Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

By the time you read this, it will be close to or the end of October, which means two things. One, the Detroit Lions are mathematically eliminated from the post season, and two, it’s almost the end of Election Season. And of the two, the latter is clearly more painful.

It’s also the start of what the Left hopes to be a major turning point in what is looking to be a political assbeating of Biblical proportions. They’re hoping to energize women voters using one of the major wedge issues of my lifetime, abortion. After the US Supreme Court did the unthinkable and made abortion a state issue, Leftists created the term Roevember.

And, thus, the month of my birth gets ruined, but for a completely different reason.

Roevember

What the Left thinks it means – a rallying cry for women to vote out Republicans to protect their reproductive rights

What it really means – a neat catchphrase for an issue that isn’t that important right now

It’s conventional political wisdom that the party that controls the Presidency loses Congressional seats during the midterms, and you can count on the one hand of the world’s worst butcher the number of times it hasn’t happened in recent history. That means, if conventional wisdom holds true this year, Democrats stand to lose at least some of their elections. That gives them a vested interest in keeping their base energized. And what better way to do that than to hype up the potential of losing abortion rights unless Democrats get elected/reelected?

I mean, aside from coming up with an actual platform.

Under normal conditions, this tactic might work. After all, a Gallup poll from earlier this year shows a majority of American adults consider themselves to be pro choice, with 61% of women identifying as such. Granted, I’m not a doctor, so I might be assuming the respondents’ genders, but I’m going to go with it for the purposes of this sketch.

Unfortunately for Democrats, these midterms aren’t normal, and I’m not just talking about the freaks Democrats have running in certain races. (And I apologize to all the freaks out there for comparing them to Democrats.) When it comes to issues Americans think are important, abortion is waaaaaaaaaay down the list. Why it’s almost as if people are more concerned with the ec0nomy than killing babies! The absolute nerve!

This begs the question of why Leftists would continue to push abortion rights as an issue when the more pressing issue is the flaming dumpster fire that is our economy. I’m glad you asked! I have an idea about why that is. It may not be original, so if someone else thought of this first, I’m sure someone will let me know in the comments.

Politics today revolved heavily around what each side of the aisle considers to be what’s wrong with the world. When the economy is flush, the Right turn inward to find inspiration for what changes they want to make and then try to turn that inner vision into outer action. When the economy sucks more than a million Dysons at the center of a black hole, the Right’s introspection doesn’t extend outside of their homes very often, except to commiserate with others in the same boat.

The Left, on the other hand, don’t diversify their opinions on what’s wrong with the world. The issues they felt were super-ultra-important in 1992 aren’t too different than they are in 2022. Even the various “new” issues they’ve raised are offshoots of issues they’ve been railing on for decades, just with a new coat of paint. And no matter what, good economy or bad, these issues will always be at the core of the Left’s campaigns.

Which means they are woefully out of touch with the electorate this year.

One of the Left’s big assumptions is the 167.5 million women in the United States will be coming out to vote in Roevember. Although we don’t have any official numbers for the 2022 midterms (because they haven’t happened yet), it’s normal for voter turnout to be lower for midterm elections as opposed to Presidential elections. Let’s assume the numbers FairVote provides in the aforementioned link are accurate and voter turnout is 40%. That means only 67 million women will be voting, and of those 40.87 million of them consider themselves to be pro choice. Not an insignificant number, but a lot lower than the 167.5 million the Left predict will take part in Roevember. And that assumes all of those 40.87 million are a) eligible to vote, and b) inspired to vote for Democrats. A lot of assumptions being made on an issue only 4% of Americans surveyed think is important.

I promise the rest of this piece won’t be so numbers-heavy.

Although Leftists are great with catchy slogans, they’re piss-poor with timing. With the economy and inflation running rampant like Godzilla in a Japanese fishing village, they’ve chosen to make “let’s kill babies in the womb” their rallying cry. Then again, if my party was responsible for the Godzilla-esque trampling of the economy, I might want to try to divert attention to something else, too.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say most of the people reading this aren’t going to fall for the repackaging job the Left is doing with Roevember, but just know there are plenty outside of this group that will. If nothing else, just run down the numbers with them and let them know their passion for voting because of Roevember would be better suited for something far more productive.

Booing the Detroit Lions.

A Tale of Two “Traitors”

From the “What the Fuck Took You So Long?” Department, former Representative and current Leftist whipping woman Tulsi Gabbard announced she would be leaving the Democrat Party due to their extreme positions. This, of course, lead Leftists to thoughtfully consider the reasons Gabbard gave for leaving and took some time for personal reflection and introspection.

Just kidding! They lost their shit.

Meanwhile on the other side of the political aisle, Lincoln Project co-founder and batshit crazy Twitter user Steve Schmidt suggested soon-to-be former Representative and current member of the January 6 Debacle…I mean Commission Liz Cheney should run for President in order to put an end to the Make America Great Again movement. Cheney has received the ire of many supporters of President Donald Trump for participating in the January 6 Boondoggle…I mean Commission and for making anti-Trump statements.

And, as expected, many Trump supporters lost their shit.

