Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

When you really think about it (and I do because there’s nothing good on Netflix these days), humans have a lot of awards they give out to each other. Everything from perfect attendance at school to making significant contributions to the arts or science is subject to getting a trophy, plaque, oversized check, or some other form of recognition.

Of course, there are problems with this, namely trying to cash an oversized check requires oversized identification. But more to the point not everyone who accomplishes something gets an award and others who get them aren’t worthy of them. Either way, feefees will be hurt worse than a submissive bottom at a BDSM club.

Not that I know anything about that, mind you…

Over the past couple of months, people on both sides have been arguing about one prize in particular, that being the Nobel Peace Prize. The MAGA Right think Donald Trump should get it because of the peace deals he’s been brokering as of late between Russia and Ukraine and more recently between Israel and Hamas. The Left, of course, says Trump doesn’t deserve it because he’s an evil fascist Nazi doodoo head.

So, let’s break of a peace of the action (see what I did there?) and talk about this award.

Nobel Peace Prize

What the Left thinks it means – a coveted international award to celebrate those who promote peace around the world

What it really means – an international award given out to people for more ideological than practical reasons

The history of the Nobel Prizes in general is kinda cool. The guy who came up with them in the first place, Albert Nobel, invented dynamite, which makes him an honorary American because we love explosions. If he had invented a way to deliver meat through explosives, he would be possibly the greatest American ever, next to Chuck Norris.

Alas, he reconsidered his role in finding out a way to blow shit up, so he decided to take a more reasoned approach by recognizing people who contributed to the global society in the arts, sciences, and humanitarian efforts. Hence, the Nobel Prizes came to be.

With some prizes, like the prizes for Literature and the sciences, you can point to an actual body of work. We can debate whether the work improves humanity, but it’s there to look at.

With the Peace Prize…well, that’s another story. Since can be more of a squishy term, it’s harder to quantify what constitutes a worthy recipient, so it could literally be any criteria the Nobel Committee wants to apply.

And that’s where politics comes into play.

When you have no hard and fast rules, there are no expectations, just the word of the Committee members saying “this person is worthy of recognition.” Let’s take a look at some of the recent winners.

Yasser Arafat (1994) – Awarded as part of an effort to broker a peace treaty in the Middle East. Also, the leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, a known supporter of global terrorism.

International Campaign to Ban Landmines (1997) – A group that wanted to, well, ban landmines. A noble pursuit (see what I did there), but among its members was noted Leftist organization Human Rights Watch because landmines hurt human rights or something.

Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontière (1999) – A group of medical professionals helping people globally and alerting people about humanitarian crises. Medical help is always appreciated, but I’m not clear on how the whole “raising awareness” part brings us closer to peace. I mean, doesn’t somebody have to actually do shit still?

Kofi Anan and the United Nations (2001) – I got nothing.

Jimmy Carter (2002) – I can make a case for him winning the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to broker peace between Israel and Egypt in the last 1970s, but this time? He was awarded for setting up the Carter Center, which focused on human rights. Unless those rights involved Jews, of course.

Shirin Edbadi (2003) – She was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts to bring democracy to Iran and defend women’s, children’s, and refugee rights. Again, a good cause, but I’m not sure how it would help global peace. It would make Iran a little less hostile in the grand scheme of things, but that’s like Idi Amin telling Jeffrey Dahmer to cut back on the cannibalism.

Wangari Maathai (2004) – She won the Nobel Peace Prize for, as the Committee put it, “for her contribution to sustainable development, democracy, ecology, and peace.” It was almost like the Nobel Committee had to tack on “peace” at the end to justify giving her the award.

Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank (2006) – Collectively they…did something. Not sure what, but it was something about economic and social development…which is peaceful, I guess?

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore (2007) – It was at this point the Nobel Peace Prize became a joke. Not even Dane Cook level, either. They got the Peace Prize for the same reason: being wrong about the environment. And I think Al got it for losing to George W. Bush and being wrong about the environment.

And then we get to the coup disgrace (and, no, that’s not a typo)…

Barack Obama (2009) – He won it before he did anything. You know, like drone striking innocent people?

There are more, but you get the picture. When you look at the full list of Peace Prize winners, you see a definite shift from those who actually contributed to peace and those who are getting a wider berth than Rosie O’Donnell and Michael Moore at an all-you-can-devour buffet in order to shoehorn them into the award.

And the same dickheads who swooned over Obama and Gore winning it are the ones saying Donald Trump isn’t qualified to win it in spite of the fact he’s actually trying to broker peace.

Of course, I’m half-and-half on whether Trump should be in the running. Half of me thinks it would be funny to watch Leftist heads explode at him showing up in Oslo to accept the award before the world. The other half of me thinks he’s trying too hard to get an award that doesn’t have the gravitas it once did. It’s like getting an honorary Daytime Emmy; yes it’s an award, but it’s a shitty one.

And when you consider the political leanings of those who are getting the award over the past 20-30 years, you’re more of a loser for winning it.

I’m sure the Nobel Committee reads my weekly missives judging from the Scandinavian hate mail I’ve gotten over the years, so let me give you a piece of advice. Just because you agree with your politics doesn’t mean they’re advancing peace. By expanding what the original purpose of the award means, you’ve watered it down to the point of irrelevance. I mean, you gave a Peace Prize to a fucking terrorist! Why not give Antifa one?

Wait, scratch that. You’ll take me seriously.

Regardless, you have to be a lot more selective in your selection process. Pay attention to those who are actually trying to bring about peace in our time and not just have the “oh, and peace” at the end. And sometimes you might have to hold your nose and pick someone you hate who is actually bringing about a more peaceful world by, you know, actually promoting peace.

As for the MAGA Republicans who think Trump should get it, I wouldn’t push it. If he can figure out how to get Russia and Ukraine and Israel and Hamas to get to the table and get results, then we can talk about him getting one. Until then, hold your applause until the Nobel Committee gets their heads out of their asses.

So, in 2548.








Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

It’s fall again! Time for white women to gather at Starbucks for Pumpkin Spice lattes, men to take over the biggest TV in their homes to watch football every weekend, and for Congress to fuck up one of the only jobs it has: keeping the doors open.

Yes, I know I’ve talked about this recently and in the past, but it seems every year or so, we have to go through this bizarre Kabuki theater where one party claims the other one is shutting down government because they’re big meany-heads, and the other is claiming the first party is wasting money on stupid shit and is holding their collective breaths to get what they want.

And every time it happens, it’s Republicans’ fault.

So, how exactly are we keeping the government running, or more precisely, limping along like a dry snail? Through Continuing Resolutions, of course! And what are they exactly?

Nothing good.

Continuing Resolutions

What the Left thinks it means – a way to keep the government running because Republicans don’t want to negotiate

What the Right thinks it means – a way to keep the government running because Democrats don’t want to negotiate

What it really means – a way for both major parties to keep spending without having to w0rry about passing an actual budget

Back in the good old days when men were men and women were men and everybody was really confused, Congress would get together to hammer out what they wanted to spend on what. After they agreed, they sent the final proposal to the President, who lent his John Hancock to the bill and it became law. Of course, John Hancock was never President because I’m guessing his peers were afraid his signature would take up most of the page.

