For those of you who don’t know, I studied journalism in college. And in my defense, I was young, dumb, and in love. Now, I’m old, dumb, and in love, but that’s besides the point.
I bring up that therapy-inducing memory to ease you into this week’s Lexicon entry involving journalism. During my studies, the Associated Press was one of the gold standards in the news game and was generally considered a neutral source of information. Oh, how times have changed.
This past week (please check local listings for the week in your area) the AP broke the cardinal sin of journalism by becoming the story rather than reporting it. And it’s all over a body of water, the Gulf of Mexico/America. President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order renaming the Gulf, but the AP refused to acknowledge it. As a result, the White House barred an AP reporter from an Executive Order signing ceremony and other events and trips on Air Force One, which of course lead to the AP suing members of the Trump Administration for the act.
And you thought high profile divorces were messy.
Anyway, for its efforts to gain my attention, let’s take the Associated Press on a tour of Leftist Lexicon Land!
the Associated Press
What the Left thinks it means – a trusted news source and vibrant defender of the free press
What it really means – another water carrier for the Left, this one masquerading as a wire service
To complete my old curmudgeon cosplay, I must invoke the “back in my day” power.
Back in my journalism days, there was an expectation of neutrality in news reporting because journalists at the time believed personal biases would get in the way of the public interest. This commitment to serving the public before advancing an agenda is what helped build a stronger, more intelligent society.
Then Watergate happened. The country’s eyes were opened to the dirty corners of our halls of power, and it created a rise in the interest of journalism as a form of activism. Now, instead of just reporting the news, reporters would seek out the news related to a particular evil they wanted to expose and uproot.
There is nothing inherently wrong or unethical in this, mind you. But it opens the reporter up to letting emotions (and possibly greed) taint the end result. Yes, you’re still trying to meet the public need for information, but you also have a personal stake in the outcome. That leads to potential conflicts of interest.
Not that modern journalism has any problems with that. This may come as a surprise to you, but our media sources tend to lean left more than a runner trying to avoid getting tagged out at first during a pickoff attempt. In other news, the Chicago Cubs are already eliminated from post season play before spring training, but that’s not important right now. By taking a side, journalism has gone from being watchdogs to lapdogs, and as much as I love lapdogs, I would prefer journalists play it straight.
The Associated Press used to do that, but has since moved more towards the Left, as slight as some think it has. Even if it’s considered to be factual and, thus, credible, the bias still poses a problem because it can lead to misinformation.
Of course, the AP and its defenders will say it’s fighting against misinformation through fact checks, even the slightest implication that is supported by an extrapolation of the fact checks they do can be misinformation in and of itself. Take the fact checks the AP does and who tends to be the target of those fact checks, namely conservatives. Leftists claim fact checkers have to do more fact checking on the Right because they lie all the time, but there’s one tiny problem with that.
It’s a little thing the kids like to call confirmation bias. When you have a set of beliefs as we all do, you tend to reject information that contradicts those beliefs and accept information that conforms to them. So, when a certain allegedly credible source of journalism decides to fact check the Right more than the Left, that gives the impression that…wait for it, kids…the Right lies more than the Left.
But it also gives the impression the AP covers up the lies of the Left more frequently.
Of course, Leftists and the AP would never admit that because it would expose the misinformation they both agree with, but that’s that’s neither here nor there. The point is the AP has a credibility problem.
Which brings us to their lolsuit. (And, no, that’s not a typo.)
The AP is arguing their ban violates the First and Fifth Amendments, more specifically the freedom of the press and due process, specifically. Not to be pedantic, but both arguments are bullshit to anyone with even a Schoolhouse Rock level of Constitutional knowledge. Or anyone who can read, which might be over the journalism class’s pay grade, but here we go.
The freedom of the press argument doesn’t work because of five little words from the First Amendment. Sing along if you know the words:
Congress shall make no law
Since this beef is between the White House and the AP, Congress doesn’t have a role and, thus, the First Amendment doesn’t apply. Even if you accept the notion freedom of the press is being violated by the Administration, there is a secondary problem, that being access. Just because you’re a reporter doesn’t give you a VIP pass to go where you want for a story. You see, the freedom of the press doesn’t equate to a right to access. What the AP’s First Amendment argument tries to do is establish they have a right to be where the President is.
Of course, if I were advising the legal team defending the Administration officials, I would limit that access to only when the President is in the can, but that’s just me.
More to the point, the press pool tends to be rotated and cover various beats, so the AP being excluded from certain events isn’t as egregious as they want you to think it is. And what’s more, there are these things called pool reporters who compile the news from multiple sources and pass it along to those media outlets who didn’t get the luck of the press pool draw. This doesn’t impede the AP’s ability to distort…I mean report the news, so there is no violation.
In short, get that weak-sauce shit outta here, AP!
Now for the Fifth Amendment. Let’s start with the text itself.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness agThe ainst himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The AP’s argument in this case is based on the “due process of law” element, suggesting their ban was put in place without being allowed a day in court. Aside from all the reasons I cited above as far as access, there’s also another pedantic but vital detail: there is no allegation of a crime. This whole thing, as fucking stupid as it is, surrounds the name of a body of water. Even if the Gulf of Mexico self-identifies as the Gulf of America, it matters not. The AP isn’t being denied due process so much as it’s being denied a spot at the table over a disagreement outside of any legal constructs.
No allegation of crime? No violation of due process.
Checkmate, bitches.
Of course, the AP and its defenders will try to argue the contrary and may actually score a court victory depending on which Leftist judge gets a chance to shit on the Constitution to give them a victory over the Evil Orange Man. Which will give them reason to crow…at least until the case makes it to the Supreme Court or gets laughed out of court by a judge who reads beyond an AP reporter’s grade level.
How the mighty have fallen. From globally trusted news source to the punchline of a blogger’s weekly journey into Leftist madness.
Seems they’re getting off a little light, don’t you think?
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
This is a continuation of sorts of my previous Leftist Lexicon entry about government waste. If you haven’t read it, you can read it here. If you have, read it again! We could use the clicks!
While discussing the giant Leftist slush fund…I mean humanitarian aid provider USAID, Leftists tried to go all geopolitical on us by talking about “soft power.” And, no, it’s not the power that drives the ice cream machines at McDonalds because a) it doesn’t involve electricity, and b) those machines never fucking work.
Much like Leftists.
Anyway, I figured we could take a spin around the Leftist mind on this topic, just as long as we don’t run into anything important. Something tells me…that’s not gonna be an issue
soft power
What the Left thinks it means – using non-military solutions to bolster relationships between the US and countries that may be persuaded to work with us
What it really means – mostly just paying foreign countries to like us, no matter how dickish we are
To put it in simple terms, hard power is using our guns to get our way (or as they call it in parts of Texas, Tuesday). Soft power is using a fruit basket instead of guns to try to get our way. And by “fruit basket” I mean money. Lots of money.
Although a lot of soft power comes with a price tag with more zeroes than the line-up at MSNBC’s recent Democratic National Committee chair forum, there are non-fiscal means to try to persuade a foreign country to work with us. Like sending over food or helping build water wells. There may be a cost to do that, but it’s not the primary focus. That comes later.
But keep in mind America isn’t the only country in the world that uses soft power. Any country with something to offer, large or small, can use soft power to move the needle. But it’s mostly the big boys, like America, Russia, and China, who swing the biggest sticks.