Aside from the reactions from their respective ideological allies, Gabbard and Cheney share another distinction: they’re being called traitors. As a word guy, I take the term very seriously because it’s an accusation that carries a lot of weight. But right now it’s being tossed around like a football on fall weekends. Unless, of course, the team is more committed to the running game…

Nevertheless, I think we need to take a hard look at how cavalier we’re being with the use of “traitor” to describe politicians who doesn’t conform to what we believe 100%. To put it mildly, it’s a hyperbolic term, the most hyperbolic term of all time! (See what I did there?) Seriously, though, it’s not exactly a word that lends itself to softer interpretations.

Our good friends at Dictionary.com define traitor as follows:

1. a person who betrays another, a cause, or any trust.

2. a person who commits treason by betraying his or her country.

Although both definitions are workable, it’s the second one that people tend to gravitate towards because the definition carries a more significant implication. Not that betraying another person, cause, or trust is necessarily a less serious offense, mind you. But when you think about a traitor, your mind is going to go right towards the betrayal of the country.

And that’s where both the Left and Right lose me. By its very nature, politics is polarizing, even more so these days. We’ve gone from being able to respectfully disagree to coming to blows with anyone whose not 1000% on board with one of the major parties. Although a few families have broken up over political differences, the fact it happened in the first place is shocking to me. When you are willing to disavow your flesh and blood in favor of a politician or an ideology that doesn’t give one-millionth of a shit about you, it’s not the sign of a healthy society.

However, it is one of the signs you’re in a cult. And if you really think about it (and I have because there are only so many shows I can binge on Netflix these days), today’s political environment is cultish, as both Gabbard and Cheney have found out recently. And since they dared to…I can scarcely say the words…think for themselves, the Democult and Republicult have unleashed their anger and more than a few charged words.

But Gabbard and Cheney aren’t traitors to anything but the cults from which they associated, and even then it can be argued in both cases the cults left them. Regardless, calling them traitors throws a millstone around their necks designed to un-person them, making it easier to disregard what they have to say. To the faithful, it’s righteous justice. To the rest of us, it’s bullshit.

And if recent polling data is any indication, it’s political suicide (and not in Minecraft). Although the link I provided shows the data was last gathered in September 2022, it still shows people identify as Independents far more than they identify as Democrats or Republicans. Although the party they lean towards shifts on a regular basis, the fact remains the middle holds more sway than either extreme.

And guess who might just sit out elections by being called traitors.

The growing dissatisfaction with Democrats and Republicans as they are now is fueling a movement of self-reflection and self-determination. There’s a reason #WalkAway was and remains a thing (and why Democrats and Leftists in particular have tried to make it not be a thing). There’s a reason both major parties really don’t want potential voters to reject the two-party mindset: there are more of us than there are of them.

And that scares the absolute shit out of them.

Although I disagree with Tulsi Gabbard and Liz Cheney on various issues, I don’t see them as as any less of an American for it. The strongest patriots aren’t the ones who dig in and won’t be moved, but rather the ones who are willing to reach across ideological divides to find common ground. In other words, to disagree without being disagreeable.

The first major party to realize this will reap electoral benefits beyond their wildest expectations. Given how the Left is nuttier than elephant shit these days, it’s more likely the Right will figure it out and move towards it…provided they’re not as elephant-shit nuts as the Left is.

In the meantime, I make a humble request: save the “traitor” label for those who have betrayed the country, not just an ideology or a political party. If that’s too much of an ask, that’s fine. I won’t think any less of you. I’ll just know not to expect a Christmas card this year.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

If you’re like me (and if you are, I’m sorry), you’re getting sick of political ads polluting the airwaves right now. It seems any infraction from an overdue library book in third grade to supporting extreme positions like expecting teachers not to indoctrinate their students into believing they’re transgendered when they still get nap time gets turned into a massive scandal designed to make voters not like a particular candidate. And sometimes these attacks play fast and loose with the facts.

And by sometimes, I mean more frequently than Lindsey Lohan goes back to rehab.

Recently, the Left has rolled out a phrase to describe Republican and conservative candidates who have questions about the 2020 Presidential election went down: election deniers. Although this seems like a silly accusation, the Left is pretty serious about making it stick to as many Republican candidates and their supporters as possible. Which, of course, means it caught my attention.

election deniers

What the Left thinks it means – crazy conspiracy theorists, usually Trump Republicans, who believe the 2020 Presidential election wasn’t legitimate

What it really means – a phrase used to disparage Republicans and conservatives for not accepting the Leftist spin on the 2020 Presidential election

There are two camps with regards to the 2020 Presidential election: those who believe it was the most secure election in our history, and those who have been paying attention. To put it as diplomatically as I can, the election itself was a shitshow of Golgothan proportions. While under the auspices of an election (something Leftists swore up and down Donald Trump would never allow as he installed himself as Big Head Honcho For Life) held during a pandemic, there was some shady shit going on by both teams…I mean parties.

Although the Leftist line has gone from “there wasn’t any systemic voter fraud” to “there was some, but it’s not significant,” they maintain anyone who questions the legitimacy of the 2020 Presidential election is a loony. Pardon my pedantry for a moment, but wouldn’t the fact there was voter fraud undermine the notion the 2020 election was hunky-dory? Whether it was significant enough to affect the outcome of the election is immaterial because it’s not the scope that matters in the end. Well, except if you’re a proctologist performing a colonoscopy, that is.