That changed in the late 20th and early 21st Century when Congress realized it didn’t need to pass a budget to spend money; they could just do it. Then, the spend-a-palooza began. Although it kept the government from shutting down (which is like saying your least favorite gynecologist isn’t retiring anytime soon, only much more invasive), it started a trend where Congress could forego budget battles in favor of…well, Continuing Resolution battles.

And what it turned into since then was giving a coke fiend a credit card to buy cocaine, then use the card to cut the cocaine into lines and snort them. Not that I know anything about that, mind you…

Anyway, the point is Congress got to do two of its favorite things to do: spend money, and bitch about how the other party is being unreasonable, but we’re the ones stuck with the tab at the end of the coke binge…I mean night.

The insidious part of all this is it’s perfectly within the duties of Congress as laid out in the Constitution. Article I Section 8 gives Congress the power to spend money. It doesn’t say how that money has to be spent, nor does it require a budget of any kind. As smart as they were, the Founding Fathers never envisioned a time when politicians would be as ruthlessly devious as they are today. Back then, they had these things called honors, morals, and accountability to those who put them in power. Much to their credit, they knew the fallibility of human nature and tried to safeguard us from excess where they could.

Then, we had to go and elect assholes to fuck up that shit.

The best way I can describe the difference between a budget and a Continuing Resolution is this. When somebody sits down and creates a budget, it’s meant to be a guideline to follow and find areas where expenses can be cut or revenue opportunities arise. A Continuing Resolution is more like a payday loan place. They don’t care how you spend the money as long as you pay it back with interest higher than the GDP of every first world country combined.

And that’s if the payday loan place likes you!

Meanwhile back in Washington, Continuing Resolutions has made it possible for Congress to keep kicking the can down the road without ever having to deal with the consequences. Namely, having to keep to a budget. This leads to overspending on stupid shit, like…oh I don’t know…funding health care for illegal immigrants. But I’m sure there are no Congresscritters so fucking dumb as to do that…oh, wait…

And that’s one of the biggest problems with the Continuing Resolution practice: the entire process can get derailed by partisan bullshit. I know! I’m shocked that politics is involved in what should be a non-political action, too!

As much as I like to see government get slashed like it went through an abattoir, I also understand there are human beings affected by the political posturing. No matter what gets funded while the two major parties squander what little money we actually have, someone will always get fucked in the end. And not in the fun way with lube, dim lights, and romantic music. Not that I know anything about that, mind you…

And the worst, yet unfortunately predictable, part? None of these motherfuckers care. No matter who gets hurt, the Left and the Right will continue to battle over trifles that don’t benefit most Americans, but will line their pockets with cash from donors.

The only way to break the cycle is to admit we have a problem. Well, more than one problem, but you get the idea. Continuing Resolutions should be the exception and not the rule. They should be used only in emergencies, not because one of the parties wants to spend money on a particular matter like saving PBS or funding more ICE agents. We need to do a better job at tightening our federal belts instead of going to the tailor to get the waistline taken out a little. And by a little I mean a lot.

One idea that I’m quite fond of is a balanced budget amendment. Not only would it require Congress to pass a budget, but it would have to be one that actually balances.

Yes, Congresscritters, that means you are going to have to give up some of your toys so we can serve the greater good.

The only drawback I see to this is the same kind of dishonest accounting that got Arthur Andersen in trouble, but continues to drive the Continuing Resolution train. When dishonest people have the power to spend money, they will always find a way to fudge the numbers so much you’d think the accounting firm is out of Hershey, Pennsylvania.

That’s where a new and improved DOGE comes into play. To ensure the budget is actually balanced, there have to be actual cuts, not just reductions to proposed increases. Where there’s waste, cut it. Where there’s redundancy, consolidate it with a department or agency where it makes sense. We don’t need 14 different divisions under 50 different agencies doing the same damn thing.

And here’s the key. The cuts must be enacted and approved by the beginning of the new fiscal year. If Congresscritters have time to do stupid selfies or host podcasts, they sure as shit have the time to do their jobs.

Along with this, I have a similar proposal, that being making the bills as small as possible. No more riders that have nothing to do with the bill itself. No more 1200 page bills released at the 11th hour and filled with so much pork Jewish and Muslim politicians have to avoid them. If you have a spending bill, make it easy for people to see what’s in it and voice their opinions.

Of course, none of this will get done because there’s too much riding on the Left and the Right maintaining the status quo. (Status quo is Latin for “same shit, different day.”) Why would Congress give up the absolute power to spend whatever it wants without having to worry about where the money comes from? We’re more likely to get a good Michael Bay movie before we get any significant change on the Continuing Resolution front.

At least the government gets shut down for a while, so there’s that. Yay, I guess?




Don’t Threaten Me With a Good Time!

As of the time of this blithering…I mean blogging, the federal government is on the verge of another government shutdown. Before, the Leftists complained the Republicans weren’t willing to negotiate to prevent the shutdown, but this time…it’s Leftists complaining the Republicans aren’t willing to negotiate to prevent the shutdown.

If only that were an echo, it wouldn’t sound so stupid and hypocritical.

Regardless, the Left has gone all doom and gloom on the prospect of a government shutdown. People will die! Health care will be lost for millions! There might yet another Medea movie! Holy shit on a shingle, Batman! It must be a super-cereal problem for the Left to go all Red Alert like this!

Nope. It’s literally just Tuesday. (Please check local listings for the day of the week in your area.)

Much like a case of the clap, this seems to come around every so often, only a lot more irritating and a lot less fun to get. The federal government runs out of money more than Hunter Biden at an all-you-can-do crack den, so it becomes this ordeal to right the fiscal ship. Only, we never do.

I’ve mentioned this before, but it bears repeating. Our government keeps funding itself through Continuing Resolutions, which are promises we’ll pay our bills this time and never let this happen again. And then it keeps happening. The federal government hasn’t passed an actual budget since 2017, so we’re getting close to a decade of these budgetary tricks that would get the rest of us thrown in jail.

Which is why Arthur Andersen should have gone into politics instead of dealing with Enron.

The thing about government shutdowns is essential functions are still being paid out, so it’s not like we’re not going to fund the military for a few days because our elected officials can’t decide whether to spend a few billion on studies about transexual llama mating habits during a full moon occurring on Tuesdays. It’s only the shit that we decide to spend that gets impacted.

Which brings us to the latest sticking point for the Left. Democrats want to extend tax credits for health insurance and reverse Medicare cuts President Trump supported. And those mean ole Republicans don’t want that.

Funny thing. Leftists tend to hate tax credits and the Right love them.

Regardless, there is some question as to the veracity of the Left’s demands, namely that these nozzleheads think we should pay for health care for illegal immigrants because Murka. (Which I think they believe to be a foreign country that keeps sending us immigrants, but that’s neither here nor there.) And contrary to Leftist squawking points to the contrary, that shit is happening. So, maybe a little scrutiny is in order to make sure that doesn’t happen.

Or, yanno, don’t send in a Continuing Resolution with that shit in there. Just saying.

Apparently that’s a bridge too far for Leftists, so here we are. And I am so good with it.

What the Left fails to understand is people really don’t pay that much attention to government most of the time. Sure, there are times when we do, but the rest of the time we want them to get out of our ways. There are so many laws on the books, people break at least 3 of them every day, and that’s at least 4 too many in my book.