That’s where the Left’s defense of USAID comes from: the potential that we don’t swing a big enough stick. It’s their idea if we don’t send money to produce an Iraqi version of Sesame Street or help get a trans-friendly musical off the ground, one of the other big guns is going to step in and fill the void we leave by not wasting money.
Now, on the surface, that makes sense. If we need to spend money to keep a foreign country from going the way of the Star Wars franchise, why not drop a few bucks into its hat? It helps them, it helps us, and everybody wins except for the countries who want to take our spot.
Of course, it’s a bit more complicated than that. Soft work works best when there are legitimate mutual benefits to be had. Sure, you can drop a few million on the heads of the citizens of BassAckwardsistan, but what do you expect to get from them in return? What strategic benefit do we get from a favorable relationship with BassAckwardsistan? What can we deny other countries who want the relationship with BassAckwardistan by flexing our soft power muscle?
And at the core of the scenario, what is our current relationship with BassAckwardsistan?
The lack of presence in an area doesn’t automatically open it up to other countries’ soft power efforts because they may not want a relationship either. Going back to the BassAckwardsistan example (mainly because I love typing it), let’s say their only strategic asset is the little plastic tables they put in pizza boxes to prevent the box from hitting the pizza. Sure, it would be a boon to pizza places everywhere, but we might be able to handle that high-level tech on our own. And if you’re in a country where pizza isn’t exactly a must-have, having a favorable relationship with BassAckwardsistan isn’t a priority, so you’re not going to pursue one in favor of relationships that better fit your needs.
Under normal circumstances, this wouldn’t be an excuse to throw money at BassAckwardsistan, but to Leftists it’s the perfect excuse. I mean, you don’t want Russia and China to get access to that kind of pizza-related technology, right?
Sounds vaguely familiar…like circa early 2000s “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” familiar. But that would be fucking stupid, and we know Leftists aren’t that fucking stupid, right?
Not so much.
Let’s try a more realistic (i.e. not BassAckwardsistan) example. As part of the Trump White House’s initial salvo on the wasteful spending done by USAID, there was mention of $70,000 doing to produce a DEI musical in Ireland. This is an example of the usage of soft power the Left uses to justify the spending. I mean, I don’t think Russia or China support DEI musicals, but after the past few years, I shouldn’t be surprised by anything.
Now, for the kink in the Left’s plan. According to our State Department, US-Irish relations seem pretty good. That in and of itself negates any soft power arguments the Left can make. There is no opportunity to make the relationship better, and the expenditure itself is so specific that it would only affect a small section of the Irish people. The needle wouldn’t move, and there’s no indication China and/or Russia would swoop in and pay for it. And in China’s case, an hour after you fund it, you’re hungry again.
I’ll see myself out.
Actually, before I do, we should see the Left’s use of soft power to explain away the more questionable expenditures as what it really is: a way for the Left to use our money for their ideological purposes with no consideration of whether such spending has any effect on the relationship we’re allegedly trying to create or maintain. On a completely different level, it shows the Left has no fucking idea of how soft power works and is using the term to make themselves seem smarter than they actually are. After all, USAID helped Hamas, and I’m gonna go out on a limb and say they’re not going to be inviting us over to their hovels for Ramadan anytime soon.
But this is to be expected. An 8 year old boy playing Call of Duty has more military knowledge than any Leftist, if not most of them. And you don’t even need to have a military background to figure this shit out. The logic just doesn’t, you know, logic. At some point, the countries willing to take our money are just taking our money without any thought of soft power. Good luck explaining that to a Leftist.
Since it’s going to be a hopeless cause getting Leftists to understand the difference between soft power and just throwing money at a problem, we can only work on ourselves. And much like I said in my previous blog post on government waste, we must be open to the possibility we need to cut something our side agrees with if it serves no positive ends. Just because we think it will help doesn’t make it okay to waste money if we can’t justify it. Don’t be a hypocrite, no matter how good it may feel.
Oh, and point and laugh at Leftists talking about soft power, no matter how good it may feel.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
This past week had more Leftists’ heads exploding than, well, since last week. Among the numerous outrages and impotent protests against Donald Trump and his plans to remake government, it seems we found out a certain government agency has been spending money like a drunken fleet at a whorehouse in Amsterdam.
In other words, spending like they were Congresscritters.
Throughout this discussion trying to reconcile humanitarian aid with condoms for al Qaeda (and I wish I was making that up), the subject of government waste has come front and center. As a result, I would be remiss if I didn’t discuss it in some fashion, mainly because it will piss off the Left and that’s always fun!
government waste
What the Left thinks it means – a rarity in government only harped on by Republicans and Conservatives wanting to destroy the social safety net
What it really means – par for the course in Washington
Before we jump in, there are some foundational ideas we need to discuss. The concept of government waste is foreign to the Left because to them government is the sole source of all that is good and right in the world. By extension, anything government spends must be in pursuit of all that is good and right in the world. And cutting spending? You might as well say you want to drown Leftists’ cats.
You know, because they hate kids?
Anyway, the concept of government as Daddy Warbucks (one of the few wars Leftists have no problem supporting) makes addressing government waste more difficult because in order for them to address it, they would have to change their minds. And that’s tougher than you think. Leftists are notoriously stubborn and unwilling to admit they’re wrong.
How do I know this? I was one of them for a long time, and I can’t chalk up my stubborn streak completely to being part German.
That’s not to say they’ll never do it. To their credit, Leftists have been complaining about military spending, and I have to agree there is a lot of room to improve there. After all, if they spend $450 on a hammer that I can get at a local hardware store for a fraction of that price, that’s clear government waste.
Come to think of it, that could apply to Congresscritters….
Meanwhile back at the main point, the Left have a number of ways to continue the wonderful world of waste. Some of it, like with USAID, is done in plain sight because they know no one will really look at it. It’s a line item in a federal budget that gets sent over to the agency to dispense as it sees fit. Which apparently includes a transgender opera in Columbia (again, I wish I were making that up).
There are also non-government organizations (NGOs to the hip kids out there) that handle a cornucopia of issues. Which can lead to a cornucopia of waste. Because of what they are, they operate in an area where they get public funding, but don’t have the levels of oversight government agencies do, which makes it a perfect way to waste money without accountability. Nice work if you can scam it!
Then, there’s word magic, as I like to call it. This is when someone comes up with a long and complicated name for a common item, which invariably makes it sound more impressive/expensive. Imagine coming across a vertically operational transcribing tool with an internal liquid disbursement system. Sounds pretty awesome, right? You happily spend the $100 or however much it costs, and you get sent…
A fucking pen.
That’s government spending for you in a nutshell, or a nutcase if you’re dealing with Rep. Jasmine Crockett. So, how do we fix it? Well, we don’t have to worry about Leftists fucking up our plans, so there’s that.
The first step is what the Trump Administration and Elon Musk are doing now: identifying the waste. And the way they’re doing it makes it all the better. By putting it on blast, anyone who wants to do some digging can verify the information and act accordingly, which in this case would be pissed. And the cherry on the top of this government waste sundae? Leftists now have to defend spending money to promote tourism in Egypt (again, I wish I were making that up) and other silly expenditures. Sure, they’ll link it back to humanitarian efforts like fighting hunger, but they haven’t gotten around to explaining how spending $70,000 for a DEI musical in Ireland (you know the words, so sing along!) helps feed a starving child.