I will admit much of the election denial right now is coming from the Right, particularly those on the Trump Train. But I also remember waaaaaaaaay back in 2016 when Leftists were engaged in a little election denial of their own, including current White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. Granted, she is an idiot, but surely that was an isolated incident, right?

Not. So. Much.

In fact, Leftists and Democrats have a long list of election denials themselves dating back to the 2000 election. To this day, I’m worried there is a male porn star named Hanging Chad out there still getting work, but that’s not important right now.

And let’s not overlook (as if that’s humanly possible) the most prominent election denier the Left has, Stacey Abrams. After being defeated by her Republican opponent for Governor of Georgia, she not only denied she lost, but turned it into a political action movement, a book deal, a cameo on an episode of “Star Trek: Discovery,” and more magazine covers and puff pieces than Michelle Obama. And all that while being Governor of Georgia, no less! Oh wait…

So, Leftists are hypocrites when it comes to election denial, which is no surprise to anyone with Interwebs access and a memory longer than a TikTok video. This leads us to the question of why they’ve switched opinions and now think denying election results is bad. Well, it comes down to power, which is the coin of the Leftist realm. Well, that and incredibly shitty takes on how to fix the problems they cause. When the Left is on the outside looking in, it’s okay to question even the most lopsided Republican victories because, according to the Left, Republicans can’t win elections without cheating. However, when the Left is in power, questioning the elections is tantamount to treason or, even worse, wearing white after Labor Day.

Even if it can be established there were some irregularities in the vote count.

If the Left’s turn of a phrase reminds you of something, it should, since it’s the same language they use when discussing global climate change/climate disruption/climate catastrophes/whatever the Left is calling it this nanosecond. The idea behind it is to suggest anyone who disagrees with the “facts” (i.e. what the Left wants us to believe) is disreputable and denies reality. Yet, these same Leftists who claim to have the facts on their side go out of their ways to suppress any information that runs counter to their conclusions. They’ve gone so far as to ratchet up the rhetoric to 11 (because it’s one higher) by calling them science deniers. Not only are you denying climate change, but you are denying science as a whole. Who could listen to crackpots like that?

Me, for one. I am by nature curious and I want to gather as much information as I can before rendering a decision. Through that, I’ve learned to pick out questionable information and information sources when they don’t make sense. And calling someone a “denier” when there’s a vested interest in doing so is a big red flag.

With the 2020 elections, both sides have a vested interest in either confirming or rejecting the outcome, so it’s a wash. But right now there’s only one side making a case that has identifiable and verifiable flaws from the jump, and, spoiler alert, it’s the side who spent every year since 2016 saying the election results were rigged and doing everything they can to turn the Presidential election into a popular vote contest. If there are any Leftists reading this (or having it be read to you because of all the big words being used) who are confused about who these people are, look in the mirror.

The larger point, however, is the “word magic” being used to get people to squelch any concerns they have about the 2020 election by appealing to popularity and authority. Eagle-eyed readers will remember these are logical fallacies designed to give the impression of being correct without having to go through that pesky task of presenting facts. After all, the Socialist Socialite told us it was better to be morally right than factually correct, and who are we to disagree with her?

That, kids, is an example of what I’m talking about with appeals to authority and popularity. We are being told to ignore our gut instincts if we think something’s not kosher because it will lead to ridicule and disgrace (often hurled in our direction by those telling us to ignore our instincts). Maybe it’s me, but the surest way to make me more skeptical is to tell me not to pay attention to the man behind the curtain. The fact Leftists are working so hard to avoid addressing at least some of the questions surrounding Joe Biden’s victory tells me they know they’re bullshitting us.

But to be fair, they’ve had a lot on their plates investigating Donald Trump for having Russian dressing on a salad he ate in 1998. But once they’re done with that, I’m sure they’ll have time for answer the questions. Granted, it will be 2638, and that’s only if the investigation into Trump laughing at a Yakov Smirnoff set wraps up early.

In the meantime, the best way to address the Left painting anyone as an election denier can be summarized in two words: So what? This question is one the Left can’t answer without looking like authoritarian assholes or dishonest assholes. Or assholes in general, but the point’s the same. They don’t know why anyone would disagree with them and they’re not interested in finding out, but they’re heavily invested in making sure no one questions them.

But their tactics only work if you are scared of the consequences. If you gave your last fuck at the office and have no intention of getting more, you remove the fear and subsequently the power the Left wants you to believe they have. And if you want to have more fun, tell them you self-identify as something and their questioning is harassment and, thus, violence. And make them use your pronouns!

No matter what the Left tries to tell you, there are some loose ends related to the 2020 Presidential election that haven’t been tied up yet. As Americans, we can and should ask questions until we get answers that make sense or are persuasive enough to make us look at the situation differently. Even if we don’t like the answers we ultimately get, knowledge is about the journey and not the destination. And maybe even the friends we made along the way.

Except Jeff. He’s an asshole.



Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Every election cycle has its share of controversies and the 2022 midterm elections are no different. In the race for an open Senate seat in Pennsylvania, we have Republican Dr. Mehmet “Dr. Oz” Oz and Democrat John “I’m Not a Doctor, But I Play One in My Parents’ Basement” Fetterman. Now, I don’t have a dog in this race (mainly because a) I don’t live in Pennsylvania, and b) I don’t care for either candidate), but there was something interesting that came up after a recent interview with Fetterman.

An NBC reporter had a one-on-one interview with Fetterman and video footage showed the candidate having clear problems answering questions. Not like the usual politician, mind you. Actual problems understanding and responding to questions. Granted, Fetterman had a stroke which affected his hearing and speech, so this isn’t unusual. However, the Left found a way to attack the reporter and the interview as “ableist” because both made Fetterman look incapable to handle the rigors of being a Senator. In Fetterman’s defense, I’ve had more rigorous naps than what a Senator has to deal with, but I wanted to touch on the ableist topic for a bit, if for no other reason than to expose some of the hidden truths behind the Left’s outrage in this case.

ableism

What the Left thinks it means – discriminating in favor of people who appear to be more capable at the expense of those who are less so

What it really means – another way for Leftists to generate resentment for conditions that may not be controllable

Human beings can be incredibly superficial, as anyone who has followed the fashion, cosmetics, and plastic surgery professions can attest. It’s easy to overlook the potential contributions someone with disabilities can make if we just look at the surface. It’s a matter of finding where they can have the best impact. In a scientific lecture, I would listen to Dr. Stephen Hawking in a heartbeat, but I wouldn’t want him to play center for the Los Angeles Lakers, mainly because, well, he’s dead. Then again, given the Lakers’ recent post-season history, it might be an improvement.

Leftists typically don’t think much beyond the surface level of such a population because to do so would mean they would have to consider a smarter, more inclusive approach. Instead, it’s one-size-fits-all! If you’re black, Hispanic, gay, lesbian, female, disabled/handicapped, or whatever else, you’re automatically oppressed! And if you happen to be a black Hispanic gay lesbian female disabled/handicapped person, you could be the next White House Press Secretary under Joe Biden.

Meanwhile, the “oppressors” (i.e. the “ableists”) are stuck in a Faustian deal when interacting with those who have disabilities. For as selfish and superficial as people can be, there are still quite a few of us out there with genuine concern and compassion. Although we may just want to help, we sometimes overcorrect and wind up treating the handicapped as the incapable, which makes us look ableist. And if we don’t even make an overture to help, we’re branded as ableist anyway because, according to the Left, we’re horrified by those different than us.

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

Of course, I’ll be damned if I let Leftists define what I am. (See what I did there?) The fact the Left has taken up this cause at this point for a Senate candidate, while not doing the same for a Republican candidate who had a stroke, says a lot about them, and not a lot of it good. I’m sure they’ll try to pass it off as a change of heart, raised consciousness, or trying to make it sound like it’s no big deal, blaming the reporter for the furor over the story, or comparing him to the aforementioned Dr. Hawking. You know, the usual post-fuck-up protocol for Leftists.

In the meantime, the matter of ableism is still on the table. Although I will concede there are people who will treat people with disabilities as though they were less than human, most people fall into the category is “we have no fucking clue of what to do, so it’s gonna be awkward.” We’re just trying to figure it out without offending anyone. Of course, with Leftists involved, that’s impossible because they’re always offended at something. And when they get offended, they get pissed off and willing to cut a bitch on your behalf.

Which, if you really think about it (and I have because there’s nothing good on TV), is actually diminishing the people Leftists believe they’re supporting. Which, if you really think about it (and I have because there’s still nothing good on TV), is pretty much on-brand for the Left. They need there to be victims so they have someone to fight for, thus fulfilling their psychological needs. As far as the people they’re fighting for are concerned, fuck ’em! It’s the Leftists’ feelings and goals that really matter!

And it’s this attitude that drives the entire ableism idea. You’re not trying to fix anything; you’re just trying to find a way to make yourselves feel less awkward about people with disabilities. Instead of treating each person like a human being, Leftists have to see the handicapped as broken, mainly because Leftists tend to be broken people themselves. And Leftists believe only they can fix anything just by caring enough.

That’s why I never hire Leftist plumbers.

The key to overcoming ableism, or at least what the Leftists feel is ableism, is taking the time to recognize what everyone brings to the table. Sure, you might not want to get in a car with a blind Uber driver, but getting someone to translate Braille? Top of the fucking list. But Leftists are of the attitude that unless you have a blind Uber driver, you’re somehow diminishing the driver’s self-worth, which is bullshit. By trying to shoehorn a person into a position he or she isn’t capable of doing, you’re only hurting the person you’ve attempted to elevate.

Your Honor, I present Exhibits A and B, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

Whomever wins the Senate race in Pennsylvania, the Left will accuse people of ableism. If John Fetterman loses, it’ll be because people didn’t look past his mental lapses to see his potential. If he wins, any criticism of his performance will be chalked up as ableism. It’s a no-win situation, but it’s one that can be overcome by not playing at all. Treat everyone the way you want to be treated and pay attention to the needs and wants of the disabled. At worst, you’ll make a new friend or gain a better understanding of what they go through, which will make future interactions…well, still awkward, but less so. But in embracing the awkwardness, we can do something the Left can never do: get past our prejudices.

