lived experiences simply by living. Last time I checked, everybody was different, from genetic code on up. As a result, each life experience will be different due to parenting, environment, social and economic status, and so on. So, to make some people’s lived experiences more valuable than others, especially when it comes to political appointments, is folly.
Which is why the Left keeps doing it.
No matter who the President appoints, there is going to be scrutiny down to the microscopic level. Anything from legal briefs to favorite brand of cheese puffs will be brought up and scandalized by political operatives wanting to take down the nominee. Oh, sure, some will take a hard look at seemingly controversial topics done for the sake of looking smarter than the Senator actually is, but most of the inquiries will come down to “gotcha” moments. That’s why the party that controls the Senate does its best to coach nominees on how to avoid these moments.
In short, give vague, non-specific responses to specific questions, smile a lot, and try to look like you own the place.
Unfortunately, that typically works. In the past few decades, people who could have been good Justices have been scrapped while others who wonder which foot goes into his or her legal briefs first get by without a hitch. In some cases, even clear conflicts of interest aren’t enough to derail the nomination.
Now, what does any of this have to do with “lived experiences”? It’s a tool used to deflect any criticism, legitimate or otherwise, from the nominee in question. Within the “diversity is our strength” crowd, there are two fundamental principles: 1) white males are overrepresented, and 2) the only way to correct this is to overrepresent non-white people.
Don’t look at me. It doesn’t make sense to me either.
Even if you’re not a white male, the Left will find a way to discount your lived experiences if it’s inconvenient to their cause. Look at how the Left treats Dr. Ben Carson, Candace Owens, Tulsi Gabbard, and too many other people to mention, past and present. For some reason, their lived experiences aren’t valid, while the lived experiences of people like Vice President Kamala Harris or former President Barack Obama are sacrosanct. Then again, maybe the lived experiences of sleeping your way up the political ladder or going to private schools without anyone ever challenging you are vital to this country taking steps in the right direction, but I’m going to need a lot more convincing before I jump on the bandwagon.
And a few stiff drinks.
Now, consider the Left’s support of identity politics as it pertains to lived experiences. What happens if someone self-identifies as a non-white male? They probably didn’t have the same lived experiences as an actual non-white male, but in their minds they have. And unless they want to be hypocritical bigots, they have to accept this identification.
Now imagine if someone like Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump, or Ted Cruz did that. The sheer sound of Leftist heads exploding would be epic!
As it the fact lived experiences is about as useless a term as the Left has devised. Not only is it based off the absurd notion one person’s life experiences are somehow superior to others, but it creates a caste system based on it. The fact it’s being used as a bizarre Leftist litmus test for Supreme Court Justices is as unhinged and laughable as you can get. Like Joy Reid, only dumber.
But it’s all to hide any deficiencies in any Leftist darling’s resume when it comes to the actual job of the Supreme Court: to interpret the law and the Constitution. Nothing else. And in the end, as long as whomever is nominated has a grasp on that, I won’t raise too much of a fuss. If she turns out to be someone who couldn’t count to ten with the Bill of Rights as a cheat sheet, then I’ll have problems. And none of it will be related to her background or what life experience she brings to the table. That is ultimately irrelevant, as it should be from the jump. Anyone who says differently is selling something, namely a judge or lawyer who would make Lionel Hutz look like Earl Warren.
And not only is Hutz a horrible lawyer, but he’s a flipping cartoon.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
As hard as it may be to believe, I try to vary my subject matter for the Leftist Lexicon because I owe it to you, the readers. I mean, there are only so many times I can say “Joe Biden fucked up” before it gets stale and you start looking for other content. That’s why I stopped paying attention to a lot of media: too much echo, if you know what I mean.