Why, it’s almost as if…Leftists don’t want to discuss government waste because a lot of the shit they promote is government waste. Funny how that works out isn’t it?
Now, to my friends on the Right, I have to advise you government waste isn’t just a Leftist thing. If we’re going to be serious about reducing waste, we have to be willing to look at things we want/need that can be less expensive to obtain. Providing for the common defense is in the Preamble of the Constitution, but that doesn’t give us the government’s black diamond American Express card to spend on whatever we want regardless of the price. We have to be willing to take a scalpel and a chainsaw to the waste so we get rid of the fat without getting rid of those things that actually do good.
So, I guess my suggestion is to be somewhere between a sensible budget hawk and Ron Swanson. Just don’t touch Ron’s bacon, or mine for that matter.
Meanwhile, to my Leftist friends, understand this is a necessary process. We can’t keep running up the national debt and having other countries own a significant chunk of it without making a change. And, yes, that means some of your sacred cows are going to have to become hamburger (or if you prefer, impossible meat) to make progress. After all, you can’t fund your transgender comic in Peru (one more time!) with government funds if your country is bankrupt.
But I can’t leave you Leftists without an option. If you really feel passionate about funding a project…fund it your own damn self! Don’t rely on government to pick up your tab, especially when that tab is using tax dollars of people who might not share your passion. Leave the tax dollars for shit we actually need, like national defense, infrastructure, and stuff that is more universally accepted. So, start your GoFundMe for your pet projects and Go Fuck Yourself if you can’t get it done without Uncle Sam.
Government waste affects us all one one level or another, and we have to rein it in somehow. Say what you will about Trump and Musk (and I know you will), they’re at least trying to do just that. And if you’re screaming about cutting government waste, think about the reason why. It may not be because essential services are getting slashed, but because your shit is about to be exposed.
So, good luck with that.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Another week, another round of Senate hearings over the nominees President Donald Trump has put forward for consideration. And that’s on top of the other bullshit that’s been going on with Executive Orders, illegal immigration, and, oh yeah, Leftist freakouts over it all.
But one of the craziest shitstorms came during the nomination hearing for Trump’s nominee for the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Between Chief Running Mouth Senator Elizabeth Warren sticking up for Big Pharma while sounding like a shrew (to be fair, that’s her everyday voice) and Senator Bernie Sanders shitting his onesie over literal onesies, I was reminded why I hold politicians in such low esteem: they make the functioning humans look bad.
While the Senate treated us to some of the worst theatrics this side of an off-off-off-off-Broadway production of “Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark” done by Miss Reedy’s second grade class, there was another massive figure in the Senate chamber (aside from Senators’ egos) that had as much to do with the theatrics as it did the confirmation hearing itself. I’m talking of Big Pharma, the entity every Leftist hates…or do they?
Big Pharma
What the Left thinks it means – an entity that makes people suffer with illness so they can make a buck
What it really means – an entity that provide both a punching bag and a source of income for Leftists
America has a health care problem, several actually. One of the biggest ones is Americans typically don’t give a fuck about health care until they don’t get it for one reason or another. A lot of this can be traced back to our society where we want to do the least amount of work for the most amount of benefit. I mean, if there’s a pill or a shot we can take so we can fill our gullets with deep fat fried unknown chicken parts smothered in gravy (because the chicken makes it healthy), we’ll go that route every time.
That’s where Big Pharma comes in. Like most business models, the end goal is to create profit whenever possible. And when you have a business model that requires people to be less-than-healthy, that profit comes from human suffering. Or at least the concept of human suffering. Although modern medicine can and has developed ways to help improve the lives of those afflicted with diseases or conditions, Big Pharma has also sold us on the idea we can live better lives if we just inject this or ingest that. Now, Mom, Dad, Billy, Suzie, Grandma Mabel, and the family dog Scruffy can live a better life free from the annoying and personally devastating effects of…whatever malady they can come up with to sell their products.
This is where the Left actually has a point other than the ones on top of their heads. Pharmaceutical companies can be a bit on the shady side, which is like saying Michael Moore is a little husky. As much of a capitalist as I am, I can’t really say the way Big Pharma does business is legit. Even if your drug is going to be a game-changer, it’s hard to reconcile the good it will do with the bad it takes to get there. Overall, you need to have a real moral vacuum in your soul to be a Big Pharma employee.
And that brings us to Congress.
To put it mildly and geekily, Capitol Hill makes Mos Eisley look like Amish country. And for any Amish readers out there, I’m sorry for comparing you to Capitol Hill. Also, how in the fuck are you reading this?
Anyway, one of the areas where Big Pharma has a lot of power is in Congress. And in the halls of Congress, money talks to both sides. Remember this for later because it will come in handy.
Although Big Pharma swings a big…hypodermic needle, there are some who see what they do and aren’t afraid to speak out. One of those individuals is…the aforementioned Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Regardless of what you think of the man, the fact remains he puts his money where his mouth is and promotes good science when it comes to vaccines. Now, who would be opposed to that?
Big Pharma. And their minions in Congress.
When you take on a big entity like Big Pharma, you put a big target on your back and expect to hit once in a while. If you’re connected to Donald Trump in any way, you might as well grab a helmet because you’re going to get bombarded.
Just ask RFK Jr.
Fortunately for him, the metaphorical sharpshooters (i.e. Senate Democrats) are the Gang Who Couldn’t Shoot Straight. With every gotcha question, every bit of theatrics, and every bit of disregard for parliamentary decorum, Kennedy looked and sounded like the adult in the room. Mainly because, well, he was.
But there’s another tie that binds the Senate Democrats questioning Kennedy together. Remember what I said earlier about Big Pharma playing both sides? Yeah, each of the Senate Democrat big hitters are Big Pharma puppets.
Chief Running Mouth? $822,573 from 2019 to 2020.
Bernie Sanders? Almost $2 million since 1990.
Ron Wyden? $351,513.
Maggie Hassan? $313,576.
Angela Alsobrooks? $96,643.
Tim Kaine? $200,824.
And the shits keep coming! All of these Democrat Senators going after RFK Jr. for trying to hold Big Pharma accountable…all having a financial stake in protecting Big Pharma from people…like RFK Jr. How do it work????
Quite well if you’re a fucking hypocrite.
With both major parties beholden at least in part to Big Pharma, you’re more likely to hear Mazie Hirono ask a salient question than you are to get Big Pharma to shape up. But with Donald Trump pushing for a Make America Healthy Again and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. heading it up, there’s a chance it could happen.
Especially if the Leftists continue to bring their meh game.
A Loss That Could Have Been Prevented
Now that the hoopla over the 2024 election has pretty much died down and the postmortems of the aforementioned election are calming down somewhat (and missing a lot of the points that should have been drawn from it), I wanted to throw my semi-serious hat into the ring and offer a postmortem of a different flavor, one that goes deeper into the Democrats’ 2024 loss than “America is racist and sexist.”
My thoughts? The Democrats would have been in far better shape had Joe Biden lost in 2020.
This seems counterintuitive on its face, but in looking back at the past 4 years, it’s hard to dismiss the possibility Biden winning had more to do with Kamala Harris losing than anything Donald Trump could have done, intentionally or otherwise.