Maybe it’s my small government brain working overtime again, but it’s my belief that the federal government needs a DOGE-style enema. We need to know not only how our money is spent, but get an explanation of why. Given the USAID and NGO scandals from earlier this year, the government needs that enema, like, 10 years ago.

And I don’t mean just looking into Democrat-approved expenditures, either. Let’s go whole hog on eliminating pork! If there’s a line item that is unusual, unnecessary, or at the very least questionable, call it out and make the assholes responsible for it explain themselves. If they can’t, off goes the funding, along with their jobs.

Which brings me to a point I’ve made before, but it bears repeating. Why in the wide world of fuck are we paying non-essential employees? If they’re not needed for the day-to-day operations, they shouldn’t be on the books. Unless you can make one hell of an argument in favor of having a Regional Sub-Assistant Manager in Charge of Fetching Some Bureaucrat Starbucks Every Morning, have that bureaucrat pick it up himself or herself. If they make the big (or even the medium) bucks, they can afford to get their own ‘Bucks.

Of course, there are several thousand federal workers resigning October 1 due to budget cuts. Those are rookie numbers! You know what would really piss off the Orange Man? If more workers up and quit! Really stick it to him! Have a mass walkout that would make the Million Man March look like a Kindergarten class lining up for recess!

Of course, with the caveat being you decline getting your final paychecks and pension. After all, you don’t want to get any money Donald Trump has access to, right?

But I’m afraid that’s not going to happen any time soon, so we’re stuck with watching Democrats and Republicans fight over how to spend more of our money on shit we didn’t ask for and really don’t need. I guess the only thing left to do is pop some popcorn, get a cold drink or 50, and watch.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Although the Lexicon typically deals with concepts raised in the news or politics (which, quite frankly, can be interchangeable anymore), there are times when a new term has to be created to address something the Left is doing. And, boy (or girl as to not be sexist), do I have a term for you!

Since I’m a nerd, I attend different pop culture conventions in my fair city, and there are attendees who like to dress up as their favorite pop culture characters from superheroes to anime antagonists. Not my bag, but I’m not so much of a curmudgeon that I can’t appreciate the hard work put into their costumes.

Which brings us to the Left. Since before Donald Trump was elected in 2016, Leftists got it in their heads that they needed to identify with pop culture heroes from sources ranging from The Handmaid’s Tale to “Star Wars” to Harry Potter. The irony of that last one isn’t lost on your humble reporter, but I digress.

The term I’m about to introduce came from a discussion with a proud Leftist who viewed herself as a proud freedom fighter like the French Resistance in World War II. Of course, she was a white Midwesterner with a lot of history on her side, but not a lot of perspective.

That’s when it hit me. There are so many people on the Left who are LARPing as freedom fighters, but not really advancing freedom that much, so much so that they’re cosplaying.

Hence the Lexicon entry for this week.

cause-players

What the Left thinks it means – We have no fucking clue!

What it really means – people desperate to be seen as the last line of defense for our freedoms, but who are just pretending

Before I go any further, I need to clarify something. Cosplayers don’t typically believe they are the characters they dress up like because they’re not nuttier than elephant shit. Cause-players, on the other hand, are. They have worked themselves up into a fervor to the point they believe the country is either about to become an authoritarian/fascist dictatorship, is already an authoritarian/fascist dictatorship, or has been an authoritarian/fascist dictatorship for quite some time now.

Which begs the question of why we’re still able to hear from them on social media, TV shows, or online. I mean, call me crazy (because I certainly do), but isn’t one of the main aspects of authoritarian/fascist dictatorships silencing critics? If so, the authoritarian/fascist part of the Trump Administration is doing a shitty job because I keep hearing from these motherfuckers non-stop. And if not…well, maybe you’re not as oppressed as you think you are.

That’s really the key here. Cause-players want to be oppressed for their positions so they have a reason to take action. Even if it’s just in their minds, it’s enough to get them to take up arms (even ones they want to control through tougher laws) and fight against The Man. Or Trump. Or Elon Musk. Or whomever their bogeyman of the week is. And it truly is as random as that. Whatever trips their triggered…I mean trigger, that’s who they hate.

You know, someone should write a story where people get a certain amount of time every day to hate someone who would oppose their point of view. Something small, like…oh, I don’t know…five minutes.

On second thought, that wouldn’t work. Some asshole would think it was an instruction manual instead of a cautionary tale.

Anyway, the point is these cause-players have to pretend to be oppressed, on the verge of being oppressed, and/or are the only ones who can save the world from the madness to come. In other words, your usual Leftist savior complex where nothing is saved and only the justifications are complex. This, in turn, creates an entire world in their minds that isn’t exactly on speaking terms with reality. And, let’s just say it makes them more on edge than a coke and coffee fiend. You know, like Hunter Biden, but with more espresso.

When fanaticism meets delusion, you have really bad “American Idol” contestants, but you also get a lot of people who only need a slight push to get them to do something drastic. Like the media they consume constantly referring to the President and his supporters as fascists, Nazis, and the like. Or, more recently, having a late night talk show host get suspended for comments that could be legally actionable because he and his staff were too busy with their confirmation bias to do 3 seconds of research before accusing a MAGA member of shooting Charlie Kirk, which is…how can I put this delicately…fucking stupid on its face.

Then again, this is Jimmy Kimmel we’re talking about here. He’s about as sharp as a Nerf ball.

But to the cause-players, he’s funny, intelligent, and a supporter of free speech. It just so happens he echoes everything the cause-players believe. Funny how that works out, huh?

The problem is a) Kimmel is none of those things, b) the cause-players are dumber than a Queen Kamala the Appointed speech, and c) this creates a self-perpetuating echo chamber that runs on confirmation bias and cults of personality. They cling to every word Rachel Maddow or JoJoFromJerz or Harry Sisson says and treat it as gospel even after they’ve been proven wrong more times than the so-called “fact checkers” were on COVID.

And guess what each and every one of them say.

You guessed it! We’re living in an authoritarian/fascist regime! And since their favorite people are saying it, it must be true! And that turns into…you guessed it, cause-playing.

That’s not to say the Right lacks this kind of situation, but so far there’s only one side of the political spectrum that has taken their delusions and turned them into violent acts. (Spoiler Alert: it ain’t the one allegedly in the back pocket of the NRA.)

So, what do we do here? Talking to cause-players is like talking to a brick wall, only a lot less frustrating. And with a lot less mortar, as it turns out. Having dealt with more than a few of them, it’s not worth your time. They won’t listen to reason, facts, or even basic logic. They’re in a cult, and it will take a miracle to get them deprogrammed. Oh, and they’ll accuse you of being in a cult in an act of projection that would make IMAX look like 8 millimeter.

But there’s still a piece of me that holds out hope more people will walk away once they have a coming to Jesus moment. In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, I’m seeing more and more people washing their hands of the Left because the cause-players are driving them away with their antics. And by antics I mean utter fucking depravity.

And when they do break free of the cult, they’re going to need love, support, and direction. That’s where you come in. Show them the human compassion they wouldn’t give you while under the influence of their cause-playing if for no other reason than to show them the Right isn’t full of complete assholes. Leave that part to me.

And if you’re a cause-player reading this, you need help, and I say that as someone who needs a lot of help. You are being sold a bill of goods that aren’t that good and only feed into a self-destructive delusion where you will always think of yourself as a hero even when you’re acting like a villain. Take it from your old buddy Tom. Or don’t. Just try to act surprised when you lose the next few elections for being on the wrong end of yet another 80-20 issue.






Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week – Special Edition

That’s right. You’re getting two Lexicon entries in one week!

And you can stop throwing rotten tomatoes at me. Thank you.

And once again, we have to delve into the world of the Charlie Kirk assassination because, well, everything else seems to be absorbed by it. But this time it’s going to be different! This time you’ll have to deal with my take on the situation.

Please see the above sentence regarding rotten tomatoes.

One of the oddest situations coming out of the Kirk assassination (outside of the suspect’s personal life) was how the Left has this idea that it’s the Right that needs to “turn down the temperature” with their rhetoric. This has been a squawking point every time something happens to anyone to the right of Josef Stalin, so I figured I’d take the idea out for a spin.

turn down the temperature

What the Left thinks it means – actions the Right can do to reduce the tensions in this country

What it really means – Leftists telling the Right to shut up and take the abuse they’re getting

To put it mildly, America is fractured, possibly beyond repair. Not that I’m going to stop using duct tape, Super Clue, chicken wire, and bubble gum to keep it together, mind you. And believe it or not, Charlie Kirk had a similar mindset. He had discussions with people from all ideological walks of life. He wasn’t mean or insulting (although Leftists still paint him that way). All he was asking for was a civil dialogue on what is, not what we want it to be.

And for that, he got shot.

I’m no anti-terrorist expert, but I’m thinking the temperature is pretty high as it is.

In between attempts to portray Kirk’s shooter as anything but potentially gay furry with a trans roommate, possible mate-mate, the Left has been putting the onus on the Right to tone things down. To which I have a three word response.

Dude got shot.

And based on what I’ve seen from online Leftists, they have no intention of lowering the temperature. Some have asked why there aren’t more assassinations against the Right, including President Donald Trump…a man who has also been shot for being on the Right. I’ve even seen the terminally online go so far as to suggest any such shooter would get amnesty or even sexual favors for doing it.

Yeah, not really seeing where this is a MAGA problem, dickweeds.

Add to this the number of high profile people in politics and media calling Trump and MAGA supporters fascist, including Charlie Kirk.

Then, dude got shot.

And Leftists cheered (although they claim they didn’t). As a result, Leftists lost their jobs and one, Jimmy Kimmel, found himself indefinitely suspended for lying about who was responsible for Kirk’s shooting. Here’s what he said in whole, and the offensive part quoted below:

We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang trying to characterize this kid who killed Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.

Yep. Temperature’s not coming down any time soon, but it’s MAGA’s fault.

Yeah, but dude got shot.

After Kimmel’s monologue, his fellow late night “comedians” rallied to his side, decrying the lack of free speech. After all, the Trump Administration silenced Stephen Colbert (who lately is as funny as VD on prom night) and now Jimmy Kimmel (who lately is as funny as reruns of “Keeping Up With the Kardashians”), so is the federal government going to silence all late night comedians unless they kiss the ring? Everyone should be out in the streets demanding Kimmel be able to exercise his freedom of speech by telling one-sided and unfunny jokes.

And…dude got shot.

As expected, the Left is doing its best not to appear like total shitheads by…checking my notes…acting like total shitheads. Even after his death, Leftists were trying to condemn him as dangerous (although I have to admit I laughed when the Socialist Socialite called Kirk ignorant because irony/lack of self awareness).

Yet, these are the same assholes telling the Right to tone things down?

Say it with me now…dude got shot.

In order to drop the temperature in any situation, there has to be efforts to, well, drop the temperature. You can’t keep calling the Right fascists and demand they tone it down because you’re stoking the fires. And while you keep doing what you’re doing, you’re going to keep radicalizing people who will do what the shooter did to Charlie Kirk.

You know. Dude got shot.

But that’s not really what you want, is it? You want to have the Right censor itself while you say what you want and not reap any consequences. Here’s the problem, dipshits: you’re going to get to a point where your victims get motivated to hit back. And believe me, as the old Interwebs saying goes, you have started shit and somewhere down the line you will get hit.

So, let me put this as bluntly as I can: shut the fuck up with the heated rhetoric. You’re making things worse and looking like hypocritical assholes for demanding everyone but you be nice. In other words, you’re acting like normal. Now, we need you to not act like normal, and I know you can do that because that’s what I see you do everyday.

As for the Right, there are steps you can take to not give the Left any more legitimate reasons to call you fascists. For one, call out the bad actors on the Right and tell them to shut their pieholes. The very fact Nick Fuentes and America First isn’t relegated to being more of a laughingstock than Tim Walz should trouble the Right. The further these assholes are to the grassroots, the better.

And that’s the same advice I can give to the Left right now. You should not even remotely associate with the people in your midst who cheered Charlie Kirk’s death. They may be reliable voters, but they’re hindering your movement. You want to keep being on the losing end of 80-20 issues, keep listening to these jackoffs. If you want to have any chance of holding elected office higher than Assistant Dog Catcher, tell them to shut up and let the adults work. Otherwise, all your calls for more civil discourse is going to be met with three words.

Dude got shot.


Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, there were a lot of emotions flowing out from across the political spectrum. A lot of sadness, a lot of anger, and, as odd as it is for me to say, a lot of joy. Yes, our good friends on the Left had a field day dunking on a dead man, posting some out-of-context statements Kirk made and generally acting like assholes.

But then came the backlash.

Within a matter of hours, Leftists came online to cry about losing their jobs because of what they said and did online, which lead to other Leftists (i.e. the media) to lament how these Leftists were losing their jobs for “just stating an opinion.”

Oh, how ironic it is for Leftists to be feeling the consequences of their own actions. And that’s something the Left typically hasn’t experienced lately, which makes it a nice way to add it to the Lexicon.

consequences

What the Left thinks it means – when a conservative gets his or her just desserts for acting badly

What it really means – the “Find Out” part of FAFO

Sir Isaac Newton’s third law of motion is for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The same can be applied to online discussions/rants/joygasms/debates/and so on, but with a slightly different twist. Everything we say or do online has an equal opportunity to piss off somebody on the opposite side. Most of the time it results in flame wars between two equally immature individuals, but with the Charlie Kirk situation, things got stepped up a notch or, oh, 5 billion because there are some extremely fucked up individuals out there on the Interwebs.

And, yes, I count myself as one of them.

The tide of online social discourse changed in the late 2000s or early 2010s when the terminally online realized they could find personal information on a lot of people simply by looking it up online. That’s a little trick the kids like to call doxxing, and it was prevalent with some corners of the Interwebs and still is.

Then, the Left got heavily involved in it. Under the auspices of keeping people (i.e. anyone to the right of Karl Marx) accountable, they started finding out more and more information on the Right and using that as leverage to get them to either change their ways, a la David Brock without all the cocaine, or shut up, a la what I wish David Brock would do without all the cocaine. And since they were the rulers of online platforms like Facebook and the Social Media Site Formerly Known As X, they got away with it and advance their agenda.

As Morgan Freeman (or a semi-reasonable facsimile) might say, “It was at that point they fucked up,” and you can thank Leftist ego and shortsightedness for it. When Leftists get power, they never think it will ever be taken away from them. The problem with that idea is…it can be taken away from them. Political and social power are always temporary and subject to the whims of people who might not agree with them. This is why it’s always prudent to note what you allow when you’re in the seat of power because it can and most likely will be allowed against you.

