Depending on when you read this, America is either celebrating or just celebrated Presidents’ Day, a federal holiday that is the equivalent of a participation trophy for people we’ve smartly or foolishly allowed access to the nuclear codes. And to be fair I can go either way on that one.
While most Americans outside of furniture stores and car lots don’t celebrate Presidents’ Day with the same zeal as, say, Arbor Day, I think this is a situation where a little makeover might change the perception, if not the one-day-only sale prices at the aforementioned vendors. All it takes is some outside-the-box thinking, and I’m as far outside the box as you can get without being declared legally insane.
And to be fair, I can go either way on that, too.
Let’s deal with the elephant and the donkey in the room. Not all Presidents are created equal. While we celebrate the courage and accomplishments of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan, Presidents’ Day includes a lot of also-rans who are only remembered by history buffs and kids trying to pass an 8th grade history class. People like Millard Filmore, Iowa’s own Calvin Coolidge, and William Howard Taft. Although I hear that cat Taft is a bad mutha…
The concept of Presidents’ Day is too broad…sorry, too woman, so although all the Presidents have a day, not all of them get the same amount of attention. Some are barely worth a mention at one of their family gatherings, let alone a day where they can be forgotten just like they are the other 364 days a year.
Let’s put a pin on that idea for now. It will play into one of my suggestions later.
Then, we have a political divide wider than the seams in Rosie O’Donnell’s stretch pants to contend with. There are Presidents one side or the other absolutely hate. I’m sure there are people on the Left who would rather we not talk about Donald Trump, Richard Nixon, or Ronald Reagan, and likewise there are people on the Right would gag if they had to mention Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, or Joe Biden in any positive way. That makes the concept of a day to celebrate those who we vehemently disagree with as popular as Nick Fuentes Appreciation Night at the Apollo.
Aside from federal employees, I don’t see a lot of people clamoring for Presidents’ Day to be a thing anymore. Then again, federal employees would lobby for a Kyle the Intern Sneezed Day if it meant they got a day off. Now, the easiest way to make it more popular would be to let everyone have the day off, but even then it would be a crap shoot if people would appreciate the reason why. Americans get Memorial Day and Veterans Day mixed up all the time, so I’m guessing they’re not ready to delve into Presidents’ Day just yet.
That’s where I come in.
The first thing I would address would be the fundamental unfairness of Presidents’ Day for forgotten and/or inconsequential Presidents. They deserve a day where their Presidencies are given the respect they deserve, after all. So, instead of having one day a year where we acknowledge Presidents, let’s have two. And by year, I’m including Leap Year. And more specifically Leap Year Day.
That’s right! Every 4 years, we will have a day set aside just for the forgotten Commanders In Chief like John Tyler, Chester A. Arthur, and Gerald Ford, and it just so happens it coincides with the one day a year that’s shoehorned in there so the Gregorian calendar isn’t thrown off.
Next, we need a new way to evaluate Presidents. Right now, that falls on the shoulders of academics and historians who may be fine intelligent people, but aren’t that much fun at parties. Today’s America demands more voices in the intellectual arena with new perspectives and match-ups.
Yep. I’m talking about social media.
I belong to a couple of Facebook groups that set up imaginary fights between fictional characters, mostly comic book and/or pop culture-based. The discussions can get pretty deep (you know, in between the numerous playground taunts about how dumb a poster is), and the possibilities are endless! Who would win in an arm wrestling tournament, Teddy Roosevelt or Dwight D. Eisenhower? Which father-son duo would win a potato sack race, John and John Quincy Adams, or George H.W. and George W. Bush? Which President would be the best wingman for a night on the town? (Answer: JFK.)
It may seem silly, but that’s what America is these days. This sort of fictional fighting would appeal to the general public. Not to mention, there are betting websites that would love to host something like this, and it might help get more people’s skin in the game. After all, America’s new favorite pastime is online gambling, so lean into that and turn Presidents’ Day into a payday!
I do have one more suggestion, but it’s really radical. I mean, it would take an act of God, a massive societal shift, and some zoning permits to make happen, but if we’re willing, it’s worth a shot.
Elect better Presidents.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
In case you haven’t figured it out from the glut of political ads out there, 2026 is an election year. Didn’t we just have one 2 years ago?
With an impending election looming on the horizon, attention is brought back to the topic of voter ID. Congressional Republicans have introduced the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, a.k.a. the SAVE Act as a means to rile up their base…I mean address the problem. Of course, Leftists disagree with it because it riles up their base…I mean it will cause fundamental damage to our democracy.