As the poem goes, let me count the ways.
– The blame for the COVID-19 response and any aftermath therein would be firmly on Trump’s shoulders. Would Trump have handled it better? I can’t say for certain, but I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t be any worse.
– Trump would have been out of office sooner. Yes, I know Leftists would up in arms about another 4 years of Trump (just look at how they’re handling it today), but in retrospect, they might be willing to put up with it to not have to endure the second Trump Presidency in the here and now. And speaking of which…
– The Democrats would have had more time to find a better candidate than they had. Let’s face it. Kamala Harris was a poor candidate thrust into the role by people whose only strategy was “Orange Man Bad.” At least we would have had a primary process to weed out the bad candidates (Harris) and find other less bad candidates. Which also brings us to…
– Leftist Governors wouldn’t have felt emboldened by President Biden to take the actions they did. This is more of a future-forward thinking point, but the gist is people like Gavin Newsom, Gretchen Whitmer, and Andrew Cuomo (all of whom were seen as rising stars within Democrat circles) wouldn’t have fallen for the trap of overreach because their guy was in power. As a result, Newsom is looking inept as his state burns, Whitmer isn’t even that much of a figure in Democrat circles, and Cuomo should be in prison for his COVID stupidity. With Trump in charge, these three numbskulls would still have some stroke to come out as the anti-Trump in 2024. Now, they’re lucky if they can be named state chairs of their party caucuses.
– Republicans would have had to find a Trump replacement sooner. With Trump’s defeat in 2020, that kept his legitimacy as a candidate on life support. Had he won, the Republicans would have been scrambling to find a replacement that wasn’t Mike Pence. Nice guy, but he’s like tofu and would have been a lot easier to defeat in 2024 unless the GOP found another Trump-like candidate.
– Kamala Harris would have still been a Senator. This works in one of two ways. First, she could have shored up the concept she was a fierce prosecutor within the safety of the Senate chambers, especially after Tulsi Gabbard ate Harris’s lunch and stole her lunch money besides in 2019. Second, she could have built up her leadership resume a bit more. Instead of being the Kamala Harris we got in 2024, she could have studied the ins and outs of political maneuvering from people like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi to make her minuses look less minus-ey.
– Other potential Presidential candidates wouldn’t have to deal with the fallout from being seen as incompetent under the Biden Presidency. This is more specific to Pete Buttigieg, but it could apply to others. In 2020, Mayor Pete seemed to be confident, competent, and had a good head on his shoulders, thus bridging a gap between the Progressive wing and the Traditional wing of the Democrat Party. While serving as Secretary of Transportation, he showed none of the traits he did as a candidate, including messing up a pretty big disaster in Ohio which made him look incompetent and out of touch. (Not to mention his “breastfeeding” picture that kept him out of sight for about 30 days.)
– There would be no debate over the 2020 election results. Simple logic here. If Biden lost, the MAGA supporters wouldn’t have a place to hang their red MAGA hats on, and a lot of spin, disinformation, and other gobbledygook would have never seen the light of day. Which leads to…
– The “insurrection” wouldn’t have happened. We can debate the facts of what happened on January 6th until Jesus comes back, but the fact is without a Biden win, there would have been no “insurrection.” And as a result…
– There would be no J6 Committee. To put it mildly, the J6 Committee was a farce only one-upped by the way the Department of Justice handled the J6 arrestees. The more we look into it, the more sus things we find out. Imagine not having that around your neck like an albatross! Although I think Adam Schiff’s neck strength would handle it just fine…
– There would be no J6 arrests. Speaking of the DOJ, they did a horrible job respecting the rule of law and even basic Constitutional rights with how they haphazardly doled out punishments, coerced people into confessions that not even the Spanish Inquisition would have cooked up, and held US citizens in jail without being charged with any crimes. Heck, even the charges that were presented weren’t even close to being insurrection.
– The “lawfare” against Trump would have been more effective. Without the protection of the Presidency, Trump and his legal team would have had a much tougher road to hoe to convince judges his claims of immunity were valid, which would have negated or at least delayed the Supreme Court case that gave Trump a “Get Out of Jail Free if You’re the President” card. And I get the feeling that USSC decision is going to come back to bite us all sooner rather than later, but that’s a blog post for another time.
– The 2022 midterm elections would have been more favorable towards Democrats than they were. Granted, there was no “red wave” as predicted by many on the Right, but think of it this way. Americans seem to think a divided government is somehow preferable to the same party controlling the White House and Congress. With all the negatives Trump had at the time, the Democrats would have seen a much more favorable outcome due to the divided government concept and the rising discontent there might have been with Trump.
– The Biden family wouldn’t have been made so public. This covers a lot of ground, including Hunter Biden’s crimes and subsequent pardon, Joe’s mental decline, allegations of Joe showering with a young female relative, the too-frequent gaffes that had to be explained away, and so many more issues both substantial and inconsequential. If Joe Biden lost in 2020, he could have walked off into the sunset and we would have seen him better than he did when he left office.
– The Democrat wouldn’t look like hypocrites when criticizing Trump’s appointees as incompetent. I can’t say for certain, but I get the feeling the vetting process under Joe Biden was “how many minority boxes do you check off” and that was it. From the incompetent to the “how in the heck did you get this job,” the Biden Administration was filled with people who were in way over their heads, but were in charge of some pretty important stuff. Any Democrat who stayed silent when Sam Brinton was running around stealing people’s luggage instead of keeping an eye on nuclear energy should take all the seats before saying anybody Trump appoints is unfit for the job.
– Democrats would have more time to figure out a better message, both in real life and on social media. Let’s face it, folks. Democrats have a weak social media game, and their ground game is antiquated at best. Within four years, they could have spent less time listening to Millennials with a TikTok account and more time at the grassroots level figuring out why their messaging doesn’t resonate as much as it did. The fact a wealthy land developer from New York is now the voice of the working class should embarrass Leftists to no end.
– No Inflation Reduction Act. This one piece of legislation was pretty much the stake in the Harris/Walz campaign’s heart because it showed how out of touch Democrats became. The old saying “all politics is local” is still as relevant as “it’s the economy, stupid,” and Democrats were tone-deaf to both. No matter how much you folks tried to make us believe the economy was doing better than we thought (and calling us stupid if we didn’t agree), it didn’t match with what voters were seeing. It was, and still is, one of the biggest blunders of the Biden Administration.
– The Russia-Ukraine War might not have started. One of the things that stuck in many voters’ craws was the amount of money we were sending to Ukraine to fight off a Russian invasion. In the face of domestic issues like natural disasters, rising inflation, and the economic impact of looting and thievery in major cities, we kinda wanted to know why our money was being sent to a foreign country without question. We can speculate all we want, but in the end, we are still wondering why we’re funding a war overseas. No amount of patriotic bunting can square this circle. Without Biden cutting blank checks to Ukraine, our involvement wouldn’t be so head-scratchingly controversial. Trump ran on not getting us involved in foreign wars, and I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t have gotten us involved in Ukraine.
– The “Tech Bros” and Joe Rogan wouldn’t have seemingly moved rightward. Up until recently, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg , and Joe Rogan among others were consistently left-leaning. But as the Left went further Left, they all had a “come to Jesus” moment and decided to entertain thoughts from the Right. That alone caused Leftists to freak out instead of asking themselves if they were doing something that would make people not associate with the Left anymore. This emboldened others, along with Tulsi Gabbard and Robert Kennedy, Jr., to distance themselves from the Left and break bread with Donald Trump. But at least you still have Harry Sisson…for now.