In other words, fuck around and find out.

Now that the Left is finding itself on the short end of the power stick in politics, society, and the Interwebs, they’re finding out what consequences feels like.

Spoiler Alert: they don’t like it.

And they have themselves to blame. You know, unless they decide to blame Donald Trump, the MAGA movement, Charlie Kirk, the Denver Broncos, etc.

One aspect of Leftist ideology is never having to take responsibility for what they do. There’s always “nuance” or some other weasel-shit word to try to put their misdeeds into a “context” where, yes, they did mow down three nuns and a classroom of preschoolers crossing the street while driving drunk and high during a bender with Keith Richards, but it’s not really their fault because reasons. Of course, that kind of “nuance” and “context” is never afforded to the Right. When someone like Charlie Kirk is the victim, it’s not the shooter’s fault. It’s the lack of gun control laws (which work about as well as most Congresscritters), or the lack of a social safety net, or in the Charlie Kirk case, heated rhetoric from the Right.

That’s right, kids. Some members of the Left think…err feel, it’s Donald Trump’s fault Charlie Kirk got shot.

Oddly enough, these are the same people who think Trump is behind Stephen Colbert getting fired and Jimmy Kimmel getting suspended. And now free speech is under attack because…let me read my notes here…Colbert was a money-losing hack and Kimmel lied on national television about who shot Charlie Kirk on top of being an unfunny hack.

While the Left screams “cancel culture” (obliviously ironically, I might add), what’s happening to them is the consequences of their own words and actions. And they should be familiar with the concept, mainly because it’s the very idea they push when it’s the Right being held responsible. The Left has a love/hate relationship with consequences. They love it when someone else gets hoisted by their own petards, but hate it when it’s them getting their petards hoisted.

Granted, this isn’t just a Leftist point of view. Everyone loves themselves a bit of schadenfreude (which is German for “ha ha you got fucked over and I get to feel good about it”), so no one is completely exempt. Having said that, over the past decade or so, the Left has used consequences as a means of punishing non-believers. Whether it was a baker in Colorado or anyone who defied the COVID-19 mandates, the Left has no problem setting traps for others and then calling them out for not being willing to accept the consequences for their actions.

Which brings us back to Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. This time, its rule number 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” The Right has a tendency to expect there to be consequences for every bad deed, so the Left has turned that into a trap. If they don’t get what they want, they’ll drag you through the courts, smear you in the public arena, and essentially try to ruin your life.

So, how does it feel to have to bake the cake, bigots?

The thing about consequences is they can be unequal to the offense committed. Not using someone’s preferred pronouns in a professional setting shouldn’t get you a one way trip to Siberia (although I’m sure the Left would get on board with that idea), but it shouldn’t be given a slap on the wrist either. What the Left did to COVID-19 defiers or the January 6th protestors were beyond the pale and they were punished more severely than they should have been…or at least punished as much as Leftists who defied lockdown mandates and protested via rioting and looting got. When the punishment doesn’t fit the crime, it builds resentment in and distrust of the process itself.

And guess what we’re experiencing now, kids.

And this is where it gets complicated for me. My logical side says the consequences for bad actions and words should be just and fair, even though the Left doesn’t walk the walk in this area. My emotional side says the Left should be made to feel just how they made others feel, i.e. bake the cake, bigot. Is the latter fair and just? Not particularly. But the purpose of consequences is to teach you a lesson about what happens when you fuck around. As long as everyone gets to feel the sting of retribution, it’s fair, just not quite so nice.

Now, the Left is bringing this up in terms of free speech, expecting to get a “gotcha” on the Right who have been championing free speech for their side for the better part of a decade. However, the Left’s gotcha runs into a problem, that being the Left’s dismissal of free speech concerns when they were in charge of social media platforms where conservatives got banned for saying things far less inflammatory as the Left did. They used the “private businesses don’t have to platform your views” defense then, only to have it thrown back in their faces now.

Not much of a gotcha unless you’re a flaming hypocrite…oh, wait…

And make no mistake, the Left are flaming hypocrites here. Their defense of free speech is as conditional as an Elon Musk prenup. But who are the first ones to cry about the end of free speech as we know when it’s their speech getting silenced?

The Left.

Yet, when it’s free speech they don’t like, they’re fully on board with silencing them, and apparently one of theirs has taken it to the bonus round and started killing people because…reasons, I guess? And hopefully that asshole gets the punishment he deserves because that’s what consequences are all about.

That includes you folks cheering on Charlie Kirk’s murder on social media.

With the advent of the Interwebs and social media, let’s just say Karma has a target-rich area. For a long time, the Left has called out bad faith actors on the Right (which is good), but then took to trying to ruin their lives through bringing attention to the wider society (which is not so good). Getting fired, cancelled, forced to watch every “Transformers” movie with Michael Bay doing live commentary, those are the consequences of bad actions. Now, that kind of shit is being thrown at the people who did it before the Right got involved, and it’s going to keep coming because those are the consequences of being shitheads online.

Your rules, not mine.

So, spare me the tearful “I got fired for expressing an opinion on Charlie Kirk” bullshit. You got fired because you became a liability to whatever company or institution you were a part of, and when that happens, there are consequences. You know the best way to avoid the consequences of being a shitty person on social media? Don’t be a shitty person! That seems to work a lot better than crying on TikTok.

Yes, there are consequences to acting like a civilized adult, but one of them is not getting fired for being one. And, you know, those are the kind of consequences I can handle.


Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Since our last proper Lexicon entry (wait, there was a proper one?), we’ve seen a couple of news stories that caught my eye. The first was the story involving Iryna Zarutska, a young Ukrainian woman stabbed to death on Charlotte’s light rail system. The second was the assassination of conservative activist and commentator Charlie Kirk, who was shot during an exchange at Utah Valley University. Although these events seem different on the surface, there is one thing that brings them together: they were both victims of crime.

When it comes to crime, there are two fields of thought, and they seem to line up along ideological lines. For some, it’s dirt simple, but for others (and by others I mean Leftists), it’s far more complicated. You know, like trying to explain how two genders actually means 9,249,148,275 genders. And, as you might guess, the two sides’ reactions to crime are vastly different.

Which makes it a perfect subject to discuss this week.

crime

What the Left thinks it means – the consequences of a multitude of factors, including poverty, racism, and lack of support

What it really means – when bad people do bad things

Not to sound like an old man, but I kinda am, but back in my day people had an understanding of right and wrong. (Of course, back in my day we had to dodge velociraptors on our way through the tar pits just to get to school, but that’s another story.) We understood there were consequences to bad actions, whether it be divine damnation, a paddling from Dad, or, dare I even mention it, having to sit through “The Lawrence Welk Show.” To this day, bubbles give me flashbacks.

Not that I know anything about being bad, mind you…

And that model worked pretty well for a long time. Then, Leftists came along and muddied the waters with concepts that you’d have to be high to come up with, let alone make into actual policy. The Sixties were a time of questioning of traditional and moral foundations, mostly through the use of illicit drugs (hence the previous comment about being high). And after students who fought against The Man grew up and got into positions where they became The Man, they took those ideas and put them into place.

