Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

With all of the chaos of world events and the holiday season, it’s easy to miss pretty important things, especially if the federal government gets involved. And especially if Puddin’ Head Joe is involved.

After not wanting to take on rising drug prices because we had other things to spend money on, like a war an ocean away where we don’t have a direct interest in either side winning (but only a complete moron would do tha…nevermind), Puddin’ Head Joe is finally addressing it. By trying to exert federal power to address it. More specifically, Puddin’ Head Joe’s clown car…I mean Administration has put together a plan to use something called “march-in rights.”

Well, that doesn’t sound ominous!

Needless to say, I have questions. And statements. Oh, and jokes!

march-in rights

What the Left thinks it means – a measure that will allow the government to control drug prices if federal funds were used to develop the drugs

What it really means – a way for the Left to screw up worse than they already do

The origin of march-in rights was the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. The TL:DR version: this law set up conditions where some entities outside of the public sector could develop inventions they could patent and monetize while receiving federal funds. But there’s a catch, one Leftists have been pushing to use. Under certain circumstances, the government can “march in” and take over, making changes the outside entities may or may not agree with, but have to abide by because…they took federal funding.

Yep. Completely innocuous. Nothing unsavory could happen.

Hell, even someone from Harvard Medical School says there’s nothing to worry about because it’s just the federal government exercising its rights in an agreement. And since it came from Harvard, we know it’s…probably bullshit.

For those of a small government mindset like your humble correspondent, this is the ultimate nose in the tent situation. If you take federal funds to develop a product, that shouldn’t automatically give the government the authority to come in after the fact and screw shit up on a whim. Or as the Puddin’ Head Joe Administration puts it, “extreme, unjustified, and exploitative of a health or safety need.”

Once a government official who may be confused about the number of genders (spoiler alert: still 2) determines this threshold is met, the federal government can swoop in and allow third parties to make the products, in this case drugs, cheaper. On the surface, this doesn’t sound like a bad idea. We all like to save money, especially if we have multiple high-cost prescriptions. So, why do I get the feeling this isn’t going to wind up being as much of a benefit as we’re being told?

Let’s see…Obamacare, the PATRIOT Act, the EPA, the FDA, the USPS, Amtrak, student loans…

For the Leftists out there, these are all things the government has told us would help us, but wind up being really fucking expensive without much actual benefit. But as long as we print the money to keep them rolling, the Left don’t care!

To the Left, money means power, and the most powerful currency in the country is government money. It’s the carrot, the stick, and the whip. It can entice people to act a certain way, as well as to punish wrongthink. And once you take the federal government’s money, you are its bitch until you can find a way out from under its thumb. And, trust me, they won’t make it easy.

Even if the Puddin’ Head Joe Administration figured out how to get its head out of its ass and make march-in rights work with drug costs, there’s going to be a major shift in contract law, especially with federal contracts. If the government decides what you’ve worked on for years runs afoul of what it thinks the fruits of your labor are worth, march-in rights give them the authority to alter whatever agreement you had. And with the criteria as presented being so vague, it could be for any reason it wants, as long as the government can justify it. I don’t know about you, but that’s fucking scary to me.

And it gets worse! Since the government can print money, it doesn’t have to play by the same laws of economics the rest of us do. Government isn’t in the money-making business. If they experience a loss because one of their ideas go tits up, they’ll print more money to cover the loss. And since they’re the only game in town for a lot of things they do, they don’t have an incentive to keep costs low to attract customers. We need what they provide, so they set the prices and the service level and if you don’t like it, fuck you!

There is another aspect to march-in rights that concerns me greatly. If Puddin’ Head Joe is successful here and the courts don’t uphold any challenges to the application, this opens the door for other government-funded projects to be subject to the whims of bureaucrats. You know, like…oh, let me just pull something out of my ass quick…the Internet? A pretty good case could be made that the Internet as we know it came from the Department of Defense, thus it was funded by the government and anyone else who distributes it can expect a knocking at their chamber doors and told what to do going forward or else.

The Corleone family would have killed for this kind of power. Oh, wait…

The point is we can’t let the possibility of lower drug costs blind us to the reality. If you give the government an inch, they’ll take a few thousand miles and then tax you up the ass for it. March-in rights are the governmental equivalent of a Faustian deal: you’ll almost get what you want but not ever get it completely, and you will pay dearly for it.

Like eating Chipotle, only without botulism.



Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

I’m beginning to think Elon Musk got me in the Secret Santa draw this year because he just gave me one hell of a Christmas present! Musk filed a lawsuit against one of my favorite Leftist “news” sources, Media Matters, alleging the clown show… I mean news organization defamed the Social Media Network Formerly Known as Twitter through manipulating the algorithm to make it appear the network supported Nazis.

As we’ll see in a bit, manipulation is on-brand for Media Matters. While Leftists call them a “media watchdog group” or “a left leaning nonprofit“, the truth is much less squishy and harmless.

Media Matters for America

What the Left thinks it means – a non-profit organization exposing the lies of the Right

What it really means – a tax-exempt propaganda/misinformation arm of the DNC

Media Matters started from somewhat humble beginnings, at least by DC standards. It was the brain child of conservative-turned-Leftist and noted liar David Brock in 2004 and was designed to counter what Brock considered a right wing bias in media.

I’ll wait until you catch your breath from laughing so hard before I continue.

Ready? No, I see you’re still laughing, so I’ll wait a bit.

Now? Nope, still laughing!

Okay, since we’ll never get through this piece if I wait for you to stop laughing at Brock’s stupidity, I’ll go on without you.

Anyway, Brock’s asinine empire was built on a foundation of countering what he considered right wing lies with…left wing lies. Early on (and even to this day in some cases), Media Matters resorted to taking comments out of context to fabricating context for “gotcha” purposes to out and out lying to paint conservatives as liars.