If you made it this far, thank you for hearing me out. If you haven’t, the Readers Digest Condensed Version is Joe Biden winning in 2020 was the worst thing that could have happened to Democrats on a number of levels. As it stands, we’re now in the timeline where Biden won, which lead to Donald Trump winning and Leftists freaking out over what could have been.
It’s like the old saying: “Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.”
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
History has a tendency to repeat itself at times when you least expect it. Or, if you pay attention to Leftist rhetoric (which may be against the Geneva Convention, or at the very least the 2024 Shriners Convention), it happens every time a Republican gets into office. And if you’re not paying attention, you will Nazi this coming.
See what I did there?
In the waning hours of the Brick Tamland Administration, history repeated itself when he announced the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. This sentiment was echoed by Queen Kamala the Unappointed (see what I did there?), Senator Kirsten “I’m Angela from ‘The Office’ Without the Charm” Gillibrand, and Leftist groups like the Center for American Progress. And just like the previous times the Equal Rights Amendment was at the center of conversation, advocates are proclaiming its necessity to ensure equality between/among the sexes.
Yeah, about that…
Equal Rights Amendment
What the Left thinks it means – a ratified Constitutional Amendment necessary to ensure equality of the sexes
What it really means – an irrelevant Constitutional Amendment that Leftists want to enshrine anyway
Although it’s become a hot topic, the Equal Rights Amendment has a bit of a history. It was first proposed in 1923 as part of the women’s suffrage movement. Eventually, the ERA finally came into being as a proposed Amendment in 1972. The wording is as follows:
Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
This is where things get a little tricky for the ERA. Although it was passed by both houses of Congress, 38 states still had to ratify it, and there was a time limit placed on it. This time frame expired on June 30, 1982. So, that should be the end of it, right?
Ooooh, sor-ray. The Left continued to push for the ERA to be ratified like they would get an ice cream cone after it happened. Well, that explains why Brick Tamland was hot and heavy to get it ratified. Anyway, Virginia ratified the Equal Rights Amendment in January 2020, barely missing the deadline by…let me check my notes here…almost 40 years. So, so close…
In spite of this, the Left continued to push for the ERA to be ratified because a) the conditions were met aside from the time frame, and b) they really wanted women to have equal protection as men. You know, back when they thought there were only two genders? (And at the break, it’s still Genders 2, Leftists 0.)
On the surface, what the ERA stands for is pretty reasonable and a good step. We love people to be treated equally in theory. These days, though, the practice is situational and only when we’re directly impacted. You know, just like when Leftists support police officers until they don’t? And, surprise surprise, the Left is the same way when it comes to women.
The Equal Rights Amendment has become obsolete because society has changed without it. Today, women occupy many high profile positions in business, politics, OnlyFans, and so on. In some areas, they’ve even surpassed men. Maybe it’s just me, but the fact women have these positions shows the ERA is a non-starter. What more equality do women need that isn’t already covered by laws and society?
The quickest answer for the Left is abortion, or as they call it “bodily autonomy” or “health care.” Or maybe they can just call it infrastructure like they did everything else for a time. But even this fails with a cursory knowledge of recent Supreme Court rulings that made abortion a state issue rather than a federal issue. Then, there’s the logic problem. Abortion laws by definition affect women more than men because…and I can’t believe I have to say this in 2025…MEN CAN’T GET PREGNANT. Equality of rights based on sex can’t apply here because there is no equivalent male counterpart to abortion. Oops.
The wage gap? To my knowledge, there are no laws on the books right now mandating women be paid less than men for doing the same job. What’s more, there are already laws and practices on the books that prohibit it, thus the ERA would be a redundancy like having two Leftists scream about the pay gap when none would suffice.
So, this begs the question of why the Left hasn’t done anything substantive about the ERA since the Reagan era. The simple answer? Leftists don’t really give a fuck about women, just their votes and money. The more complex answer? Leftists need women to be victims, even if it’s self-inflicted victimhood. Challenging the ratification status of the ERA or even coming up with another attempt to ratify it when they had control of both houses of Congress was never a top priority to the Leftists in power. After all, we had to save the rare triple breasted albino puddle jumping raven! And how do I know that bird is rare?
Because I just made it up.
Imagine being a Leftist woman and having your equal rights take a back seat to an animal that may or (probably) not affect the world in any way, shape, or form. That should make any sensible Leftist female (a stretch, I know, but I like to dream) pack up shop, take their pink pussy hats, and look for a non-Leftist man to settle down with. But since they think they’re victims of “The Man” or “The Men” or “The Patriarchy,” they stay firmly planted in the back seat and let other causes take all the attention.
And the ERA is part is the mythical carrot that keeps them there.
But there is another angle that few, if any, have explored: the impact the ERA will have on the trans community. While it’s easy and fun to mock the Left’s inability to follow actual science and conclude most people fall into one gender or the other, there is a perverse genius involved. If we accept the Left’s idea that even genders are more complex than they actually are and that there are more that can be claimed merely with an assertion, it throws a lot of things into question.
Like…oh I don’t know…the Equal Rights Amendment.
Once the Left gets a foothold on a legal matter, they will use it as a catapult for other matters only tangentially related to the original matter. That’s how the gay rights movement went from merely asking to be treated like regular people to “bake the cake, bigot.”
I have no hard data to back this up (aside from the fact the Left abandons women like Leonardo DiCaprio does when they turn 25), but having seen how the Left has used other social issues to push an alternate agenda, I can’t rule out the possibility of the ERA being “ratified” by Presidential fiat being used to further their transgender agenda. Or as I am calling it the transgenda.
See what I did there?
Although the Left is going to call the next steps in the ratification process uncertain, that’s only because they know as much about the Constitution as they do about economics: very little, but they’ll still try to convince you otherwise. The fact remains the Equal Rights Amendment had its shot to be ratified within the time limit Congress set and it wasn’t. No matter how many social media posts or proclamations from current and former political figures get made, the ERA is DOA, and it doesn’t l0ok like the Left wants to do the heavy lifting to make it a priority.
Which is fine by me. I’m not a fan of redundancy except when it comes to my jokes and pop culture references, but it’s clear America has moved past the notion that women have only certain societal roles. Now, we can confidently say women can fuck shit up just as well as men can!
Extremist Makeover: Congressional Hearings Edition
If you’re like me (and if you are, I’m sorry), you’re tired of watching Congressional hearings. Whether it’s a Presidential appointee or a witness addressing the ever-important question of who let the dogs out, the script never changes.
1. The Congresscritters who support what the person says/believes throws more softballs than at any given summer weekend.
2. The Congresscritters who reject what the person says/believes will come up with the most bizarre “gotcha” questions designed to make them look like they know what they’re talking about. (Spoiler Alert: if they’re in Congress, it’s usually a good bet they don’t.)
3. Both sides get to crow about how well their Congresscritters did.
4. Nobody changes their minds and votes usually fall along party lines.
5. Congresscritters get paid for doing next to nothing.
Clearly, this is not ideal by any stretch of the imagination, especially from an entertainment perspective. If there’s no mystery about the outcome, you run the risk of being predictable and the audience looking for something else to watch. The attention span of many adults is shorter than that of a ferret high on truck stop speed and with a pure espresso and cane sugar IV drip. So, we have to find a way to hook people early and keep them hooked. And since cocaine is neither free nor legal, that idea is out the window.