Among those ideas was redefining what crime is. It was no longer about theft, murder, or liking Nickelback. It was more about the underlying causes the Left could identify, i.e. exploit, to “understand” the criminal’s motives. It’s not that the mass murder was dagnasty evil; he was just the victim of a bad home life. The guy who broke into an appliance store and stole the biggest TV he could carry? He was just trying to provide for his family. I’ve literally seen Leftists say these people were just stealing food, but last time I checked, bread didn’t have a 56 inch HD screen.

By doing this, the Left has turned those who were the victimizers into victims themselves, and with that came a shit-ton of excuses to hand wave away their crimes. And as for the actual victims? Well, let’s just say the summer picnic at Ice Station Zebra was warmer than the reception the Left gives them. If the victims weren’t outright demonized (see the Tesla firebombings), they were ignored. While police departments and city officials were pushing for reform in the aftermath of the BLM riots…I mean fiery but peaceful demonstrations, the people who weren’t even part of the problem were left to deal with the aftermath without so much as a helping hand.

Put simply, the criminals were in charge of the judicial system.

That rot has spread to other areas that also directly impact citizens. Judge Hannah Dugan took justice into her own hands not only to obstruct ICE, but provide assistance to an illegal immigrant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, to escape. And then she lied about it! On top of all that, she was suspended with pay. Imagine if you or I pulled that shit. We would be lucky to get the bum’s rush to Gitmo, but this shithead gets to get paid and file frivolous appeals to prevent her from getting her just punishment for her crimes?

And, yes, the Left has made her a victim of, guess who, Donald Trump.

Fuck me sideways, that’s, well, sideways.

But it brings us back to the second part of the FAFO sandwich within the legal system, punishment. Whenever one person wrongs another, there is supposed to be punishment. Notice I said “supposed to be” because in too many cases the punishment fits as well as David Byrne’s suit from “Stop Making Sense.” In some cases, like many of the January 6 “rioters,” the punishment is too harsh, too cruel, and definitely too unusual. In others, like with the lowlife that killed Iryna Zarutska, he got off most recently with…a written promise he would appear in court for a misdemeanor, something he has a history of not doing.

And, yes, there’s a connection here to your friend and mine, Uncle George Soros.

Seems Georgie Porgie has been helping more progressive prosecutors get elected in an attempt to “fix” the judicial system. Ironically, or perhaps intentionally, this has broken the system and lead to some mind-numbingly stupid decisions that have harmed people, all in the name of social justice.

But social justice isn’t actually justice in reality. It’s basically creating new rules for different people because of past injustices. That’s an issue when it comes to the prosecution of actual crime because not every criminal has been oppressed, thus assuming that people of a certain racial background has been makes it harder to hold them accountable without there being some kind of backlash. You know, like burning parts of cities, looting, and rioting.

And when you think about it (and I do because there’s nothing good on television), that backlash becomes a second method of excusing crime. After all, if you’re scared to say “You know, maybe burning down black-owned businesses isn’t a good idea” you are more willing to look away when it actually happens because you don’t want trouble. That’s the default position with most people: we don’t want to stir the pot. Oddly enough, the exact opposite applies to the terminally online population.

So, the Left has made it possible to be a criminal, get away with it, and in those rare occasions you face a judge, not see any consequences for your actions. All you have to do is pull your shit in a Left-friendly jurisdiction, play the sympathy card (along with any other cards available to you), and even raise money for your legal defense through online donations that you can use on things other than your legal defense.

The bad news is people are getting sick of it and noticing these mockeries of justice more frequently. All they need is someone who will do something about it if their local police and city officials won’t. When Donald Trump activated the National Guard to try to restore order to Washington, DC, the Left assumed they would be booed out of the city all the way back to Mar A Lago. Turns out the opposite happened, and the main people pissed about the situation were elderly white people who don’t even live where the crime is. Trump listened and took action when Leftists stood by with their heads up their asses because they couldn’t fit their thumbs up there at the same time.

What the Left doesn’t realize is when you’ve enabled lawlessness for as long as they have, the pushback is going to be harder than they think. Trump’s takeover of the Washington, DC, police duties has caused a drop in crime across the board, even if the Left has to spin it as though it were happening before him which is questionable. Please see my previous Lexicon entry regarding Washington, DC, for more details (and to drive up the views a bit). What’s more, it’s given Trump an easy win, leaving the Left gnashing their teeth and predicting an authoritarian/fascist takeover (the 89th this week!), but it’s not even that. It’s the fact the Left is softer on crime than President Brick Tamland likes his ice cream. If it were any softer, ED drug companies would use it as the “Before” picture in their print advertisements.

Which would help Elizabeth “Chief Running Mouth” Warren and Bernie “I’m Not Cool Enough For a Nickname” Sanders pad their pockets a bit more.

Did I say that out loud? No, I typed it out loud.

Anyway, there is a downside to reacting to crime with force, that being power is addictive. You think a crack habit is hard to break? Try being a Congresscritter with unlimited funds to play with and a city full of people who will let you play with it, and them. Even if you promise not to use your power for evil, there will always be the temptation to do it, which creates a problem in and of itself. When you make the law, you can make yourself above it very easily. And if there are no consequences when you break the law, you feel more and more untouchable.

And the more untouchable you feel, the more brazen you are with your crimes.

Although Trump’s actions in DC are a step in the right direction, it’s going to take a lot more steps to get to where we need to be, and they have to be careful steps. Anger from the killing of two young adults in such a short amount of time is understandable, but it cannot be the driving force because it can turn justice into vengeance. And that’s the Lord’s job. Well, either him or Ghost Rider.

Anyway, to me the only way to fight back against lawlessness is to show people a better way. Live your life with respect for others, even if they don’t share your worldview. Think before you act, and when you act, act with your head and your heart. You won’t be able to save everybody, but at least you won’t be adding to the situation that drives more and more people to become criminals. And don’t be afraid to call out fuckups on our side as well as theirs. What you allow your side to do is what you allow for the other side to do.

In closing, I feel horrible about what happened to Iryna and Charlie. I didn’t know either one of them well enough, but I’m a human being first and foremost. Pray for our country. We’re gonna need it.



Uncivil Discourse

With the assassination of Charlie Kirk still looming in my headspace, I figured I’d better put some thoughts down about it to make room for other things, like lyrics from obscure 80s songs.

Being a commentator on the Interwebs opens people up to a lot of stuff. Lucrative offers from deep pocketed donors, YouTube shows, podcasts, the occasional hello from a fan, that sort of thing. The downside, though, is it opens you up to a lot of criticism, too. And sometimes that criticism turns from “hey, I have a legitimate issue with something you said” to “fuck you, asshole, I’m gonna kill you.” Most of the time, the latter can be brushed off as keyboard warrior talk, but lately it’s this kind of talk that permeates the online space.

And as online culture became current culture, the level of hatred has risen to the point I fear we’re on the road to civil war and we don’t have many offramps left before we get there. A lot of this has to do with the notion of revenge. These days, whenever we think someone slights us, we don’t seek to make amends or to address the matter in a civil, mindful way. We’re out to take whatever we can get and fuck your feelings.

We can see a microcosm of this in a seemingly unrelated story. Remember “Phillies Karen”? If you’re not familiar with the story, here’s the breakdown. A Phillies player hit a home run into the stands, and there was a scramble for the ball. Phillies Karen went for it, but was bested by a young boy’s father, who gave the ball to his son because a) the home run was hit by the boy’s favorite player, and b) the father wanted his son to have a great memory of the day.