But they’re seen as reliable sources of news. Or not.

Makes you really trust their reporting, doesn’t it?

Regardless, the Left sees Media Matters as a vital tool in the war against misinformation, which is funny considering the Left is generating misinformation on the daily about everything from Bidenomics to the war in Gaza to, well, fighting misinformation. Of course, this hasn’t stopped the Left from talking about the “chilling effect” the lawsuit will have and how it’s done to silence criticism. Of course, it’s all bullshit, but Leftists are gonna Leftist.

Of course, this flies in the face of the Left’s own rhetoric from alllllll the way back to 2020 regarding COVID-19. Back then, the “misinformation” was grounds for Twitter accounts being terminated, jobs being lost, and lives being ruined. In these cases, the Left said these were all fine because bad speech has consequences, which it does. Just ask The Chicks (formerly The Dixie Chicks).

But when it comes to Media Matters, the Left’s commitment to bad speech having consequences is weaker than a mixed drink at a strip club. Not that I know anything about that, mind you…

Anyway, when Media Matters lies, the Left runs with it. Maybe this has something to do with some Leftist media types being in bed with them. Or, it could be the fact they’re all fucking Leftists. Regardless, as long as the Left embraces Media Matters as a reliable and viable source of information, that symbiotic relationship will continue.

But, that doesn’t absolve them of lying for political benefit, nor should it. I have a great disdain for liars regardless of what party they inhabit, so it’s not a political thing with me. Media Matters has not only crossed the line, but did a flamenco dance over it to emphasize just how much they’re willing to draw attention to the fact they’re liars.

Legal experts are split on the merits of Musk’s lawsuit, but there are a few things I have to point out for our Leftist friends.

1) This isn’t a free speech/First Amendment issue. Lying is not necessarily protected by the First Amendment, as can be evidenced by libel, slander, and defamation lawsuits. If someone knowingly lies about another party with the intent of damaging that party, all free speech arguments go out the window because there’s provable malice involved. Wait a minute…doesn’t Musk’s lawsuit involve defamation? Why yes, yes it does!

2) The Left’s reaction to the lawsuit shows a level of desperation. As easy as it is to portray Elon Musk as the big bully in this case, the fact the Left is jumping between “Media Matters told the truth” to “Media Matters is a victim for being targeted” shows me they are trying to play both sides to see what works. If Media Matters is telling the truth, why try to portray them as victims? If they’re being targeted, wouldn’t a court case and possible trial bring that out for the world to see? Although it’s possible the two things can simultaneously be true, I’m betting the Left is shitting themselves because they know Media Matters is going to be exposed, which will also expose other Leftists.

3) The facts may not be in Media Matters’s favor. If what is being reported on the conservative media side is correct, an internal investigation showed how Media Matters gamed the X system to create a false narrative about X and Musk by extention. Given how Leftists reacted after the Social Media Network Formerly Known as Twitter stopped letting Leftists dictate things, it’s not that unlikely Media Matters took it upon themselves to get revenge by “proving” Musk’s “far right leanings.” (For the record, Musk appears to be more libertarian in approach, which to Leftists is far right. Consider the source.) Also, considering The Twitter Files brought plenty of receipts to the chagrin and disdain of the Left, I wouldn’t be surprised Musk has the goods…again.

4) Media Matters is bunch of fucking liars. Even if you agree with them, you can’t ignore the fact they’re not on a name basis with the truth. And you can’t be serious about fighting disinformation without getting your own house in order. But, of course, you will ignore this because Media Matters is on your side. All the better for me, since I can continue to point and laugh at your hypocrisy.

Whether Elon Musk’s lawsuit against Media Matters for America goes anywhere is immaterial at this point and certainly immaterial to my position on them. There’s an old saying about not being able to polish a turd, but Leftists aren’t willing to give up on trying that with Media Matters. The only thing that comes out of that is shit all over their hands, which will go well with the blood they have on their hands for being warmongering assholes.

And it will be fun to see Media Matters and Leftists enter the Find Out stage of Fuck Around and Find Out.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

As we get older, we tend to reminisce about our younger days and the great times we had. Whether it was sock hops, sit-ins, snorting lots of cocaine, or spending quarters in a Pac Man machine, we look back fondly and even wish we could go back. But there are some things that should be left in the past and buried under all the copies of the Atari 2600 ET game.

Unfortunately for us, one such thing has come back, thanks to the Federal Communications Commission. Yep, I’m talking about net neutrality, the only thing standing between order and chaos online (at least in the Leftist hivemind). And thanks to the Puddin’ Head Joe Administration, it’s trying to make a comeback.

So, what exactly is the New Coke/Crystal Pepsi of online endeavors and why is it coming back? Prepare for a journey into the absurd!

net neutrality

What the Left thinks it means – a necessary tool to hold internet providers accountable

What it really means – a way of making internet service shitty for everybody

Net neutrality on paper is simple. In theory, it makes sure providers aren’t treating customer’s differently because of the amount of internet they use. All content, whether it be a Facebook post or a lengthy documentary on Netflix would be treated the same, even if the former uses 100 times more bandwidth than the Netflix user.

Now, internet providers, being capitalists and, thus, not complete economic dumbasses, see traffic as potential revenue streams and seek to maximize the number of people who are using their service whenever possible. You know, like every other fucking business on the planet? As a result, providers started limiting the usage of some high-level users so others could use their service, a practice called “throttling.” The ethics of throttling can be debated, but what can’t be debated is the effect net neutrality will have on internet providers.

Just like when Leftists talk about economic justice or climate justice, the goal is to create equality by fiat rather than cooperation. Internet providers are in it to make a buck, and thank God or Bill Gates or Al Gore for it. As the technology has spread further into the global consciousness, internet access has gone from a “neat to have” to a “need to have” in people’s minds. Why else do you think teenagers today have emotional breakdowns over losing their phones? After all, they need to let the world know what shoes they wore to school today or what dance they learned off TikTok. You know, really important shit!