One tack to take is to turn every hearing into a reality show. Granted, there’s a good chance the boneheads in DC will find a way to screw this up, but there’s a reason shows like “Big Brother” and “Survivor” keep getting renewed: we get to see people at their best and worst. The human drama is the best drama we have and often we don’t need to do much to bring it out. In most cases, all it takes is for the barista to get your order wrong for it to come flowing out.
A Congressional hearing made like a reality show would be a way to get more eyes on the product and make it more exciting. But we can’t stop there! We will need a panel of judges to point out the high and low points of each person, both Congresscritter and witness/nominee. Plus, it will give Simon Cowell work for the rest of his life, so that’s a draw right there! Just get two or three more people and you have your panel.
And of course, there’s sex. Sex sells, so we have to find a way to add a bit of spice (Channel, that is) to the proceedings. Since people can and usually are dragged through the mud during their hearings, why not bring actual mud into the equation? That’s right, boys and girls, I’m talking about mud wrestling! Granted some of the matches we’d get would be like watching the ladies from “The View” in a burlesque revue, but there are some that would make it well worth the wait. It could also be used to settle squabbles between Congresscritters. Imagine if Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton had taken their disputes into a kiddie pool full of mud instead of dueling. History would be forever changed, and a lot more exciting!
Of course, this approach may remove the gravitas of the hearings, but I would argue it was already removed before I got involved. However, I do understand that concern and I have another solution, and we can all be a part of it. Every chair in the hearing room gets wired to a light, but noticeable electric shock. If the audience feels a Congresscritter or a witness/nominee isn’t telling the truth, is avoiding the question, or is acting the fool, we get to push a button and shock them! Not only will it increase audience participation, but there’s a chance it could work as negative reinforcement so they behave. Get shocked enough, and even the most offensive Congresscritter would get straight and fly right.
Elizabeth Warren and Adam Schiff, consider this your warning.
There’s one more alternative I can give that would remove the clowns from this Congressional three-ring circus The Constitution states the Senate has the right of “advice and consent” when it comes to federal nominees, but it doesn’t say how this advice and consent has to be given. With the advent of social media (and, yes, I guess that counts Bluesky), do we need to spend the time, money, and room space to hold a hearing? This can be done over Zoom, Teams, or any other teleconferencing service and the nominees won’t even need to get out of their pajamas if they choose. Imagine a candidate for the Secretary of Education being grilled while in a Spongebob onesy! Not only would it be cute and enjoyable, but it would elevate the perception of Congressional hearings.
Of course, the politicians would hate this idea because FaceTime wouldn’t give them the media facetime they need to feed their egos. All the more reason to do it!
Let me know if you have any other ideas on how to improve Congressional hearings!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With the incoming Trump Administration, there are going to be a lot of confirmation hearings for his Cabinet. And without exception, Leftists are obsessed with qualifications. To hear them speak (and I’m not sure why you would want to), none of Trump’s appointees have the basic qualifications to tie their own shoes, let alone run a section of the American government.
Let’s just say the irony is not lost on your humble correspondent.
But what exactly do Leftists mean when they talk about qualifications? Good question, and I hope I have a good answer, or at least an answer entertaining enough that you won’t throw your computer in the dumpster.
qualifications
What the Left thinks it means – important characteristics that show someone is capable of doing the job
What it really means – qualities politicians have little room to talk about
First, a bit of a rabbit hole to set up the shitshow proper. Under the Constitution, the Senate has the responsibility of advice and consent. Under normal conditions, this can be a useful tool to determine whether a potential government official has the knowledge, background, and judgment necessary to fulfill the duties of the role. Under current conditions, it’s a way for know-nothing assholes to preen for the cameras and look for their “gotcha” moments. And that’s when the Senate is being less horrible than usual.
Through this advice and consent process, nominees get dragged in front of Senate committees and either given more ball gagging than on a gay porn set (not that I know anything about that, mind you) or a gauntlet of nonsensical, partisan bullshit questions that makes you wonder if the Senators asking them actually want to hear from the nominee.
In other words, any given Tuesday on Capitol Hill.
The reason qualifications is such a buzz word recently is because Democrats and Leftists want to make the public at large believe everyone Trump nominates is dumber than a bag of hammers, even if they have more experience than the assholes asking the questions. And when these assholes aren’t asking gotcha questions, they’re heading to their favorite media outlets to brag about what they did, and so they can get their balls sucked.
Yes, even the women, or for any Leftist reading this, birthing people.
Although we would like to get the best people for the job, there’s one significant hurdle: the best people for the job wouldn’t take it because it would be a downgrade. For most people, getting a cushy government job where you couldn’t get fired even if you tried would be a dream. But within that dream, there is the nightmare of being stagnant. Great ideas rarely get implemented, excellence is seen as a detriment, and good employees are pushed to be as mediocre as they can be. And qualifications? It’s more about connections or other factors unrelated to the job than it is about whether you can do it.
That’s one of the reasons I chuckle when the Left starts talking about how unqualified Trump’s appointees are. Leftist hate achievement and want everybody to be equally…meh. Just check the right boxes and you, too, can be the Undersecretary of Beverage Acquisition for the Undersecretary of Waste Disposal under the Secretary of Environmental Justice, Transgender Division. In other words, you’re getting coffee for trash collectors under someone who got a shitty degree that couldn’t get you hired by a temp agency.
And it might give you a fast track to being in Congress or some President’s Cabinet if you play your cards right. Just ask Pete Buttigieg.
Which brings me to another reason I’m chuckling a lot at Leftists demanding Trump’s appointees be qualified: they’re responsible for confirming some of the Brick Tamland Administration’s worst picks, like Pete Buttigieg as Secretary of Transportation. Not to pick on Mayor Pete here, but what in the wide world of fuck were his qualifications? Fixing roads in South Bend, Indiana.
Let’s ask the people of East Palestine, Ohio, how they feel about his qualifications for Secretary of Transportation. That is if you can get them to drop their pitchforks and torches at the mention of his name.
The fact many of the same Senators who question the qualifications of Trump’s appointees thought nothing of the lack of qualifications of many appointees of the Brick Tamland Administration makes me want to tell them to take a seat, but that wouldn’t be any fun.
That comes when you ask these sanctimonious assholes obsessed with qualifications to pontificate on the California wildfires, where the people in charge aren’t qualified to run a free water outlet in the desert, let alone fighting a major fire. I would particularly like to hear from new Senator Adam Schiff, one of the ones who keeps warning us about the dangers of having incompetent people in positions of power. Or he could just look in the mirror to see an incompetent person in power.
Yeah, I went there. And I’ll continue to go there so much, I’ll get my mail forwarded there.
The whole kerfluffle over qualifications right now is based on partisanship, just like it has been with previous appointees from both sides. As much as I like Ted Cruz (which is slightly more than I like most politicians), his questioning of Ketanji Jackson Brown over issues like Critical Race Theory only feed into the problem. Which gives me an idea for an Extremist Makeover, but that’s a blog post for a different time.