And speaking of echo chambers, public schools are being turned into one such chamber, thanks to generous involuntary donations from taxpayers like you. At least, that was until recently when several parents looked into what was being taught at their children’s schools and lodged complaints. In response, the Left started targeting such parents for ridicule and harassment for daring to exert what they’ve derisively called parents’ rights. Even though Joe Biden sucks more than a Dyson at the center of a black hole, we can put off that discussion for a while to focus on this issue.
parents’ rights
What the Left thinks it means – a movement by uneducated/uninformed parents designed to undermine public education and prevent progress
What it really means – a movement by parents who are taking an active interest in public education
I know being a public school teacher isn’t an easy job because I went to public school and I know what kind of fresh hell awaits each new school year. Combined with long hours, lack of gratitude for putting up with the little hellions parents send their way, the lack of pay, and bureaucratic bullshit, it’s a wonder there are still people willing to be teachers anym0re. And in the nearly 35 years since I graduated, things have only gotten worse. And I’m not just talking about teenage boys addicted to Axe Body Spray, either!
Something that hasn’t changed is the ideological leanings of most teachers. They tend to lean to the left more than a baseball player trying to predict when the other team is going to try to pick him off at first base. The thing is they’ve gotten bolder or less able (or willing) to hide those leanings. Hell, there are even teachers who post videos bragging about how they’re indoctrinating students into thinking like a Leftist. Just like Jeffrey Epstein, Leftists prefer younger targets.
Too soon?
For a number of decades, the Left has had free rein in this practice due in large part to a little legal term called in loco parentis, which means “In Crazy Parents” in Latin. Actually, it means “in place of a parent.” Under this concept, teachers act as parents while the students’ actual parents are off at work, at home, or in some cases heading out to get a pack of smokes and not returning even after three years. When used responsibly, it can reinforce parental and societal expectations about how to be a good citizen. When abused, it can create friction between parents and children in the name of ideological progress.
And Leftists have been treating in loco parentis like Ike treated Tina.
Now that actual parents are starting to look at what pretend parents are doing, there’s a King Kong sized monkey wrench in the Left’s plans. And in their usual intelligent and mature way, the Left decided the way to address the problem is to…go after the parents.
Because they’re that fucking brilliant. And by brilliant, I mean stupid.
But it’s all in line with Leftist thinking. There are a couple of ideas at work here. First, the Left feels everyone should be a ward of the State in one form or another. Anything the Left can make mandatory under the watchful eye of the State (i.e. them), the better it is for them, so they strive to make everything possible a function of the government. You know, like…oh I don’t know…public education.
As a result of this, it feeds into another Leftist idea: they are the smartest people in any room. That means, surprise surprise, they think they know what’s best for us. And anyone who doesn’t agree with them is automatically stupidheaded assfaces, which means the stupidheaded assfaces are fair game for ridicule, derision, and all around dickish behavior. It also opens up the Left’s playbook to rely on a logical fallacy called appeal to authority. Basically, it’s “because X said so” with X being anyone the Left thinks is an expert on the subject matter at hand. In this case, teachers.
This is where the Left gets it exactly wrong. Parents may not have the educational pedigree of a teacher, but they do still teach. In fact, for the first 3-5 years of a child’s life, it’s the parents who lay the groundwork for teachers to do their jobs. Assuming teachers will do a better job than parents is a fool’s errand because a) kids will always remember what their parents teach them, and b) a lot of today’s teachers suck ass. And unfortunately I can only vouch for about 85% of teachers taking that figuratively.
Therein lies the issue. Teachers and parents have to work together to get the best outcomes for the students. When there is friction, like, say…oh I don’t know…calling parents’ rights racist and ignorant…the end result isn’t good for anyone, least of all the students. That’s where the Left goes astray on this issue. Instead of welcoming parents as they take an active interest in their children’s education, the Left wants to keep curricula hidden behind a bureaucratic barrier so parents can’t find out what their children are learning, if anything at all.
Now, here’s where the Left’s educational plans backfire. Without transparency, Leftist parents won’t know what their children are learning and, thus, can’t supplement that learning with in-home lessons. And as with most families, what you learn in the home is often more powerful than what you learn in the classroom.