To that end, the Left has slowly been working on making internet access a utility or, in some cases, a human right. That’s not because they give two shits about poor people having internet; it’s because it makes the argument for government intervention easier.

The federal government, at least in theory, is charged with protecting its citizens and their freedoms as guaranteed by the Constitution. As we’ve seen with the southern border, though, that’s a theory that doesn’t stand up to current scrutiny. Regardless, elevating the service that brings us Nigerian princes, penis enlargement pills, and hot Ukrainian women who want to date American men to an essential part of life brings in the expectation of the government to rally for and provide for this need. Hence, net neutrality becomes the back door to making that a reality.

Which has been the plan all along. The problem the Left has with the internet as it stands right now is they don’t control it. After all, what good is free speech online if the Left can’t control it, amirite?

Now, if net neutrality were actually effective, we might have an issue on our hands. Fortunately for us and anyone else who thinks government intervention in the internet works about as good as a Crocs diving helmet, we don’t yet. A recent poll by RealClear Opinion Research shows Leftists are still in the minority when it comes to stifling free speech, but only by 6%. As demographics and mortality rates change, that number is most likely going to get tighter.

When that happens, net neutrality will be realized, regardless of how effective it is. And if you thought Twitter under the Leftist hivemind was bad, wait until these same dumbfucks take over the internet as a whole.

Of course, what we on the “fuck net neutrality” side have going for us is the speed at which technology changes versus the lack of speech at which legislation and regulation changes. To put it mildly, even the most tech-savvy Leftists on Capitol Hill are subject to the whims of Representatives and Senators so old they used to exchange phone numbers on cave walls beside drawings of their last mastodon hunt. And these old-timers aren’t necessarily going to push for something they barely understand and the new blood can’t explain well enough to bridge that gap.

In my lifetime, we’ve gone from dial-up internet where 28.8 baud modems were the cutting edge to fiber optic and satellite internet service cropping up like dandelions in a Midwest lawn. Right now, the pro-net neutrality crowd hasn’t caught up to the current tech, which puts any efforts to make net neutrality a thing at a great disadvantage. When technology can be obsolete by the time you put it on a credit card, the glacial pace of government means their solution will be light years behind the technology it’s supposed to regulate.

Fucking brilliant!

Even so, we can’t fall asleep at the switch on net neutrality because the Left will continue to find ways to make it a thing. Whether it’s an appeal to emotions, an overstated sense of urgency to save the internet, or the Left’s favorite method of persuasion (outright lying), the arguments the Left will roll out will appeal to the uninformed. Which, oddly enough, will appeal to other Leftists more than anyone else, but that’s neither here nor there.

Still, it won’t hurt to bring up a fact the Left wants memory-holed: they predicted the death of the internet if net neutrality wasn’t in place.

How’s that working out for you, net neutrality fans?



Paywall X

X, formerly known as Twitter, is looking into the possibility of charging users a small monthly fee to use the service. If this happens it will be the final death blow to the Social Media platform.

Twitter was my favorite Social Media outlet, back when it was young. It had no ads, it no gimmicks, just simple text and some attached images. Plain, simple, useful.

I have written before that I prefer the older forms of Social Media, before it even had a name. Email Groups, Blogs, and Internet Forums.

With these there is control of who sees your posts. Who comments on your posts. And even who is a member of the circle getting the posts. Now, of course, they can be sent on to other places as well.

All of the current Social Media outlets can be replaced. But not with the batch of clones that are out now that are mimicking the current popular platforms. Even now we have multiple Twitter clones out there and all fall short of the original.

Will X survive by charging all members a fee? I don’t think so. Most sites, even news sites, that have paywalls I personally browse away from the moment I hit that wall.

Are Paywalls good to have? It depends. Yes in some cases it is a good measure. In other cases, it is not. And for Social Media. It is a bad idea.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Normally, your friendly neighborhood blogger spends time writing about politics or social issues that deserve to be mocked. This week I’m stretching my legs a bit to go into the tech world…to mock it.

Artificial Intelligence, or AI for short, has taken the world by storm, and by storm I mean CAT 4 Billion hurricane. Although the technology being used now to create AI bots online is at tin-cans-connected-by-string level, it’s starting to get better. And it’s starting to get people worried.

So worried that the Puddin’ Head Joe Administration put Vice President Kamala Harris the AI Czar. Who better to discuss Artificial Intelligence than a real dumbass?

Needless to say (which is why I’m typing it), the Left is starting to feel the heat from the rise of AI. Which means it’s the perfect subject…to mock them.

AI

What the Left thinks it means – a technological advance that will negatively affect the arts, human interaction, and social issues

What it really means – a computer pretending to be human…for now

The concept of AI has been around since last century in science fiction and other fantastic stories, but it didn’t really come into being until 1954, when Allen Newell, Cliff Shaw, and Herbert Simon came up with a program called Logic Theorist, which attempted to duplicate the thought processes of a human. When it was unveiled two years later, it was heralded as a breakthrough, as it should have been.

From there, AI experienced highs and lows, advances and setbacks, peanut butter and jelly. Once the matter of computer storage was resolved, AI truly began to come into its own, thanks to a little computer known as Deep Blue. In 1996, IBM pit the computer against chess champion Garry Kasparov in a chess match which Deep Blue shockingly won. This was the first sign AI was not only possible, but had the potential to outperform humans.

Do you want SkyNet? Because this is how we get SkyNet.

Seriously, though, in the nearly 30 years after Deep Blue, AI has found its way into society, tech and non-tech alike. The currently striking screenwriters are afraid AI will replace them. (Given the absolute dog shit Hollywood has been putting out the past two decades, though, I’m not sure it’s that big of a loss.) “South Park” devoted an episode to ChatGPT where part of the script was written by it. Even art is seeing AI’s slow creep into its hallowed halls.