Oh, and bathe.


Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

We have a lot on our plates these days, what with inflation making prices higher than Snoop Dogg on any day that ends with, well, “day,” a potential world war starting due to the Russia-Ukraine war, OPEC+ nations signalling they would cut production which would drive up gas prices, and a lot of other matters. Good thing we have an Administration willing to tackle the tough issues, like…equity.

In fact, between Vice President Kamala Harris talking about equity in fighting climate change as part of the Inflation Reduction Act and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen announcing the Biden economic plan focusing on racial equity, the concept has gotten some much-needed attention. Which means it will get some much-needed mockery this week.

equity

What the Left thinks it means – a way to level the playing field and address past injustices against affected people

What it really means – a shift away from equality and towards disparate treatment done in the name of equality

Although equality and equity are often used interchangeably (often by Leftists to try to hide their agenda), there is a vital difference we have to address. Equality requires a level playing field for all by definition. Nobody gets preferential treatment or special dispensation to ask for and receive anything extra. Everybody is square (and from what I understand from Huey Lewis and the News, it’s hip to be that).

Equity, on the other hand, doesn’t require all parties winding up equal. It allows there to be exceptions to the rule, so someone who may have been wronged previously can get a bit more to make up for it. In fact, there are three ways to achieve equity: elevate a party, lower a party, or a combination of the two. Of these, only one gives the recipient a chance to succeed on a larger scale, which naturally means Leftists hate it. Instead, they prefer to destroy rather that build, and I’m not talking about “The Big Dig” either!

The problem with is approach is weakening the strong doesn’t make the weak strong by extension. It just makes everyone weaker. At least, that is until Leftists try to rig things so those they perceive as weak (i.e. anyone who can be made to believe they’ve been oppressed) can become more powerful. But wouldn’t that make it so the formerly weak have to give up what the Left gave them to the formerly powerful? Well, the Left hasn’t figured that out yet and when you ask them about it, they give it some thought and realize it’s folly.

Nah, I’m just fucking with ya! They will just call you a bigot and go about their days without a sense of irony or an answer.

Regardless of the adjective Leftists use to clarify what kind of equity they want, understand it’s designed to deceive people into accepting outcomes that will ultimately screw them over. With racial equity, it’s playing to people’s guilt over previous racism they may or may not have been party to. With marriage equity, it’s playing to people’s guilt over past mistreatment of gays and lesbians. With economic equity, it’s trying to get people to feel guilty about other people being poor while they are comfortable.

Maybe it’s me, but I’m sensing a pattern here…

By making us feel guilty, Leftists psychologically manipulate us by preying on our desire to be liked. Of course, for cynical assholes like me, it’s a lot harder to do, but the point remains. Plus, we want the fastest resolutions we can get so we stop feeling guilty. What better way for Leftists to get what they want than to provide the current political/ideological version of indulgences to remove people’s “sins”? I mean, it worked for Oprah.

It wasn’t that long ago that Leftists clamored for equality, but that’s not good enough for them anymore. They need there to be some level of inequality (that they control, of course) so they can maintain the scam…I mean…wait, I do mean scam. Never mind.

The key to overcoming Leftist calls for equity is to continue to fight for equality, not of outcome, but of treatment. If we treat everyone with the same respect we would ask for ourselves, and if we support each other becoming the best we can be, it will go a long way towards removing the power the Left has when pushing for equity.

Well, either that, or not feeling guilty over shit we didn’t do or advocate. Remove the source of their power, and you negate their power. Simple as that.



Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

This week’s Lexicon entry has its origins in the recent Italian election where Giorgia Meloni was elected Prime Minister to the surprise of Leftists worldwide. And let’s just say they’re not taking this turn of events well, going so far as to compare her to former fascist dictator and George C. Scott body double Benito Mussolini.

Yet, in spite of this, Leftists still haven’t adopted Ms-solini to describe her. That one’s a freebie. You’re welcome.

For an ideology that really pushes for women to get elected, the Left doesn’t seem all that thrilled with Meloni’s victory. Hmmmm…I wonder why…

Giorgia Meloni

What the Left thinks it means – the second coming of Mussolini and the sign the far right is taking over Europe

What it really means – the wrong kind of female political leader for the Left, which means the right kind for the rest of us

The Left relies heavily on females to advance its agenda, whether it be in office, positions of power in academia, or even working the help desk at your local DMV. When a woman outside of the Leftist hivemind gets into one of those positions of power, though, it throws a King Kong-sized monkey wrench into the power dynamic the Left has worked so hard to create. After all, we can’t have women thinking for themselves or they might do something crazy, like voting for a Republican, amirite?

That’s why the Left focuses on issues many women feel are important. Abortion rights, climate change, the pay gap, and so on. If they offered bottles or boxes of wine in some communities, the Left would never lose another election for at least 50 years. But just like not every woman loves wine, not every woman feels the way the Left does on the aforementioned issues. Instead of being accepting and tolerant (you know, like they claim they are), Leftists treat these women worse than Ike treated Tina.

Although this works most of the time to keep women on the Left, it creates a built-in conundrum about the agency of women. On the one hand, Leftists say women (and in some cases pre-teen and teen girls) are strong, capable, and smart enough to make decisions about issues that affect their lives. On the other, those same women can’t be trusted to make decisions about school choice, abortion, gun rights, and so on, so they need Leftists to think for them.