Allow me to cut through the bullshit with…well, my own bullshit.
the SAVE Act
What the Left thinks it means – a racist and sexist voter ID to address a rare occurrence
What it really means – a voting law that has issues, but is trying to come from a good place
One of the fundamental concepts of America (at least until recently) is the concept of the voice of the people being heard, whether it be through a protest or at the ballot box. In the latter case, it’s essential we trust the process so we can trust the results, even if we don’t like them. I’ll be the first one to tell you I didn’t enjoy some of the previous Presidents, but I accepted their victories as legit. Yes, there were always a few cranks out there who claimed elections were rigged, but most of the time they were ignored.
Then the 2020 shitshow happened.
Not only did we have to deal with the insanity of government overreach in the name of protecting people from COVID (unless you were an elderly person in New York State, that is), but we had what can only be called a hinky election. There are a lot of other things it could be called, but I’m trying to stay family-friendly here. And if you don’t like it, go fuck yourself.
Even if you aren’t inclined to believe the election was stolen, there are too many questions without suitable answers even almost 6 years after the fact. How did someone like President Brick Tamland go from getting less than 1% of the vote in the Iowa Caucuses to getting more of the popular vote than Barack Obama without him doing anything more than…being Brick Tamland? At the time, Donald Trump had a 43% approval rating, so it’s hard to believe there was so much anti-Trump sentiment that it would sway the vote.
Unless bullshit was afoot.
It was after the 2020 clusterfuck that Republicans redoubled their efforts to institute voter ID laws, suggesting there were dishonest players out there who were gaming the system. You know, like ACORN. In response, the Left did what they always do: lie their asses off. The Left went from saying voter fraud doesn’t happen to it being rare to it’s only Republicans doing it.
But as inconsistent as their message has been, they are consistent on one thing: they are against voter ID. Their stated reasons are laughable enough, including it being racist and sexist, but the actual reason is much simpler.
It means the Left can’t cheat as easily.
That’s why the Left is bound and determined to tell us blacks and women are incompetent and can’t get their shit together well enough to obtain the documentation the SAVE Act says is needed to prove citizenship. And just what is that documentation? I’m glad you asked because otherwise this would be a much shorter Lexicon entry.
– a valid photo ID
– a US passport
– a birth certificate showing your legal name at birth (because, duh, birth certificate)
– additional documentation (marriage license, divorce decree, etc.) as needed in some circumstances
While the Left focuses on how few people can access these documents, I do take issue with these requirements as they pertain to women. Although it’s not an impossible task, especially if you’re as organized as my wife, it’s still a hassle for people who haven’t had an issue voting prior to the SAVE Act to have to jump through hoops like trained poodles to exercise their voting rights.
And what about trans people? This is going to seem odd coming from me, but it’s still a valid issue for me. To prove you’re who you say you are, you have to produce documentation of a life you no longer lead, which can bring back some painful memories, as well as emotional scarring. I don’t have to dig their lifestyle to defend their right to vote.
Of course, voter ID isn’t the only matter addressed in the SAVE Act. There are aspects impacting voter registration, maintaining accurate voting records, and other forms of red meat for Red voters. This is where it gets complicated for me. I understand the reasoning and appreciate what the SAVE Act is trying to do because, let’s face it, there’s a whole lot of shady shit going on.
Where I part ways with the Right is how many implications haven’t been completely thought through yet. Just with the two examples I came up with above, I can see how this has the potential to backfire on the Right. I know the Left is going to call you (and by extension me) misogynistic, transphobic, and the like, but you don’t have to give them ammunition.
On the other side of the fence, the Left doesn’t really have much to offer in opposition. Between denying there’s a problem and relying on the “racist” and “sexist” labels, you’re not giving people a reason to take your side. Especially considering the absolute fucking morons you’re trotting out to do it. You’re literally making the job easier for Republicans by being so fucking bad at fighting it. Come up with something new, for the love of God, or whatever deity you pray to these days.
Even though it’s flawed, the SAVE Act does have some elements worth preserving. And you know if the Left is shitting bricks over it, it can’t be half bad.
Stolen Land
The Myth of Stolen Land
I grow tired of seeing this Leftist non-sense cry about “stolen land.” There is no such thing as stolen land. Land, territory, property, whatever you want to call it cannot be stolen. Unless you are going out with a shovel every night to take some of your neighbor’s yard.
Stolen? No. Land can be gifted, bought, traded, or conquered. But never stolen. Those are the only ways land changes ownership. And is exactly what took place in the Americas.