And earlier this month, Warner Music signed the world’s first AI generated pop star, Noonoouri. The song, “Dominoes,” is about what you would expect. Words strung together to a beat with a noticeable hook that’s easy to like. In other words, just like pop music today, but with more natural singing.

I have a lot of questions, not the least of which being how a computer program can get paid by a studio to produce music, but the point is still AI has found its way into our culture in a new way: through shitty music.

But it’s not all virtual sunshine and online lollipops for AI. A recent poll showed over 60% of people surveyed view AI as a threat to our future. Others feel their jobs could be negatively affected by the rise of AI just in California alone. Although AI has the potential to revolutionize many vital fields like medicine, the fear of AI replacing humans is real.

And this is where I throw a wet blanket on the fearmongering. Ain’t I a stinker?

The thing to remember about AI is it’s only as good as the people programming it and the program’s ability to react to new data sources. That’s why I said we were still at the tin-cans-connected-by-string level earlier. The technology is still relatively new and is getting better at an astounding rate with no ceiling as yet as to how much better it will get, but it’s still limited by human intelligence and biases.

Take facial recognition software, for example. One of the most well-known problems with it can be tied to unconscious racial biases, which can only be programmed by…humans with these biases. The program isn’t capable of it; it’s just doing what it’s been told to do as quickly as possible.

That’s AI’s Achilles’ heel, folks. AI as it stands right now is only capable of following orders within the parameters of the program itself. The “learning” it’s doing is by design, which means the data can be manipulated or controlled. Just ask Microsoft how its AI chatbot turned into a racist by going on Twitter.

Although it’s nice to see us applying more caution to AI than we did when the Internet became a thing, we need to ratchet back the fear and loathing going on right now. Yes, it has the potential to make some industries go by the wayside, but potential is not certainty. Every piece of technology we have has a due-by date. At some point in the future, it will become obsolete, and everything connected to that technology has to either evolve or become just as obsolete.

This is where free market capitalism comes into play. Any worker with his or her salt can adapt to changing conditions out of no other reason than economic necessity. He/she will gain new skills, learn new techniques, develop new attitudes and processes that will safeguard his/her job and possibly propel him/her to a new position. The grind may not always net these results, but they certainly help you look more indispensable.

This is not to say the writers, artists, etc., who are afraid for their jobs in the AI-crazy world aren’t working hard to hold onto them. They are. I’m saying their energies should be focused on ways to make them stand out in a good way. Instead of trying to figure out how to redo “Romeo and Juliet” with a modern twist or doing the 35 billionth representation of man’s inhumanity to man, find a way to bring an original idea to the forefront. Sure, you risk rejection, but the law of averages says at some point your original idea is going to resonate with someone.

As far as AI is concerned, I’m staying cautiously optimistic. Until an AI bot becomes self-aware and capable of overruling its programing, humanity will be safe. That’s not to say nothing’s going to change, but as long as humans keep being imperfect little meat puppets, we will always have the edge over any AI.

And if you really want to fuck with AI, make it only access Reddit. That will confuse it long enough for someone to pull the plug.



Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

I would never want to be a White House Press Secretary under any circumstances. First, you have to communicate with members of the press, which is like going to Chuck E Cheese during a big toddler birthday party on a good day (and working that same birthday on a bad day). Second, you might have to address a scandal that involves the President and his/her family.

And then, there’s the third reason: I’d have the same title as the current Press Secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, who makes Jen Psaki look good by comparison. Recently, Jean-Pierre responded to a question about the ongoing legal troubles of Hunter Biden, who I’m lead to believe is related in some way to President Puddin’ Head Joe but I’m waiting until the mainstream media confirms because I’m thorough like that. Apparently, I’m still having to wait since Karine Jean-Pierre referred to Hunter Biden as a “private citizen” and the press hasn’t asked a follow-up question about it.

While we wait on reporters to, you know, do their fucking jobs, let’s talk about private citizens for a bit. Maybe by the time this piece is done, we will be able to confirm the First Crackhead is related to Puddin’ Head Joe.

private citizen

What the Left thinks it means – people who should be kept out of the public spotlight to avoid unnecessary attention

What it really means – how Leftists describe one of their own when he/she/it royally fucks up

The concept of what constitutes a private citizen has been the subject of a lot of good natured debate within First Amendment scholarly circles. And, as is the case with such scholarly debates, nothing’s really come of it except more debate. Fortunately, the law gives us a bit more clarity:

The term “private person” means— (A) any individual who is a citizen or national of the United States; and (B) any corporation, partnership, association, or other legal entity organized or existing under the law of any State, whether for profit or not for profit.

And by “a bit” I mean none at all.

Generally, the rule of thumb is a person who is not well-known would be a private citizen. In short, anybody who still uses Mastodon as a Twitter alternative. Once that person gets a bit of fame or infamy, the protections afforded a private citizen get worn away. Still, even someone well-known in Monkey’s Ass, Wyoming, would not be as well-known in New York City, so venue matters.

Or it used to. Thanks 24/7 news and social media.

Then, there are celebrities. In exchange for fame, fortune, and the occasional appearance on talk shows, they give up expectations of privacy for as long as they’re in the public consciousness. Some, like Dustin “Screech” Diamond, never quite escape. Others, like Dustin “Screech” Diamond’s stunt double, reclaim their privacy by giving up their celebrity.

The thing about celebrity, though, is it can be extended to members of their families. The children of politicians fall into this category, especially if they fuck up in such a way it makes the news. Ask the Bush Twins about that after their underage drinking fiasco. That means, Hunter Biden, if he truly is the offspring of Puddin’ Head Joe, would not qualify as a private citizen.