And that’s before we consider the Left still doesn’t know what a woman is!

All kidding aside (and by all I mean some), the Left continues to be a woman’s worst enemy because they don’t see women as anything but political pawns. In doing so, they’ve managed to convince millions of women that anyone that doesn’t subscribe to the ever-shifting-and-often-contradictory Leftist ideology is a traitor to womanhood. Twitter is full of Leftist women who openly chastise women for voting for a Republican because, according to the Left, Republicans hate women.

That’s going to come as a pretty big shock to a lot of women, Republican or otherwise.

But it goes beyond Republicans. Any woman who fails to drink deeply from the Blue Kool-Aid gets attacked for not being a real Leftist. Just ask Tulsi Gabbard, who was accused of being a Russian asset by Hillary Clinton, a woman with actual and direct ties to Russia and Vladimir Putin.

It’s this type of deliberate misinformation that is being used against Giorgia Meloni to paint her as Mussolini 2: Electric Boogaloo. To hear the Left speak on the subject (provided you’re into that kind of pain), Meloni was anti-immigrant, anti-LBGTQRSTUVCANTHEYADDANYMORELETTERS, and generally not a very nice person. What does she and her party, the Brothers of Italy, support? If only there were a website that outlined those positions…oh, wait, there is. Here’s a short list of some of their platform points.

– Pro-choice up to 3 months
– Equal pay for both genders (and, yes, there are still two)
– Increased environmental regulations
– Stay in the European Union
– Raising the minimum wage

Wow. Truly scary stuff, isn’t it? I am literally shaking over this. Well, either that or the furnace is on the blink and it’s the temperature of a cold snap at Ice Station Zebra.

Either way, there is a bit of a problem for Leftists wanting to make Meloni look like a fascist: there are a lot of areas where the Left and she overlap. Sure, there are some planks where they’re as different as cats and dinosaurs, but it’s dishonest to overlook the areas where there are areas of agreement.

Which is why the Left is doing it.

Since I have no dog in the fight, I decided to take a look at the platform and found it to be pretty middle of the road. Not overly liberal, not overly conservative, but apparently in line with the Italian public, if election results are any indication. And as the Left is so fond of telling us, questioning the results of an election is a bad thing.

Based on the coverage so far, which has been as far removed from reality as one could be without heavy sedatives laced with hallucinogens, Giorgia Meloni will be facing a dishonest press desperate to turn her into the very monster they want her to be, even if she doesn’t do anything that would lead any sane (i.e. non-Leftist) person to believe them. In other words, she’s the Italian Ron DeSantis. But something tells me she’s going to handle the Leftists in the press (a redundancy, I know) just fine.

Mainly, because I know how fucking stupid Leftists can be.








We’re At a Tipping Point…Again

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

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

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

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

Absolutely nothing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Remember when Bill Maher was Leftist Jesus..you know if they actually believed in Jesus? During Republican Administrations, Maher would consistently rail against what he saw were Republican mistakes and idiocy, and Leftists cheered. Then, when Joe Biden became President and Maher started railing against what he saw were Democrat mistakes and idiocy, the Left no longer found him to be a voice of truth. But they did find him to be a traitor.

Welcome to the party, Bill. Go grab some punch and a cookie.

The reason I brought up Bill Maher (something I try not to do much for the sake of my sanity) is he recently introduced a Leftist term I hadn’t heard before: presentism. Apparently, Leftists are applying this whenever they discuss history, and it may be coming to a history discussion near you.

presentism

What the Left thinks it means – framing historical figures and events with modern sensibilities

What it really means – holding the past up to present standards to establish modern superiority

There’s an old saying, “History is written by the victors.” Although, these days, it could be written by the Victor/Victorias, but that’s not important right now. The saying refers to how some aspects of history get ignored or forgotten because people tend only to think in terms of winners and losers. Leftists have seized upon this tendency to push for what they call a more comprehensive view of history, i.e. downplaying the “white” view of history in favor of the histories of marginalized people.

And that’s how we get Post-Modern Native American Albino Lesbian Literary History degrees.

It’s all a part of the Left’s intellectual (stop laughing!) approach to all academic fields called intersectionality. Although this could be a Leftist Lexicon entry in and of itself, the long and the short of it is every form of oppression overlaps with others, like racism and sexism. By recognizing it, Leftists hope to undo the damage by…well, they haven’t figured that part out yet, but it has lead to some interesting discussions on who is considered more oppressed in a country where they’re allowed to drive, vote, and dress like Miley Cyrus during a performance at a strip club. Or, as she calls it, Tuesday.

By framing everything in terms of oppression, the Left has created a hellscape where just about everyone is oppressed to some degree. Unless, of course, you’re a straight white male. Then, you’re everybody’s asshole. Of course, I already have a lot of Leftists think I’m an asshole, so it’s nothing new.

Presentism plays into this framework by allowing Leftists to dictate the standards by which figures of the past (i.e. straight white males) are to be held without those figures even knowing it. Because, you know, they’re dead. That gives the Left all the power to frame the past with none of the piddly little details that add a little something the Left has a love/hate relationship with called context.