The Left can’t accept parents’ rights as legitimate because it permits people other than them to have a say in a lesson plan. When your future relies heavily on recruiting young ones, excluding the parents makes it tougher to accomplish that goal. So, great going, Leftists!
As for the parents on the forefront of the parents’ rights movement, make sure you’re ready to fight for a while. Not only will the Left not give ground easily, but if your entire fight is limited to schools not teaching one subject like CRT, you’re going to ultimately give up your children to the Leftist machine. Yes, I’m talking about making an active investment in your children beyond buying them phones and video games. Taking interest in your children’s studies helps to form bonds that transcend the classroom and you might even learn a thing or to in the process. That’s how Common Core “math” got uncovered, after all.
I know parents’ rights aren’t as sexy a topic as saying Joe Biden is a fuck-up, but they’re monumentally important nonetheless. If you believe the children are our future, it’s up to you to be a good role model and fighter for the best education they can get.
Either that or you’re listening to too much Whitney Houston.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
To put it mildly, things are bad. And I’m not talking your garden variety finger-cut-while-cutting-lemons kind of bad. I’m talking wiping-your-eyes-while-cutting-habanero-peppers-and-balancing-above-a- pit-of-razor-sharp-knives-during-a-live-Yoko-Ono-concert bad. And yet, we find the stupidest shit to bitch about.
Enter Dave Chappelle. His recent comedy special “The Closer” garnered both positive and negative reviews. Namely, the people who watched it with the understanding that comedy is supposed to be funny loved it, and the reviewers who read the Cliff’s Notes version of the special written by the Unfunny People Against Comedians Union and hated it.
Welcome to Stupid Stuff to Complain About-Ville. Population…too many.
Part of the controversy surrounds Chappelle’s observation there are two genders. And we’re still having this debate in 2021. Regardless, members of the trans community objected to the special, claiming it was transphobic. But, as you might expect, there’s a whole lot to unpack here.
transphobia
What the Left thinks it means – any irrational hatred or fear of transexuals
What it really means – an overused catch-all term for anything the Left doesn’t like when it comes to transexuals
To make sure I was speaking intelligently about the subject matter, I watched “The Closer” in its entirety. (The things I do for you readers…) I have to say it was enjoyable on several levels, not the least of which being its brutal honesty. Everything from COVID-19 to race to, yes, transexuals with no sacred cows spared, just like much of Chappelle’s body of work to date.
So, when trans people and their supporters started to complain about his comedy being transphobic, my first question was, “Have you watched any of his comedy before?” As I’ve confirmed by watching “The Closer” and comparing it to the criticisms, the answer is no. But when has a lack of knowledge prevented the Left from speaking?
Although there are plenty of jokes about the trans community, they aren’t what I would consider jokes at their expense. If anything, “The Closer” is about inclusion by making everyone a possible target for mockery. And for people who throw around the word “context” to excuse their stupid shit, it’s amazing how little Leftists actually understand and apply it appropriately.
And with “The Closer,” actual context matters. If you are looking solely at the targets of the jokes, you come away thinking Chappelle is a transphobe. This position is augmented by the Leftist notion that jokes can be hurtful, along with silence and speaking for that matter. In other words, anything you say or don’t say will be used against you in the court of Leftist popular opinion.
Which is one of the points Chappelle made in this special, and one the Leftists crying “transphobe” continue to miss.
A significant portion of “The Closer” is devoted to the trans community going after Chappelle based on what one inaccurate information source said about him. In encounter after encounter, trans people and their supporters didn’t bother to consider anything but that one source as gospel. If anyone would have a Paul Bunyon-sized axe to grind with the trans community afterwards, it would be Chappelle. However, he flipped the script on his critics by showing an amount of grace they lack.
This is exemplified in the final segment of the show. Chappelle tells the story about a white trans woman who wanted to be a comedian and the first time she opened for Chappelle. Let’s just say it didn’t go well, but in the process Chappelle made a personal connection with the woman and helped her hone her craft. After the first round of “Dave Chappelle is transphobic” comments, Chappelle’s friend took to social media and defended him. Six days later, she committed suicide due to the bullying she received.