Wait…nope. Still no mainstream media confirmation of that yet. But hope springs eternal.

So, why would Karine Jean-Pierre lie to us about Hunter Biden being a private citizen? I mean, aside from it’s her job to unconvincingly lie to the White House Press Lapdogs…I mean Corps. The short answer is because she can get away with it. The politically obvious reasons are, well, Hunter Biden is a crackhead embarrassment that makes his dad look even worse than he already does, thus handing Republicans an easier win than any woman against a Leftist man in an arm wrestling contest. The more people connect Hunter to Joe, the harder it is for Hunter to be considered a private citizen.

At its face, the idea is absurd. But these are Leftists we’re dealing with here, so it’s not surprising. The Left wants you to believe Hunter Biden, who has a well-documented history of being a shitty person, somehow isn’t famous enough to be covered as a news story, hence he’s a private citizen. Yet, his art that sells for $500,000 a flop…I mean pop gets people all over the world to buy it, so he logically can’t be a private citizen because he’s known worldwide.

This is why I don’t recommend trying to make sense of Leftist logic without hard liquor.

Now, it’s nice to know Leftists care about protecting private citizens from undue attention. If only they weren’t fucking hypocrites on the subject when it suits their needs. If you’re a Colorado baker who happens to be Christian and refused to bend over (figuratively and literally) to a same-sex couple, you get put on blast so everyone knows how much of an evil no-good right wing homophobe bigot Hitler wannabe you are. If you’re a member of ANTIFA who gets caught on video attacking someone with a bike chain, the Left will go out of their way to hide that information.

Hmmm…if only there were indicators of when the Left will flip-flop on what constitutes a private citizen…oh, wait, there is! They always flip-flop like John Kerry cooking at a beachfront IHOP working straight commission.

As unsurprising as the Left’s duplicity regarding private citizens is, the scary thing is it may be too late to protect private citizens, actual and hypothetical, due to the advent of social media. Any dick with a cell phone can film you doing something horrible (or at least make it look like you did something horrible), post it online, and make you famous before you can say “YouTube Shorts.” Then, you are known as Fat Guy Yells At Burger King Employee While His Shorts Fall Down forever and you have to delete your online presence and start blogging under the name of Thomas…

I’ve said too much.

Anyway, with privacy going the way of anyone not fawning over the Barbie movie, we need to get on the stick to address how this impacts private citizens. Unfortunately, we’re lightyears behind and no one else is thinking about this issue because there’s a Barbie movie, you guys! That, and the fact more people want to be seen on social media like TikTok, so they’re willing to trade their status as private citizens for fame, no matter how temporary it is.

Yep. We’re fucked.

Until such time as society decides to give up on being famous, it’s up to us to keep the idea of a private citizen alive. That means keeping your head down, being aware of your surroundings and the people in it, and not drawing attention to yourselves. Live your life as much off the grid as possible, or if that’s not possible, be smart with what you share. Yes, this will make you massively unhip to the rest of the world, but when you consider what is considered cool these days, it’s no big loss.

On a larger scale, we have to recognize what a private citizen is and why Hunter Biden isn’t one. No matter how the Left tries to spin it, this situation is like a Lindsey Lohan drug story, only with shittier art. And considering Lohan’s acting career, that’s saying a lot!

This just in! Still no mainstream media confirmation Hunter and Puddin’ Head Joe are related. Like the number of licks it takes to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop, the world may never know.





Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The US Supreme Court has been busy making Leftists cry lately. In addition to their recent decision regarding Affirmative Action (my coverage available here), they also ruled in a 6-3 decision in favor of a Colorado businesswoman who wanted to do wedding websites, but didn’t want to them for same-sex weddings. Seems it would violate her religious beliefs, so she challenged Colorado’s law and eventually won.

Which royally pissed off the Left!

While Leftists started in on their “expand the Supreme Court” and “extremist right wing Court” recycled rhetoric, others cheered the decision as a “victory for free speech.” So, why were Leftists (who proclaim themselves as free speech champions) upset?

I’m glad you…errr I asked.

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis

What the Left thinks it means – a Supreme Court decision that makes it legal to discriminate against people

What it really means – the mask slipping on the Left’s commitment to free speech

Our good friends at Twitchy give us a nice breakdown of the case and the stipulations the businesswoman was willing to make to comply with Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws. The Reader’s Digest Condensed Version is she was willing to work with anyone, but not to make websites that would go against her faith.

Wait. I seem to remember a similar situation with a baker in Colorado and the Left’s response being “Bake the cake, bigot.”

Both the baker and the businesswoman were subject to what might best be called coerced free speech. I take that back. The best term for this is bullshit, but you get the idea. The idea behind free speech is to allow everyone a chance to speak their minds up to the point it inspires violence (i.e. “fighting words“). Where the Left takes the, well, left turn off the freeway of free expression is when others say things they don’t like. Then, they will stop at nothing to prevent those evil mean nasty Nazi ideas from getting traction, including collaborating with Big Tech to silence them. Of course, they’ll use any excuse they can to justify it and if you disagree, you’re just dag nasty evil.

Or in the case of COVID-19 hysteria, most likely telling the truth.

This brings us back to the “bake the cake” mentality of the Left. There are segments of the Left (namely the LGBTQA+ABCDEFGOHWEOHWEOHGIRLIWANNAKNOWYOUKNOWYOU crowd) who will use the judicial system to force certain groups (namely Christians) to do what they want in some weird flex of their protected status. And until fairly recently, the courts have let them get away with it, stating a protected class’ “right” to services trumps the Christian’s right to religion.

When you’re coerced to speak under threat of judicial or regulatory reprisal, free speech is compromised to the point of being ineffectual. This is why the “bake the cake” argument is so fucked up in the first place. Although business do have the right to refuse service, it’s limited to situations where it’s not considered discriminatory. And thanks to the aforementioned Alphabet Soup Group, anything short of total subservience to their cause is discriminatory.