When I was in college back when dinosaurs still roamed the Earth, Leftists at the time were up in arms over Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn because of the book’s use of the n-word. I won’t give the whole word for a number of reasons, not the least of which being I want to save Chris the headache of having to answer more angry emails about me than he usually gets. In their attempt to virtue signal before such a thing was a thing, they ignored a lot of context, namely the historical backdrop for the story and how Huck became the voice of those who wanted to treat blacks like everyone else. If it weren’t for people who actually read the book for comprehension rather than to find naughty words, there might be a generation that wouldn’t even know who Huck Finn was long before YouTube turned their brains into tapioca pudding.

On the other hand, it prepared them in case they ever got elected to be President of the United States.

The same attitude the Left used over Huck Finn is the same drawback presentism faces today: the lack of context. I’ll be the first one to admit human history is rife with events and attitudes that elicit shame and disappointment (like when Gary Cherone took over singing duties in Van Halen). Having said that, the people then didn’t have the advantage we have of being able to look back at the historical record. In more than a few of these dark periods of history, what happened was unprecedented because it had literally never happened before with the circumstances they had to work with. It’s like trying to put together a jigsaw puzzle in the dark blindfolded while strapped to a ticking time bomb. You’re going to make mistakes, and the results won’t always be good.

Then, there’s human nature to consider. Contrary to Leftist belief, yet completely consistent with their actions and thoughts concerning others who disagree with them, humans are assholes. We will consistently choose evil over good for whatever reason we can justify in our own heads. Hatred, lust, greed, convenience, having to listen to “Baby Shark” on repeat because your child loves it, and so on. It is only through work, thought, and determination that we overcome our base nature to be better, and you can’t regulate your way to that end.

Can you say “War on Drugs,” kids? I knew you could.

In spite of those dark periods, there are points of light that Leftists will likely overlook or disregard because of the race, gender, and sexual orientation of the ones responsible for them. Take William Wilberforce, for example. During the British slave trade, Wilberforce worked to end it at great personal expense and against the prevailing attitudes of the time. But given the Left’s current prevailing attitudes towards white men (especially Christian white men like Wilberforce), I’m guessing he’s going to be mentioned well after someone like Cardi B.

Which is to say probably never because, well, Cardi B.

The big issue with presentism for me is how easily it can be manipulated for ideological gain. And by “can be” I mean “will be.” With Leftists controlling academia, they have all the power and, since they’re around other Leftists, none of the accountability. Combine the two and you have the perfect storm of academic and historical malpractice through the revision of history in real time. It will be like Wikipedia, but with more academics signing off on it.

Of course, nothing bad will come from academics signing off on bad ideas just to fit in, right? That reminds me, how is Michael Mann’s “hockey stick graph” holding up these days?

The worst thing we can do right now is to overlook how far-reaching presentism is. We’ve seen how Common Core has fucked up math and English, and presentism will wind up no differently from where I sit. And as George Santayana once wrote, “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Or was it my high school history teacher threatening summer school if I didn’t get my grades up?

Either way, we will have to be on our toes and make sure what is being presented as historical fact meshes with actual historical facts. Yes, that will require us to be honest about our past, even the dingy corners of it, because that is the only way we will have the intellectual high ground. Opting for a version of history that just so happens to fit our beliefs doesn’t achieve this. We have to be above board because we know the Left won’t be.

So, Bill Maher was good for at least one thing. Yay…I guess?




Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The latest battleground for the fight over illegal immigration is a lot further north than you might expect. I’m talking about the Leftist haven, Martha’s Vineyard. It turns out Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis decided to fly several immigrants to Martha’s Vineyard to show them a better life. You know, Leftist utopias where everyone is super educated and live incredibly well? Away from conservative hellholes where racism, sexism, xenophobia, and homophobia are rampant and the people are uneducated rubes?

Well, let’s just say Leftists aren’t greeting their new immigrant neighbors with open arms. In fact, Leftists are circulating the idea the aforementioned Governors with brass balls the size of, say, Pluto are guilty of human trafficking. And by circulating, I mean repeating the same squawking points with steadily increasing volume and frequency. As we’re about to find out, the squawking point has a deeper origin than even the Left has considered.

human trafficking

What the Left thinks it means – Republican Governors sending asylum seekers to other parts of the country against their will

What it really means – Leftists not understanding the issue, like, at all

Illegal immigration has a number of facets that often get glossed over in the debate on what to do with the immigrants we catch, and human trafficking is one such facet. And it’s not a once-in-a-while problem, either. The 2021 numbers show a stark picture of the scope of the human trafficking problem, but those are just the cases we know about. Government agencies from ICE to Customs and Border Protection and non-government organizations like the ACLU are sounding the alarm and efforts to reach as many people as possible are evident to anyone who’s used a convenience store bathroom can tell.