From whom, you might ask? Well, it wasn’t MAGA hat wearing Trump supporters. It was…the trans community itself.
Didn’t see that coming, did you?
Actually, if you have paid attention to the trans community, it’s not that hard to believe. I’m reminded of an old saying, “Get off my lawn!” Then, after I’ve realized that saying isn’t applicable, I’m reminded of a different saying, “The personal is political.” Anything that affects us on a personal level can be, and often is, used for political ends. And in this case, trans issues have become political issues, mainly because the Left wants to make them so.
And that’s where I feel the trans community goes off the rails like Joseph Hazelwood working for Amtrak. As personal as the issue is to you, there is a lot of work to do to turn these issues from narrowly political to more universal. And you’re freaking out the natives with the way some members of the trans community act. Furthermore, you’re not helping bridge the tolerance gap by throwing around “transphobia” when it is more of a lack of understanding. Yes, there are some actual people who hate the transgendered, but they’re rarer than the way Dracula likes his meat. (I would have said steaks instead of meat, but we know how he feels about them.)
The point is a lot of the oppression the trans community feels right now is self-inflicted, but the Left doesn’t care about making trans people a welcome part of society. Just the opposite. Leftists need there to be constant strife so their own ends are met. And if you’re still fuzzy about it, here’s the short version: the Left is using the trans community and will continue to do so until it’s no longer beneficial to do so. You know who didn’t do that?
Dave Chappelle.
The worst he did was to poke fun at members of the trans community for acting like judgmental assholes because, well, they were acting like judgmental assholes. If you’re pissed about that, you need to get some perspective. Contrary to Leftist opinion, words are not violence and “The Closer” is some damn good comedy from a master in his craft. And because of the aforementioned judgmental assholes, Dave Chappelle won’t be doing comedy until they realize he’s on their side.
If Mr. Chappelle is reading this, if you wanted to wait this out, I would suggest investing in cryogenic equipment because the trans community attacking you don’t seem to be all that keen on self-awareness.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Being a member of law enforcement at any level isn’t a cakewalk, especially in these politically charged times. This is doubly so for the men and women on the front lines of our southern border, who tend to catch heck for sneezing in the general direction of an illegal immigrant.
This past week, a photo of a Border Patrol agent on horseback apparently whipping an illegal immigrant from Haiti made the rounds, setting off a firestorm of criticism. Even though there were no actual whips in the photo, the Left whipped up resentment towards the Border Patrol. Yes, the same people who want to defund the police, abolish ICE, and say no human is illegal thinks the people enforcing our borders are meanie-heads.
And as we’ll see, it’s no coincidence these issues are connected.
Border Patrol
What the Left thinks it means – the tyrannical arm of the US government, targeting poor defenseless people trying to make a better life in America
What it really means – a group of people trying to hold the line against illegal immigration without much support from politicians
America has been a beacon of hope for many an immigrant for centuries. But as anyone who has ever owned a bug zapper will tell you, a beacon can attract less desirable elements who will use every trick in their arsenals to take advantage of our largesse. Unlike the bug zapper, though, we tend not to electrocute illegal immigrants. Instead, we take them into our country without stopping to think about the consequences.
To try to curtail the criminal element and deter future border jumpers, ICE and the Border Patrol work around the clock trying to get a handle on things. Unfortunately for them, we as a country haven’t gotten a handle on things since the 1980s. Politicians from the Left and the Right have failed to put a dent in the waves of illegal immigrants coming into the country and using our resources. Thanks to current President and hairplug spokesmodel Joe Biden, ICE and the Border Patrol have their short-staffed hands full.
Provided, of course, the Left doesn’t smack their hands for trying to do their jobs. Just look at their “solution” for dealing with the Border Patrol agents who were accused of whipping Haitian immigrants: take their horses away. Thus, making their jobs more difficult. All because the Left jumped to a conclusion Robbie Knievel wouldn’t even try with full medical coverage. But that’s par for the course for the Left in this situation.