Well, Phillies Karen didn’t care. All she knew was she wanted the ball and didn’t care about who got hurt by her getting it. She went over to the father and started berating him, allegedly saying “You took my ball,” After a brief discussion, the father made the boy give Phillies Karen “her” ball.

Not exactly the way you want to become famous.

I won’t go into the aftermath because it’s irrelevant to the larger point, but let’s just say Karma never misses.

I brought up Phillies Karen because it encapsulates the very attitude so prevalent in our society right now, and it feeds directly into the larger issue about our road to civil war. Society has become so egocentric and petty that even a minor slight like what Phillies Karen felt turned into a major issue that people feel they have to take into their own hands. And sometimes that leads to threats of violence and violence.

This is where I usually step in and try reason. For Phillies Karen, it’s just a fucking baseball. It’s not going to be the end of the world if you don’t get it, and there was a much better way to handle it than to demand to get “your” ball back. In storytelling, this attitude is called “Main Character Syndrome” and it’s becoming more and more prevalent in society. We are the main characters in our lives and by God the rest of the world better acknowledge it or else!

But that’s just it. If everyone has that attitude, then everyone is a main character, which means no one is a main character. Congratulations, you’ve played yourselves.

Bringing that forward into the political sphere, many commenters on the Left have Main Character Syndrome and do their best to make their problems into everyone else’s. That takes a level of malice I’m not ready to explore personally because even when I’m at my most petty, I try to take a step back and see what the endgame is. What do I want to accomplish if I take umbrage at a comment? A civil discussion? A shit-flinging contest? A dick-measuring contest? More often than not, I lead with the civil discussion and keep things above board. Not only does that show my true intentions, but it pisses off the people looking to get me to react in an uncivil way.

Even when I was young and stupid, as opposed to being old and stupid now, there were lines I didn’t cross, especially over online bullshit. You want to mock me, be my guest and we’ll see who runs out of material first. If you attempt to hurt my life or my family, I will take offense, but I won’t reveal it nor whatever machinations I have up my sleeve. And 99% of the time, I stewed over it, left it alone, and eventually let it go permanently.

That doesn’t happen much today, unfortunately. With every little annoyance or difference of opinion being seen as a threat, people are more on edge than ever. And when something is seen as a threat, people will do anything to protect themselves, including choosing violence to settle a battle of words. And once you make that choice, it gets really easy to justify anything against anyone.

Such as the number of videos from Leftists cheering Charlie Kirk’s death.

That’s where FAFO comes into play. Once you cross that line into Fuck Around territory, the Find Out comes at you pretty fast. With the number of anti-Kirk videos out there, the pro-Kirk side decided to be the agents of Karma and expose the hateful assholes. Of course, the Left has been doing this for years, so I’m surprised yet not that surprised they didn’t figure on the Right playing by the rules the Left set. Now, there are videos from anti-Kirk folks where they tearfully talking about how they lost their jobs for merely expressing an opinion, and the Leftists in the media (but I repeat myself) are amplifying their sad stories in a sympathetic tone.

I wonder what a certain Colorado baker might have to say about these Leftists losing their livelihoods for expressing an opinion. Something tells me it might rhyme with “bake the cake, bigot.”

Yet, on a much larger level, what good will come from fighting back and forth in the modern social and online culture? An eye for an eye may feel good in the short term, but it only escalates matters back and forth until optometry is not a growth industry because everybody winds up partially blind. And, yes, I recognize I’ve had a role in that. I am not blameless in any way, especially when it comes to the quality of my jokes.

Having said that, I have found a way to get out of the death spiral by understanding a key concept: disagreeing doesn’t mean you have to be disagreeable. You can disagree with friends and family without letting it ruin those relationships, no matter what the Left says. There are people in my circle of friends who hate Donald Trump and MAGA with their whole hearts while I’m a sometimes-Trumper, but we’ve found a way not to let that negatively affect our friendships because we’ve learned to see each other as people, not as party affiliations.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said “Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” Do I think Leftists want people outside of their ideological hivemind dead? Some do, but I hold onto the idea there are some who don’t, and these people still have some ability to reason. Do I think Rightists want the same as the extreme Left? Some do, but I know there are enough out there who don’t. And to everyone else caught in the crossfire, I know there are plenty of people who feel the same way as I do: political violence and retaliation is not the answer.

I just hope there’s enough of us left standing after the eyes get poked out to rebuild our country.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week – Mail Bag Edition

Since there was nothing that struck my as particularly newsworthy or that I haven’t already mocked into next century, I thought I’d take a look inside the old Leftist Lexicon Mail Bag (as opposed to looking inside the Leftist Lexicon Male Bag, which would be rather painful). After all, I love getting all sorts of messages from my tens and tens of fans!

So, with no further ado (or adon’t), let’s dive right in!

Hi, Thomas. I’m a new reader and I want to know more about how you define a Leftist. Any insight would be greatly appreciated!

Of course! My definition of a Leftist is someone who thinks the government is the end all and be all of problem solving. And this isn’t just a Democrat thing, either. There were and are a lot of Republicans who I would call Leftist because they’re just as keen on big government as many Democrats are, even while complaining about government overreach when they’re not in power. As a small government kind of guy, I hate two-faced weasels like this.

What is your opinion of President Donald Trump?

Trump has always been a mixed bag for me. When he’s done or advocated for things that make sense, like DOGE or trying to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine, I’ve given him his due. When he’s done or advocated for things that don’t make sense, like his flip-flops on the Epstein files and his pussyfooting around with China, I’ve shaken my head in a “what in the Wide World of Fuck are you doing” kind of way. He’s not the man I’d want near the nuclear button, but he’s light years ahead of Queen Kamala the Appointed and President Brick Tamland.

And, yes, I realize that’s not a high bar to cross.

Democrats keep finding themselves on the wrong end of 80/20 issues lately. Why is that?

It’s complicated, but I’ll try to break it down.

Democrats have been on the defensive for the past few years due to a number of factors ranging from them overplaying their hands during COVID to just being absolutely tone-deaf when it comes to bread and butter issues. That, and they’re reflexively against anything President Trump supports, which puts them in a bind because he is a master of finding the pulse of the country and staking his claim on the side Americans want most. Whether he actually means it…well, that’s a different story altogether.

I know you’re against lawfare and weaponizing the federal government, so why haven’t you spoken out against Trump doing that, you MAGA asshole?

First off, I’m not MAGA, and never have been. It’s a catchy slogan, but it doesn’t give me a framework to build upon. What I think needs to happen to make America great is going to be vastly different than what someone else thinks needs to happen. Same goal, different approach.

Second, I am still firmly against the use of the legal system and the federal government to extract revenge on anyone. That’s just a jump to the left and then a step to the riiiiiight towards creating a perpetual cycle of courts and bureaucrats fucking over people they don’t like. And if you think Trump was going to let shit like what you did to him slide, you are a dumb motherfucker. Trump is petty personified. I tried to warn you, but you didn’t listen and now…enjoy the monster you created.

There’s a lot of tension between people these days. How do you think we can bridge the gap and unite again?

That’s an easy one to say, but harder to make real.

We have to get to a point where we see past our differences and focus on our common beliefs. I have a lot of friends from a wide swath of ideological beliefs, but I don’t let that stop me from being their friends. Only when lines get crossed do I cut ties, but most of the time nothing that someone says or believes is enough to make me stop liking them. Once most people start thinking like this, then we’ll see a societal shift towards unity.