In the meantime, it should be pointed out these hearings are like the plot of a horrible mystery novel: you know what’s going to happen before we get to the end because it’s so fucking obvious. Democrats are going to vote against the nominees, Republicans will vote for the nominees, both sides are going to claim victory, and the qualification kerfluffle gets tossed aside.
And we’ll get stuck with the results.
So, yay, I guess?
Unlocking the Keys
With all of the post-2024 Election analyses, there’s been a lot of talk about Allan Lichtman’s 13 Keys, the factors he’s used to predict 9 of the past 11 Presidential elections. A lot of talk, but not a lot of analysis, per se. Oh, you had your share of squawking heads on both pointing out how the 13 Keys failed this election, but not a lot of thought as to why.
Well, since I lack hobbies, I decided to do a bit of research and analysis of my own and what I found out might change a few minds.
Before we get into the boring stuff, we have to set our parameters, i.e. know what we’re talking about. After all, this isn’t MSNBC, so we can’t get away with spouting off without having facts.
Lichtman’s Keys are as follows:
Party mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the US House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.
Under Lichtman’s model, a successful candidate has to win at least 8 of these Keys. And considering its track record, it would be hard to imagine a scenario where the Keys failed.
This is where things get a little tricky, and where most of the post-election analysis surrounding the Keys stopped. The consensus was the Keys were wrong, which negatively impacts Lichtman and the model itself. However, that’s far too simplistic and inaccurate an assessment. Based on my own analysis, the Keys still work and worked in the 2024 election.
Where the failure occurred is in the interpretation of the data. Whenever you do any kind of social research, there is always a chance one’s personal beliefs can find their way into the analysis of the findings. If you’re not careful, you go from letting the data drive your conclusions to rooting for a particular conclusion and retroactively figuring out how it came to pass.
To be fair, observation bias isn’t limited to the “soft sciences.” There are some prime examples of hard sciences being sucked into the wonderful world of bias. The difference is in the ability to reconstruct the experiment to test the hypothesis further. With hard science, the way to do that is clear, but with soft science, it’s unclear, if not impossible, to reproduce the outcomes. We can set up similar conditions, but the passage of time, the introduction of new information, or even just the possibility of a changed opinion limit the effectiveness and accuracy of the reproduction.
Setting all that aside (because it gets pretty close to migraine-inducing territory for me), the important takeaway is the data is the data. It’s how we interpret it that creates the opening for bias to affect the outcome.
I can’t say for certain Lichtman’s prediction that Vice President Kamala Harris would win 9 of the 13 keys was based on bias rather than a difference in interpreting the data. Prior to 2024, the only other time in recent history that the Keys didn’t accurately predict the outcome was in 2000 when he predicted Al Gore would defeat George W. Bush. His explanation for why the Keys didn’t predict the winner then? Bush stole the election.
That suggests to me he may have a bias issue when it comes to elections he feels strongly about, and he has made it clear he’s not a Trump supporter by any means. Having said that, I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt here and chalk the 2024 election prediction failure to just having an off night. More grace than he deserves? Maybe, but feel free to excoriate me in the comments.
Lichtman’s prediction for 2024 were as follows:
The following nine keys line up in favor of the incumbent Democrats.
Contest Key 2: The Democrats have united in near unanimity behind Harris.
Third-Party Key 4: In recognition of his fading support, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. suspended his campaign. His endorsement of Donald Trump does not impact this key.
Short-Term Economy Key 5: It is too late for a recession to take hold of the economy before the election. The National Bureau of Economic Research, which provides the most reliable assessment of recessions, typically takes a few months to establish that the economy has fallen into a recession (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2020).
Long-Term Economy Key 6: Real per-capita growth during the Biden term far exceeds the average of the previous two presidential terms.
Policy Change Key 7: Biden has fundamentally changed the policies of the Trump administration in areas such as the environment and climate change, infrastructure, immigration, taxes, and women’s and civil rights.
Social Unrest Key 8: Despite sporadic demonstrations, social unrest has not risen to the level needed to forfeit this key: massive, unresolved unrest that threatens the stability of society as in the 1960s and early 1970s.
Scandal Key 9: Republicans in Congress have tried and failed to pin a scandal on President Biden. His son Hunter’s crimes do not count as scandal, which to do so must implicate the president himself and generate bipartisan recognition of wrongdoing.
Foreign/Military Success Key 11: President Biden and Biden alone forged the coalition of the West that kept Putin from conquering Ukraine and then undermining America’s national security by threatening its NATO allies. Biden’s initiatives will go down in history as an extraordinary presidential achievement.
Challenger Charisma Key 13: As explained, Trump does not fit the criteria of a once-in-a-generation, broadly appealing, transformational candidate like Franklin D. Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan.
Seems like a lock, right? Not quite.
I have no dog in this hunt since I didn’t vote for either Trump or Harris, so my analysis shook out a bit differently. Instead of focusing on just the 9 keys Lichtman thought Harris would win, I think a look at all 13 would be helpful.
Here’s what I came up with.
Party Mandate: Although the 2022 midterm elections didn’t quite swing as far right as the GOP would have wanted, the fact remains they regained control of the House of Representatives. On that, Lichtman and I concur. Advantage: Trump.
Contest: Lichtman gave this one to Harris, but the conditions under which she received the nomination makes this a bit harder for me to concede this Key to her. At the beginning of the election cycle, Ms. Harris was still considered to be Vice President, in spite of the thoughts at the time she might be a drag on the ticket. The unity behind her didn’t come together until after the nomination process was truncated and she was allowed to take over for Joe Biden. Trump, on the other hand, went through a primary process where he had challengers of varying degrees of ineptitude. Even with that being the case, the GOP by and large got behind Trump from the outset. Thus, I have to give this one to the GOP. Advantage: Trump.
Incumbancy: Once Joe Biden dropped out, this Key became a moot point. Neither Trump nor Harris could claim this, so neither one would get the advantage from it. No Advantage.
Third Party: There was no significant third party presence in the 2024 election. The closest we had was Robert Kennedy, Jr. No Advantage.
Short Term Economy: Now, we’re getting into the fun stuff! Lichtman was correct when he said there was not a recession in play here. However, that doesn’t automatically mean the economy is strong. We may not have had a recession, but we still had to deal with an economy voters felt was in decline because, well, it was. Even if you consider the drop in the inflation rate to be a step in the right direction, it didn’t resonate with voters. For that reason, I cannot give Harris the nod as Lichtman did. Advantage: Trump.
Long Term Economy: Second verse, same as the first. Advantage: Trump.
Policy Change: Again, Lichtman correctly stated the Biden Administration changed policies put in place by the Trump Administration, which were certainly big, but for the wrong reasons because they were historically bad changes. (Inflation Reduction Act, anyone?) When asked what she would do differently, Harris couldn’t come up with anything, which meant she knowingly or inadvertently signed off on the policy changes Biden made, which were ultimately unpopular. Staying the course when you’re about to hit the rocks isn’t smart in real life or in politics. Advantage: Trump.
Social Unrest: One of the candidates got shot at twice after years of being called a fascist, and the other was Kamala Harris. That tells me there’s social unrest. Advantage: Trump.
Scandal: Sorry, sir, but you think President Biden was devoid of scandal, I have swamp land in Death Valley I’d love to sell you. This was one of the biggest blunders Lichtman had with his 2024 Keys because it ignored one of the biggest stories of last year: Biden’s declining mental faculties. That in and of itself (as well as the media’s cover-up) was a big enough scandal to swing this Key to Trump. Advantage: Trump.