Good thing Leftists aren’t trying to demonize and/or eliminate ICE and the Border Patrol, right? Oh, wait…

So, what exactly is human trafficking? There are a number of definitions floating around there, but the general consensus involves the exploitation of people for sex, work, or services through coercion, deception, or force. For the purposes of this discussion, though, I want to use the definition provided by the United Nations:

Human trafficking involves the recruitment, movement or harbouring of people for the purpose of exploitation – such as sexual exploitation, forced labour, slavery or organ removal. Victims can be children or adults, boys, girls, men or women, and are trafficked by the use of improper means such as the threat or use of force, fraudulent schemes, deception, or abuse of power. It can occur within a country or across borders. Human trafficking is therefore characterized by an act (recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring, or receipt of people), specific means (threats or use of force, deception, fraud, abuse of power, or abusing someone’s vulnerable condition) for the purpose of exploitation (for example sexual exploitation, forced labour, slavery or organ removal).

To the Left, what DeSantis and Abbott are doing fits the UN’s definition of human trafficking perfectly because, as they frame it, they are exploiting the immigrants for political points. And since they’re being flown to different parts of the country, it’s a slam dunk, right?

Not so much. One of the aspects of the UN’s definition is recruitment. Both Abbott and DeSantis have been vocal in their efforts to try to stem the tide of illegal immigration, with Abbott taking specific action to enforce immigration law which the federal government doesn’t seem to want to do. And considering Florida and Texas are two of the top 3 states of reported human trafficking cases, I’m thinking DeSantis and Abbott might just have a vested interest in not encouraging any activity that would make those numbers worse.

In fact, it’s not Republicans who are rolling out the red carpet for illegal immigration. It’s the Democrats. By framing every immigrant as either escaping horrible conditions or wanting to make a better life here, they have done to illegal immigration what Glamour Shots did for housewives in the 80s and 90s: using tricks to hide or soften the imperfections and give a beautiful, albeit distorted, view of the subject.

Now, consider what impact that has on human trafficking. The Left makes no distinction between Raul who crosses the border illegally to find work and Pedro who crosses the border illegally to make money by exploiting people of all ages to fill the needs and wants of his clients. Maybe it’s me, but I think there’s a huge fucking difference here. Both are breaking the law, but only one of them drags other people with him into exploitation.

No wonder the Left wants people to think DeSantis and Abbott are the evil ones here. Well, that, and the fact they’re both Republicans who aren’t afraid of Leftists not liking them. If Leftists admit there are bad actors (and I’m not talking about Brie Larson) mixed in with the “good guys” coming across the border…illegally, it would not only ruin the rosy picture they’ve been painting for decades, but it would lend credence to what DeSantis and Abbott have been saying. And Lord knows Leftists hate to admit they were wrong.

There’s another reason the Left is freaking out about illegal immigrants heading to Martha’s Vineyard: DeSantis and Abbott are forcing Leftists to live by their own ideas. Remember when Leftist communities were fighting each other to get attention for being “sanctuary cities”? Well, it’s easy to make such proclamations when you aren’t dealing with a steady influx of illegal immigrants. You know, like Martha’s Vineyard? Once the immigrants start arriving, the Leftist welcome mats start disappearing, along with the signs saying “No person is illegal.”

The late comedian George Carlin made an observation about homelessness that has some application here in the form of the abbreviation NIMBY, which means Not In My Back Yard. Leftists talk a great game when it comes to helping people (usually in the form of more government), but they don’t always walk the walk when presented with the opportunity, as the citizens of Martha’s Vineyard have now.

Annnnnnnd they decided to ship their new neighbors to a military complex because…reasons?

Your compassion is underwhelming, Leftists.

When it comes to human trafficking, though, we need much more than words and stickers on bathroom mirrors. Yet, I’m not sure America is quite ready for the discussion and action needed to make real change. Both sides of the political spectrum have a vested interest in keeping the illegal immigration and subsequently the human trafficking issues alive to retain power over their respective voting blocs. But we’re dealing with human lives here, and there shouldn’t be an ideological divide. Yet, here we are.

And the Left isn’t helping matters any by throwing around accusations of human trafficking against two of the Republican Governors who have given the the most fits in the past few years. At the rate it’s going now, Leftists are going to wear out the “human trafficking” label like they’ve worn out the “fascist” label by overusing it to the point of irrelevance.

Then again, if you had as horrible a record on human trafficking as the Left does, you’d want to bring everyone else down to your level, too.

The Queen is Dead. Long live the King.

Queen Elizabeth II has passed away and the world mourns her loss with England. For many of us we have only know a Queen being on the throne in Buckingham Palace. And now there is a King.

For many years I personally believed that the English monarchy would die if Charles became King. And I hoped that Elizabeth would out live her son so the crown would pass to Prince William instead of his father.

Queen Elizabeth leaves behind a 70 year legacy of rule. The longest ever for a British monarch. And she was a faithful servant of Christ and a good shepherd for the English people.

Now her son reigns in her stead as Charles III. A poor choice in a regal name given how the two previous English Kings ruled with that name.

But I am hopeful here, after a few chats with some of my English friends. They are hopeful as well for King Charles III and his reign. And we all just must accept the changes that are happening and will happen in His Majesty’s government.

Maybe third time is a charm for the Kings of England who go by the name of Charles.

One thing is for certain. King Charles III will not be on the throne as long as his beloved mother. At 73 years old, he is already in the sunset years of his life and the next monarch will also be a King. Perhaps ruling as William IV if my counting is correct.

I could very well see 3 English monarchs in my lifetime if the monarchy survives.