See, the Left has a vested interest in keeping a steady stream of illegal immigrants coming into the country like teenagers to a K-Pop concert. This interest takes on multiple forms, but they all wind up fulfilling the Left’s political and social goals, thanks in to figures like Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, Saul Alinsky, and our good friend Uncle George Soros. All four of them have had a pretty strong hand in shaping Leftist ideology for decades, and it doesn’t end well for us. Here is a brief description of what they’ve added to the Leftist hivemind.
Cloward and Piven – developed a strategy to overwhelm the social support system to create more poverty and upset within the country, causing discord and fomenting revolution
Alinsky – the author of Rules for Radicals, which outlines ways for Leftists to make progress on social and political issues
Soros – advocate/creator of the Open Society Institute, which advocates for no borders whatsoever and everyone being a part of one global society, as well as an effort to control state election offices to help Leftist politicians get elected
With Soros and his disciples promoting the idea there shouldn’t be borders, it allows Leftists to promote ideas that will give the green light for illegal immigrants to come here. Once here, the Cloward and Piven strategy kicks in, putting a strain on existing programs through sheer volume. When critics come out against the first two concepts, Alinsky’s rules come into play. The result? More potential Democrat voters, which allows the cycle to continue. It’s brilliant in its deviousness.
And what’s one group of people who can throw a King Kong-sized monkey wrench into all of this? The Border Patrol. If they’re allowed to do their job, it will curtail the number of illegal immigrants coming into the country and getting all the bennies the Left is willing to give them because…reasons. So, instead of figuring out a way to…you know…change the laws on the books, the Left focuses their attention on the ones least capable of fighting back.
Including purposely mischaracterizing a photo to make it look worse than it actually was.
Unfortunately for the Left, the narrative is starting to break down like the Socialist Socialite after losing her battle to defund the Iron Dome in Israel. The primary source (i.e. the photographer who took the picture the Left is using to bash the Border Patrol) is saying the photo is being taken out of context and doesn’t reflect what really happened. Furthermore, the Border Patrol and eagle-eyed horse riders are pointing out the lack of whips in the photo itself. Even so, Twitter Leftists and their governmental counterparts are clinging to the original lie…I mean story. There are a few reasons for this, but one that should be at the top of the list is confirmation bias.
For those of you who have a life, confirmation bias is when a person believes a certain way because it affirms what they already believe. The Left already believes the Border Patrol is a bunch of racist thugs anyway, so it’s not that much of an effort to believe in the narrative in spite of the evidence to the contrary. That, and the fact the Left hate to admit they’re wrong more than The Fonz. Imagine that. A group of dishonest idealogues that already hates law enforcement trying to paint a group of law enforcement agents in a bad light? Who knew???
Well, those of us outside the Leftist hivemind did. While we wait for Jen Psaki to circle back and tell us another lie, keep the Border Patrol in your thoughts and prayers. They need them now more than ever.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
If you listen to the Left for any amount of time (and, to be honest, why would you?), eventually the conversation will come to race. And by “eventually” I mean within microseconds. Recently, there’s been a new term that, surprise surprise, directly connects to race: white rage. Whether it’s CNN’s Brian “Mr. Potato Head” Stetler claiming Fox News’ Tucker Carlson stokes white rage or current Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark “Not Vanilli” Milley testifying the military should take training to avoid white rage, it seems the Left wants to make it a thing, and a racial thing at that.
But, just like with Critical Race Theory, it’s not exactly clear what white rage is. Good thing there’s someone who can cut through the bullshit and get to the heart of the matter. But since that person is off, you’ll have to let me do it.
white rage
What the Left thinks it means – white people’s reaction when their power and influence in the world is threatened, the most important problem in America today
What it really means – an accusation with little actual proof, but a lot of actual racism
As a white man, I get labeled with a lot of shit from the Left based solely on the color of my skin and what they believe what I believe. The Left sees me as a Bible-thumping, flyover country bumpkin who hates gays, blacks, women, albino midget Eskimos who walk with a limp, and so on. Now, to be fair, they are right about the albino midget Eskimo bit, but the rest of it is based off a serious of assumptions the Left has deemed to be true without affirmative proof.