Not surprisingly, though, this runs smack-dab in the face of their attitudes about Twitter banning conservative users. Back then, it was okay to silence conservatives because “Twitter is a private business and can make decisions to deny someone a platform.”

Soooooo…I have a question. Why is it okay to silence conservatives because of Twitter’s status as a private business, but also okay to force private businesses to give Leftists a platform for their ideas? The short answer is it’s not because it’s hypocritical and counterintuitive to the idea of free speech. Regardless of how tasty the medium may be, you cannot force compliance one way without forcing it the other way and still be intellectually consistent.

And now, you can’t do it while being legally consistent.

Look, I get the idea behind Colorado’s anti-discrimination law. It’s how it’s being implemented that’s the issue. If you’re using it as a cudgel to attack people who don’t agree with you, it’s being used incorrectly. Laws like the anti-discrimination laws are meant to be more of a legal shield and a method to provide legal recourse should the laws be broken. Using it the way Colorado Leftists have, though, turns a law with good intentions into one with bad application, which puts it in proximity of “fighting words” in my semi-learned opinion.

Where the majority opinion in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis diverted expectations is that it was ruled on as a free speech rather than a freedom of religion issue. But the true brilliance comes when you consider the Left’s opinion of religion in general (save for Climate Change Cultists). In arguing against religion in the public square, the Left has taken one of two approaches: demanding an all-or-none approach (except when it comes to Muslims), or demanding freedom from religion. After all, you have to account for those who don’t want religion shoved down their throats, right?

Wellllll…let’s apply this to another idea, freedom of association. As this link shows, the Supreme Court has already ruled there is a freedom from association as well as a freedom of association. In other words, the High Court has already laid the groundwork for future challenges to Colorado’s law if some plucky attorney with time to kill and a client willing to test the law would put it in motion.

Not that I’m hinting someone should do that, mind you…

Nevertheless, the 6-3 ruling (with guess who making up the minority) is going to stand for now, and the Left can’t handle it. Not only can’t they force people to do their bidding because reasons, but the arguments put forth in opposition to the ruling are…how can I put this delicately…fucking stupid. But remember, Leftists are smarter than us. Just ask them.

In this case (and, to be fair, in most cases for that matter), the Left got this one wrong, and instead of figuring out how they went wrong, they blamed the “right wing Supreme Court.” You know, like mature adults do? Yet, something tells me they aren’t going to understand the implications of their insistence people have to be forced to platform their ideas. I mean, if their ideas were so popular, wouldn’t people want to give them platforms?

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis is a victory for actual free speech and a blow to the coerced speech the Left want to make the norm. No matter how the Left tries to spin it or muddy the waters with absurd claims, this is an L for them, which is a given.

After all, you can’t spell “Leftist” without an L.







Discord vs IRC

I’ve written about a few of these topics in the past and I’m sure they will be revisited again in the future. In our modern world connected as we are through the technology of the internet. There is still a need for text only based real time chatting between 2 or more people.

Text only based chatting has many advantages over both voice or video methods of communication. Far less bandwidth is needed is the biggest advantage. It can work on even the worst internet connections and the slowest of PCs.

In the days of Dial-up internet, were AOL was the king of providers, they had a multitude of chatrooms for many topics and communities across their membership. And outside of AOL and accessible to it, and all other providers were the many servers and networks of Internet Relay Chat (IRC).

During the height of IRC’s popularity it had over a million users signed in across the multitude of networks and servers. Today, with the rise of Social Media, this number has been reduced to a quarter of what it once was.

A vast majority of IRC users are now found on the Discord service. It has a number of similarities to IRC that allows users to feel “at home” there. However there are a lot of differences too between the 2 platforms.

Here are some of the similarities and differences:

Discord has a native “pretty” interface. Granted IRC does not but it’s totally depends on which IRC client one uses to access IRC.

Discard has audio and visual communications options. IRC does not have these functions at all. They are left to other services to provide them.

Discord has Avatars and Profiles. Although IRC at its base level does not. There are IRC clients that provide similar functions.

Both services have bots running on them in multiple channels performing a multitude of various tasks.

Discord requires registration in order to use it. IRC does not require registration, but many networks and servers have registration available and it’s recommended.

Discord has the ability to create channel threads. Topics that filter out of the main channel discussion into a sub-channel without leaving the channel. IRC does not have this unique ability. In IRC one would have to chat privately or form a separate channel with the smaller number of users.

Both services off the ability to chat privately between users.

IRC is independent. There are networks and stand alone servers. Each one is unique. Discord “servers” are all part of Discord and ran on the same equipment as all others.

This one fact can lead to a single point of failure for Discord. If the Discord service goes down. All of the Discord “servers” are done. Not true at all with IRC since each server and network are independent of one another.

And with the independence, IRC is individually owned. Where as Discord is corporately owned and could change any aspect of its service with a board member vote. Including making the entire service a paid service.

On Discord you can @mention another user of the “server” you are connected to and they would be notified of the mention. IRC doesn’t have this as a built-in function. However, like other functions that are built-in to Discord, many IRC clients have similar functions.

On Discord, if you join a “server”, you are automatically in all the channels save for ones that are role restricted which can cause unwanted notifications of chats. One IRC when you connect to a server you only join the channels you want to join or none at all.

With IRC, anyone can create a new channel just by joining it. And that person gets admin rights in that channel automatically. If there is registration available and the user desires they can register the channel and make it permanent. But on Discord, only Admins can create new channels. It’s the same role given to create, destroy, or modify any channel so it’s not given out to everyone.

Discord has a history feature. Once you join a “server” and are in the channels you can infinitely scroll up to see what was previously said in that channel by anyone. On IRC, there is a +H mode that can be set on some servers or networks that allow a similar functionality but it’s usually not infinite.