Take this pill to increase your penis size by 5X. Click here for more information.

I’ll respond to this one privately. Moving on…

Hey MAGAt! How does it feel knowing you’re sucking on tRump’s cock as he leads us to a fascist future?

I had a similar conversation with an acquaintance recently. She saw herself as a member of the resistance fighting against the Nazis, a la the French Resistance, but I had to remind her she was cosplaying as a resistance fighter. No matter how much you hate Trump, you’d have a hard time selling me on the idea we’re either currently fascist or heading that way because…you’re still allowed to protest without fear of being prosecuted, persecuted, or a fuck-ton worse. Trump isn’t Hitler, and it’s time you get that through your pointy heads.

What are your preferred pronouns?

I don’t have any. I love all pronouns equally.

Who are your influences, political or otherwise?

When it comes to political influences, I lean into Ayn Rand, Ronald Reagan, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. The latter two are because of when I started becoming politically aware and Rand because I could see where she was coming from and it made sense to me. Plus, all three championed being independent, even when the rest of the country didn’t agree. Being the sole person standing up for what’s right doesn’t make it the wrong thing because of the number of people saying it’s wrong.

Comedically, I draw a lot of influence from people like P. J. O’Rouke, Dennis Miller (even when he was more Left-leaning than he is today), George Carlin, Mark Twain, and Monty Python. Add the Zucker brothers to that mix, and you have me in a nutshell.

How do you deal with the insanity of the world today?

I try to match the world’s insanity, but try to make it humorous. Human beings have an amazing ability to make anything infinitely more complicated while assuming it’s a snap to do. If you let that kind of shit get to you, you’re going to be angry, frustrated, and may ultimately do something drastic, like becoming a Minnesota Vikings fan. (And I say that as a Vikings fan, no less!) The only way to get through life today is to find the funny and beautiful in life.

Failing that, there’s always booze.

What do you think is the biggest issue in America right now?

For me, it’s people comfortable with a lack of responsibility when they do shitty things. As much as the Left love to say “No one is above the law” there are a lot of people who seem to be above the law, and they tend to be on the Left. And until we get to see a bunch of people on both sides of the political slime trail frog-marched, tried, convicted, and sentenced appropriately for the crimes they commit, it’s not going to stick. And until we demand it, we’re not going to see it anytime soon.

You’re a fat fuck! Why don’t you lose weight?

I don’t know. Maybe I got scared off by Jim Fixx dying while jogging.

You call yourself a “recovering Leftist.” If you disagree with them so much, why do you still have a link to them?

The nature of Leftist ideology requires a level of deep commitment that one cannot completely detach from quickly. It’s very much like a cult, and it has been for a long time. But if the WalkAway Movement has shown, it’s possible to escape the Leftist hivemind and live a happier, more genuine life. Yet, even though I like the Left as much as I like genital herpes (not that I know anything about that, mind you), there are times when they are on the right side of an issue, even if it’s for completely different reasons than mine. My nature is to be honest, and when Leftists are right about something, I call it out.

It may be more rare than how Dracula likes his hamburgers, but I still do it.

I don’t know who you are. I don’t know what you want. If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don’t have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills, skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you.

And on that note, let’s close the mail bag for a while. Like a few centuries.





The Curious Case of Jasmine Crockett

As you might guess, I hold politicians in the same esteem as I hold most used car salespeople, but it’s a rare individual that makes me do a double take, and not just to look at their two faces.

One such individual is Texas Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett. She has garnered a lot of attention from both sides of the political aisle for her blunt talk and seemingly intelligent questions/retorts when asked questions or speaking at a committee meeting. Many on the Left consider her to be the de facto leader of the Democrats, and many on the Right are perfectly willing to let her be that. Regardless of the reasoning behind it, I figured I’d do some homework on the good Congresswoman and give my honest appraisal of her.

One of the first things that caught my attention was not where she stands on issues, but how she articulates them. (Sue me, I have an ear for that kind of thing.) I noticed there are times when she can be eloquent, even if her points are dumber than a bag of hammers. She reminds me of the old time fire and brimstone preachers when she speaks sometimes, full of passion and direct rhetoric designed to get us motivated to do better.

Then, there are times she takes on a different tone for different audiences. Behind her bravado there is also a woman who can speak softly or more down-to-earth. When she does this, she becomes more relatable and is actually charming.

Which makes for an interesting question: who is the real Jasmine Crockett?

That…is a complicated story.

Judging from her past, she has an educational pedigree that would rival many of her peers. She also has a legal background, where performance can mean the difference between a guilty and a not guilty.

At the same time, she’s kept in touch with “her” community. I put “her” in quotation marks because her pedigree clashes with the experience of the people she represents. She looks like them, but that doesn’t make the Venn diagram of her ability to relate to her constituents into a circle.

Not that it stopped her constituents from voting for her, mind you. For a lot of voters and politicians, there’s a notion that if someone looks like you, they’re better able to represent you because the voters feel a kinship. It’s not racially, politically, or socially driven; it’s hard-wired into our societal DNA. Sociologists note we feel most comfortable when we’re amongst people who look like us. And to be fair, whites have done some pretty shitty things to blacks in history, and vice versa, so it’s not hard to understand why we have racial division in this country stoked in part by the political leadership.

That brings us to the wonderful world of identity politics. Instead of being seen as the sum of one’s parts, identity politics seeks to strip a person down to his or her (still two genders, kids) basic attributes. And I’m not talking about anything more complex than surface attributes here. Then, consider intersectionality (which is pretty much trying to figure out who is most oppressed by looking solely at the aforementioned superficial aspects and checking off boxes because that’s totally how you determine how oppressed someone is in America, amirite?), and you’ve created Franken-Candidate. Or Franken-Candidate’s Monster if you’re pedantic. Or if you’re trying to excuse a former Minnesota Senator’s joking behavior caught on film.

Anyway, the point is Crockett is the right mix of racial and gender factors, well-heeled connections and urban appeal, and above all else Orange Man Bad levels that are over 9000. Yet, even with all of that, we still don’t really know who she is because there are so many conflicting pieces to this puzzle. For example, she gives two different stories about how she got promoted to a position early in her career. In one story, she busted her butt to earn the position, and in another she simply demanded it because she was black. Vastly different story depending on what version you hear at what time.

More recently, she’s gone on to the Social Media Network Formerly Known as Twitter to attack MAGA supporters who troll her. And this is after the multiple times she’s gone after MAGA supporters in Congress and in real life. When she gets on a roll, she sounds like a badass, but after this most recent social media meltdown, that may be the extent of her badassedness. She’s a Tweeting contradiction.

And that’s what makes Jasmine Crockett such a mystery to me. You don’t know what she’s going to say at what time, but she’s built up a fan club based on it (not unlike a certain President I know). As long as there are conflicting stories out there, there will always be some doubt as to what she truly stands for, at least to anyone paying close attention. To the Left, she’s a hero, taking the fight to the Republicans. To the Right, she’s a loud-mouthed joke not to be taken seriously.

And somewhere in between is…well, I can’t say for sure, but I’m not sure it’s where Jasmine Crockett is at any given time. All I know for sure is she’s going to be in our faces for a while longer.

Or until her district gets redrawn and she’s out of a job.