And that’s the same basic principle behind white rage. As Leftists can’t leave a PR crisis untouched, they point to the 1/6 “insurrection” as evidence and bludgeon anyone who supports Donald Trump as someone who is one bad day away from being a mass shooter or insurgent against America. And if we’re not careful, white rage is going to create chaos (and that’s the Left’s job, darn it)!
Now, where have I heard that kind of verbiage before? Wasn’t there a movement in, say, the mid-to-late 90s that were considered to be dangerous crackpots not unlike the people the Left claim are out there waiting to strike? Why, yes. Yes, there was! It was the militia movement, and the rhetoric started to kick into high gear not long after the Oklahoma City bombing. The Left did their best to paint Timothy McVeigh as the typical militia member, even though he was kicked out of his local militia and had a record voting for Democrats, but why let the facts get in the way of a good narrative, right?
Last time I checked, the militia movement of the 90s didn’t cause any of the things the Left said would definitely happen if we didn’t do something right now. If anything, they just wanted to be by themselves to LARP as the National Guard, which is perfectly fine in my book. Just leave me be and don’t ask me to pay for your reindeer games.
Now, the Left is trying to resurrect the fear of militias and spin it into white rage. Within the Leftist hivemind, it works, mainly because a) it reaffirms their preconceived ideas about non-Leftists, and b) most Leftists today may not have even been born in the 90s or were too young to remember Militia Mania. That makes it easier to be successful than a coke dealer working on the Hunter Biden account. But here’s the thing: the fact it’s easy doesn’t make it right. Just like with the militia movement rhetoric, there isn’t anything concrete that suggests white rage is even a thing.
Except if you look at the Left.
Last year showcased a lot of violence and destruction from members of Antifa and Black Lives Matter. Although the Left swears up and down they weren’t responsible, the mugshots after the arrests show a different story. It seems most of the people arrested were…white. And the majority of BLM members? Also white. Hmmm…destroying property, attacking cops…that sounds a lot like the way the Left characterized 1/6, doesn’t it? And if 1/6 is an example of white rage, logic might lead us to conclude Antifa and BLM are examples of white rage, too.
Of course, this isn’t about logic. This is about pushing a racist narrative because the Left needs to make us believe white people are evil racist bastards. Call me conspiratorial, but I find it interesting the whole white rage concept didn’t get traction until fairly recently during a time when the Left wants to push Critical Race Theory that teaches…white people are evil racist bastards. With the pushback against CRT coming from mostly white parents, the Left appears to have scrambled to find a reason people might be against it and landed on white rage. On a side note, I swear the Left has a giant wheel with derogatory phrases they spin whenever they want to blame whites for something.
There’s a rule of thumb I’ve seen online that applies here. If you replace the racial word with a different race and think it’s racist, then it’s racist. This concept certainly applies to white rage, but there’s a twist. By assigning rage to whites only, the Left suggests no other race can get angry, which diminishes the other races’ agency. Under the Left’s constantly-changing definition of racism, that would be racism.
But in a Rod Serling-esque twist, I have to point out the ones who claim there is white rage…are white Leftists. They seem to have forgotten in their rush to make white rage all the rage who they are.
Normally this is the part where I give you advice on how to deal with the latest Leftist controversy-du-joir. This time there isn’t any advice to give because white rage is going to fall in on itself without us having to lift a finger. There is simply too much implausibility and illogic to adopt at once for it to survive much outside of the Leftist bubble. But should you run into a Leftist bound and determined to talk about white rage, ask them how they felt about the Antifa folks arrested in Portland and how they were predominantly white.
Then ask them to repeat what they said about white rage.