Discord admins have the ability to delete chats in a channel. IRC doesn’t have this ability. Once the chat is there it’s there. But new users generally wont see it because of the lack of history available.

Bots are on both services as previously mentioned. And bots are very handy to have to provide functions and features that aren’t part of the system. With Discord, you have to have Dev permissions to create a bot. And that bot cannot run on a regular member’s account. Doing so would get the bot and user banned from Discord. On IRC however, there are a variety of scripting options available. Some are based on the client program use to connect to IRC and others are dependent on the bot being used. And you can run scripts from your own client as well.

This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to comparing IRC and Discord. Just looking at this list the favor leans towards IRC over Discord despite some of its unique features. Many Discord features can be duplicated or simulated in IRC with a bit of scripting or simple options enabled on one’s client program.

I will always be an IRC enthusiast. After all I have ran my own IRC network/server for 25 years. And in this day and age of cancel culture, the freedom of an IRC server is just what is needed.

I am sad to say that I have lost a few IRC channels to Discord. And looking at those Discord “servers” I could have over a 1000 users on my IRC network if they stayed or came back.

But if you are looking for a place to have an online real-time text based chat. I’m happy to help you get setup on IRC. You can connect via a browser at https://web.communiti.chat or point you favorite IRC client program to irc.commuinit.chat and get setup to go.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

This week, we delve into the world of comedy, for which some readers are saying “Finally!” Fortunately for you, it’s not my jokes this time.

Instead, we can look to Twitter and Leftists for the humor. Seems our favorite Socialist Socialite got her collectivist panties in a wad over a Twitter account parodying her. And as one might expect of someone dumber than a bag of hammers, the Socialist Socialite tweeted out a warning advising fans of the account. Because as we all know the best way to make a problem go away is to draw as much attention to it as humanly possible.

Needless to say, this didn’t work well. Which prompted fans of the Socialist Socialite to call for Twitter to ban the parody account, AOCpress. This gives us the perfect opening to discuss the wonders of parody.

parody

What the Left thinks it means – a potentially dangerous threat to valid communication between politicians and their constituents

What it really means – a way to mock the Left protected by the First Amendment

Our good friends at Dictionary.com provide a great definition of “parody” that will serve us nicely:

1. a humorous or satirical imitation of a serious piece of literature or writing: his hilarious parody of Hamlet’s soliloquy.

2. the genre of literary composition represented by such imitations.

3. a burlesque imitation of a musical composition.

4. any humorous, satirical, or burlesque imitation, as of a person, event, etc.

If you’re an observant reader, and I know you are, you’ll notice a pattern. If you’re not or a Leftist (which means you’re not observant by definition), the pattern is humor. Leftists love to tell us they’re funnier than conservatives, but yet they’re redefining humor to take the funny out of comedy and turn it into more of a monologue where the pseudo-comedian throws out Leftist talking points in lieu of jokes. But don’t worry. There are plenty of set-ups, chief of which being the audience being set up that they’ll be entertained, but there are a decided lack of straight men. Or women.

And as a side note, Dave Chappelle was right about Hannah Gadsby.

Anyway, the Left doesn’t have a mirth monopoly by any stretch. Granted, much of the humor they provide is unintentional (i.e. Puddin’ Head Joe and Kamala Harris going off script), but it’s humor nonetheless. Where the Right has the edge in humor is online, especially in the area of satire. With The Onion being as funny as its namesake these days, sites like The Babylon Bee and any number of Twitter handles have picked up the slack by…actually being funny. What a concept!

And a good amount of the time, it’s the Left getting skewered with the Right’s humor. Guess how that goes over with the Left.

As with other things that bug them and that they can’t control, Leftists moan more than a porn actress being paid by the orgasm. And where do they moan the most? On Twitter! After all, if you complain on Twitter about something and tag Elon Musk it actually does something important!

Guess how that turned out. And I’m guessing you’re seeing a pattern here.

See, Leftists hate being mocked, especially when it’s in the form of parody because it’s not just mocking them, but it’s mocking them directly.

Remember the young girl who did a parody of the Socialist Socialite? Well, she got death threats from Leftists. You know, the tolerate, loving, and totes free speech defending Left? (Yeah, I laughed hard when I typed that, too.)

That should tell you two things. First, Leftists take themselves way too seriously. And second, the jokes about their lack of a sense of humor are based in fact. Oh, and Leftists are shitty people when they get butthurt at being the butt of jokes. (See what I did there?)

But here’s the thing. Parody is protected under the First Amendment as free speech. And what’s even more delicious? It’s because of Larry Flynt, a loud and proud Leftist. (On a side note, how do Leftist feminists reconcile Flynt’s treatment and attitudes towards women with feminist ideology? Oh, right, they fucking ignore it.)

Of course, that doesn’t stop Leftists from making the case the AOCpress account should be removed because they claim it’s imitating the Socialist Socialist. Hoo boy. So much to unpack here, but let’s start with the easy one.

Twitter rules are quite clear on parody accounts being allowed so long as they clearly proclaim they are parody accounts. And Leftists should remember this, especially after many of them did Elon Musk parodies on their Twitter accounts.
In other words, it’s perfectly fine when they do it, but no one else can do it, especially to them.

Now, there’s the whole imitation angle. What AOCpress posts may look and sound like what the Socialist Socialite says, but at no time does the account owner say he/she is AOC. Just because it’s indistinguishable from what the Socialist Socialite really says doesn’t mean it’s someone trying to impersonate her. Although, it might be evidence the Twitter account wants to date her…

Now, for the best part of all of this. There are people getting fooled by the AOCpress account, even with the parody tag on it. How fucking stupid do you have to be to get fooled by a parody account that labels itself as parody? I know social media is a “Tweet first, ask questions later” environment, but fuck! You have to be a special kind of window licker to get fooled.