Foreign or Military Failure: That was Joe Biden’s M.O. even back in his Congressional days. As we saw with the mess that was the Afghanistan withdrawal, there was no way for Biden to escape blame for it. And Harris was pretty much either a ghost on the scene or nodded in approval at whatever harebrained idea Biden came up with at the time. Trump didn’t have that problem because, well, he wasn’t Commander In Chief. Advantage: Trump.
Foreign/Military Success: Unless you count making President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine super rich, I got nothing. Advantage: Trump.
Incumbent Charisma/Hero: Even if you count Harris as the incumbent, she was a popularity void, as evidenced by the number of people who walked out of her rallies after the musical performances by big-name stars concluded. And Trump wasn’t the incumbent. It’s a wash. No Advantage.
Challenger Charisma/Hero: Say what you will about the man, Donald Trump has charisma and he imposed his will on the Harris campaign. Lichtman got this one completely wrong. Advantage: Trump.
So the final score from my analysis is 10 Keys for Trump, 0 for Harris, and 3 for No Advantage. And considering Trump won the White House, I’d say the Keys worked pretty good once possible bias (and definite missed calls) were accounted for. It may not have been the result Lichtman wanted, but from where I sit, the Keys worked to perfection, even if he didn’t.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
This was another week where you couldn’t swing a dead cat without hitting a potential Lexicon entry. Although I’m not sure why you would want to swing a dead cat around, but I’m not here to kink shame. Let your freak flag fly, baby!
Out of all the potential subjects, one really stood out for me. In a move that shocked, well, not that many people, Mark Zuckerberg announced Meta and all the social media sites under it would be moving away from its “fact checking” model (which literally fact-checked obvious jokes, thus making the model itself a joke) and moving more towards a Community Notes standard like what is being used on the Social Media Site Formerly Known As Twitter. This got Leftists all atwitter (or would that be aX) at the notion. Journalists (0r whatever the fuck Brian Stelter is) and Leftist hacks were up in arms at Zuck’s decision.
Which obviously means it was the right decision.
And it makes it perfect for a Leftist Lexicon entry.
fact checking
What the Left thinks it means – a vital service that should only be done by professionals
What it really means – finding out the truth and calling out the lies
One of the hardest things about being informed today is knowing who you can trust. Modern journalism is a hodgepodge of shitty sources sucking up to even shittier people so they can get invited to dinner parties with yet even shittier people. The Fourth Estate has become Leftist stenographers more than the bulldogs that will relentlessly seek the truth. Anymore, any journalists are lucky to stumble into the truth, and even then there’s a better than average chance they’ll completely miss it.
On its face, the idea of fact checking is a good thing, especially given the modern journalism as described above. We want to be informed, or at the very least seem informed to impress others. To that end, we look for sources that break things down for us and teach us things we didn’t know. With the sheer deluge of information sources, it’s hard to find a way to control the output of the fire hose.
Enter the fact checkers, doing the research for you so you don’t have to! It’s so easy and cheap to do, it’s a wonder why people don’t do this more often!
And that’s the problem.
When you pawn off anything you should do yourself, you are subject to the outcomes the other party produce. It’s like when you hire a contractor who farms out the work to a subcontractor. The job may get done, but it may not up to the standards the contractor has. Then it becomes a matter of people pointing fingers at one another trying to figure out who’s responsible for the kitchen sink being put in the attic.
When it comes to information, it’s a lot harder to fix the fuckups, mainly because no one wants to take responsibility for your being misinformed. You don’t want to admit you were a dumbass for believing a fact checker. The fact checker doesn’t want to admit fault because a) it looks reaaaallllly bad when a fact checker can’t figure out the truth, and b) it hurts their widdle fee-fees. The entity that hired the fact checkers doesn’t want to take the hit for the reasons mentioned above and because it erodes the trust the entity has, which ultimately costs them money.
In other words, when you rely on fact checkers to do your research for you, more often than not, you’re their bitch.
Then, there’s the lovely little problem of bias. In the early days of Facebook fact checking, the people doing it leaned so far left they were parallel to the ground while standing up. Once that got called out, Zuck tried to balance out the fact checkers and the checking itself, but only made it worse because some of the fact checkers had bias issues. Not a good look, kids!
Regardless of which side of the political/ideological aisle you’re on, bias fucks up your ability to be truly informed because it limits your scope of information sources. Social media has turned us back into a tribalistic society where anyone who deviates from what you consider to be normal, just, and right is an infidel and, thus, not even worthy of even basic human decency. When you face information from one of those “unclean” sources that contradicts your mindset, you have two choices: adapt, or reject.
I bring this up to underscore the problem with biased fact checking. If you have the opinion information from one side or the other is untrue (regardless of whether it’s factual), you are going to more inclined to reject it. And if you have the power to shape what other people see on a social media website like…oh I don’t know…Facebook, you are going to be tempted to hide the “bad” information and go after those who want it to be known.
There’s an old saying that applies here…something about absolute power and corruption…I’m sure it will come to me.
Anyway, the Facebook fact checkers fell into this trap, which caused a lot of accounts to get warnings, suspensions, and even terminations. And in some cases, actual news stories shared online got slapped with misinformation tags (I’m looking at you, Hunter Biden) and were subsequently suppressed. Oh, and I forgot to mention Zuck said he got pressure from the Brick Tamland Administration to suppress the laptop story.
And who got punished for suppressing this legitimate news story? The entities who shared it. I mean, why would people who actively worked towards misinformation by absence see any punishment for making people misinformed? That’s just crazy talk, man!
But it also exposes the danger of trusting fact checkers without verifying whether what they’re saying is factual. Just because you tell me you’re honest doesn’t mean I’m not gonna test you. And you shouldn’t just trust and believe either. News stories that sound too good to be true should be the first ones that should make your Bullshit Meter light up like the…biological discharges…in an hourly rate hotel room when you scan it with a blacklight flashlight.
Not that I know anything about that, mind you…
This is going to be a bit of an ask, but it’s going to make more sense if you do it. Question all of your sources while reaching out for alternative sources from a wider array of ideologies. Then, let common sense be your guide. If something sounds factual and makes sense, be open to accepting it. If something sounds like more full of bullshit than the world’s largest cattle ranch, then don’t trust it. Consider it mental calisthenics that will make you stronger, faster, better. And without the need for bionics!
I would be remiss if I didn’t point out how the typical Leftist sources are so upset Mark Zuckerberg is going in a new direction with fact checking. The way it was set up initially, the Left had the power over what got considered factual. Now, thanks to the advent and popularity of Community Notes, they no longer control the flow of information and can be called out for pushing misinformation while pretending to guard against it. And if you’re a Leftist media shill, the worst thing you can do is strip them of the power and the prestige of being information brokers and letting the hoi polloi point and laugh when you fuck up.
If I may offer a suggestion, media folks, maybe stop parroting Leftist squawking points and start doing your fucking jobs. There’s a reason used car salesmen are considered more trustworthy than the media and their fact checkers these days, and I can draw a pretty clear conclusion as to why. But I’m sure if you really put your hivemind to it, you’ll figure it out by the end of January.
Of the year 3843.