Which says a lot about the people who stan for the Socialist Socialist, doesn’t it?

The proper response to parody isn’t to try to get it removed from the marketplace of ideas, but rather to take it for what it is: an attempt at humor. You don’t have to get it for it to be a joke, and you don’t have to laugh for it to be protected. That’s why Dane Cook has never been arrested for doing his stand-up (although an argument could be made for him being arrested for impersonating a stand-up comedian, but that’s a blog post for another time). That means Leftists are going to have to put up with a lot more mocking from people, myself included.

And that’s going to piss off Leftists.

The AOCpress account exposes how thin-skinned Leftists can be, while at the same time showing how gullible and stupid they can be when they put their minds to it. Like it or not, though, parody is as valid a Socialist Socialite speech, only parody is intentionally funny.






Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Leftists tend to freak out about things they don’t like because, well, they’re Leftists. This week’s freakout is courtesy of their favorites and ours, former President Donald Trump. See, Trump is running for President in 2024 and CNN…gave him airtime for a town hall meeting.

I know! I was shocked that a cable news network would spend time talking to a famous political figure in an attempt to get ratings!

Although Leftist freakouts are as common as bad pop music songs right now, Leftists are just as predictable with their responses: hashtag activism. For a short time, Leftists on Twitter got #BoycottCNN trending which is…something, I guess? What is a bit more certain is I’m going to mock the hell out of it!

#BoycottCNN

What the Left thinks it means – a response to CNN allowing Donald Trump airtime to spread his hateful message

What it really means – a lame response to CNN allowing Donald Trump airtime to promote his Presidential campaign

First, a bit of background. A long time ago, CNN was the place to go on cable to get news, mainly because it was the only place to go on cable to get news. For the most part, they played it straight down the line, but over time CNN became the source for many a Leftist squawking point, thanks to the Commander in Briefs, Bill Clinton. Seems more than a few of the staff were more in the tank for him than Michael Dukakis. (And if you got that reference, I’m eternally grateful.)

From there, CNN’s descent into Leftist madness (but I repeat myself) got more pronounced. And once other cable news networks like Fox News and MSNBC got involved, it was only a matter of time before the only name in the cable news game became an afterthought, as the ratings showed. It got so bad at one point that reruns of Yogi Bear beat CNN in the ratings.

A change was needed, so CNN tried to go hard against Trump in an attempt to suck off some of MSNBC’s viewership. One tiny problem: Leftists really don’t like CNN because they’re not Leftist enough. After all, they…allowed conservatives an opportunity to speak! Oh, the horror! And with MSNBC being batshit crazy enough for Leftists, CNN didn’t stand a chance.

Enter Chris Licht, who became the new boss at CNN in 2022. He decided to take a different approach, one that was unheard of a few years prior: reporting actual news. This got him branded as someone who wanted to make CNN more centrist (i.e. to the right of Stalin), which Leftists simply can’t abide because…reasons! Leftists even went so far as to call CNN “Fox News Lite” because of the move.

Let’s just say the ratings haven’t been going in the right direction yet. The reason is simple: CNN pissed off too many people. The Right won’t tune in because of the decades of carrying water for the Left, and the Left won’t tune in because they have MSNBC to parrot their squawking points without even the slightest deviation. No matter what Licht does, it’s never going to be enough.

But that’s not the issue at hand.

The Leftist response to CNN doing what it’s done for other Presidential candidates (albeit with less than stellar results) is par for the course at worst. But the Twitter temper tantrum behind #BoycottCNN is a new level of Leftist impotence and idiocy. First off, didn’t Leftists on social media try to #BoycottTwitter? Yes, yes, they did. And it worked as well as you might expect: not at all. So, they go on Twitter to pass around the hashtag!

That’s what the kids like to call a self own.

Then, there’s the “me too” aspect of this hashtag. (Not to be confused with #MeToo, which is a completely different Leftist shitshow.) As many Twitter Leftists were so quick to point out, they were already boycotting CNN, as though it were a badge of honor. At this point, boycotting CNN is like boycotting “The Golden Girls” (although I am still involved in a letter-writing campaign about Estelle Getty): it’s pretty much a moot point. They’re already swirling the drain, so losing tens of tens of viewers isn’t going to change that. Piling on, even virtually, is pointless.

But then again, pointless actions are what the Left specialize in. See also: #MeToo.

The part that really tickles me is how the Left reacted to the shift in CNN’s approach to news. When you really think about it (and I do because I need something to do while I browse Twitter), the Left is upset a news organization is moving away from propaganda and more towards actual reporting of facts…but the Left says their favorite cable news shows are already doing actual reporting…so…

Yeah. I got nothing.

I take that back. I actually got something here, and it’s all about controlling the narrative. The Left cannot abide not being in control of the flow of information, and with both Twitter and CNN moving more towards the right as a means to even the playing field, the Left fear they’re losing control of the ability to shape what people think. Which they are, mainly because they don’t understand people in general. And business. And success. And long term thinking. And…well, you get the idea.

But as with so many hashtags, the #BoycottCNN shelf-life will be thankfully short, and the damage will be minimal. Yet, the Left overplayed its hand with the boycott because it gives us an insight into how the operate and why they reacted the way they did. That gives us ammunition to use in the future while also putting their objections into context.

In the end, though, CNN is going to become a casualty in the cable news wars by its own hand. They believed in their own invincibility and didn’t plan for a future where a test pattern could draw better numbers than their prime time shows. CNN burned up a lot of its early credibility worse than Mrs. O’Leary’s cow, but if they’re truly serious about getting back to hard news without as much spin, I wish them all the best. It’s the harder and longer road, but it will bring the best outcome possible.

Plus, it’ll piss off Leftists, which is always entertaining.