The various Indian tribes waged war against one another for centuries before the first European settlers ever reached the shores. In those times “tribal land” changed hands a multitude of times. By right of conquest, with the spoils going to the victor.
The European settlers used the methods of buying, trading, and conquest to gain ownership of the lands on which they forged new nations. Where the Indian tribes cheated or swindled in these buying and trading deals? The answer to that is possibly but that doesn’t mean it was stolen. Know the terms and negotiate better.
In addition to buying and trading, conquest was used for vast majority of the land to change ownership by force of war. This isn’t stealing, this is conquest. A method of gaining land ownership since Biblical times.
Today these tribes have reservations. Land that was gifted to them. Some tribes, being savvy businessmen have purchased additional land making their reservations larger over the years. Did they cheat and swindle the sellers? The answer to that is again probably. It happens all the time. Again though, the land is not being stolen even if the buy is cheated or swindled.
There are cases where there are inter tribal disputes as to who owns what part of the reservation. These are settled in court under law. But sometimes still at gun point in a few cases. That’s conquest again if you aren’t paying attention.
So to say “none one is illegal on stolen land” or any other such non-sense about “stolen land” is just false. We do not live of on stolen land, no body does anywhere. The land has either been gifted, bought, traded, or conquered.
If you want land you must use one of those methods to get it.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
In case you hadn’t heard (and, really, why would you care at this point), the Grammys were recently held and a lot of anti-ICE sentiments, including from pop star Billie Eilish who said “No one is illegal on stolen land.” I’m pretty sure she would feel differently if there were squatters on her property claiming ownership.
And if you don’t think that would actually happen, look up squatters rights in New York City. Just don’t try their salsa.
Now, someone is holding Ms. Eilish to her word because…her house is on stolen land! Oops.
Anyway, Ms. Eilish’s current squatterhood isn’t the subject of this week’s Lexicon, as humorous as it is. Instead, I’m going to focus on a related subject the Left seems to have problems understanding, property rights. (Granted, I could put in just about anything after the comma and it would still be correct, but work with me here.) I will warn you this stuff is gonna be dryer than Ben Shapiro listening to Cardi B, but I will try to make it entertaining.
property rights
What the Left thinks it means – an outdated concept that reinforces power structures, including racism and sexism
What it really means – a bedrock Constitutional right around which many others revolve
Say what you will about the Founding Fathers (and believe me Leftists have), but two of the things they were passionate about were protecting one’s person and property. In fact, Thomas “You Need It When?” Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence referenced “life, liberty, and property” which was kinda awkward when you consider he owned slaves at the time. Fortunately, cooler wigs prevailed and he changed it to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” which he most certainly did with Sally Hemmings, if you know what I mean.
Anyway, the point is the Founding Fathers understood the importance of property rights as an extension of human rights. The Bill of Rights itself posed a number of restrictions on government fucking around with our property. Here are a few:
Second Amendment – government can’t take our guns (not that it stopped them before…)
Third Amendment – government can’t use our property to house soldiers without our permission
Fourth Amendment – we have the right for our person and property to be safe from government conducting unreasonable searches and seizures (not that it stopped them before…)
Fifth Amendment – government can’t take our shit without paying us for it (not that it stopped…hey, is there an echo?)
Eight Amendment – government can’t jack up fines, depriving us of money
You could even make an argument for the First Amendment being a limit on intellectual property, but even if you don’t, that’s half of the Bill of Rights dealing at least in part with personal property. Later Amendments also dipped their toes into the property rights waters with a little less fervor and frequency than the Founding Fathers.
Wow. I haven’t seen that many Fs since my last report card.
Anyway, the concept of property rights is woven into our country’s DNA, so it’s not something that we should take lightly. Which means, of course, the Left wants to change that. Yes, I know it’s shocking to think people who believe socialism can work see property ownership and the rights that come with it are a bad thing.
It stems from an economic concept I’ve discussed previously, so of course I’m going to repeat it, called a zero-sum game. Basically, it’s the idea that when someone else wins, you lose. It’s always explained in terms of a pie (mmmmm…piiiiiie), so if someone takes a bigger piece, it deprives others of a piece or an equivalent size of a piece, which the Left tells us is bad.
Here’s where shit gets really weird, kids. Imagine if you will an infinite pie, one where it’s impossible to run out because it’s so massive. Not only will you be able to get your initial slice, but you can go back and get more without negatively affecting others. Or, to put it another way, the economy keeps making pies at a rate that surpasses the desire for it, so there is never a loss for pie.
You know, I’m starting to get hungry for some reason…
Meanwhile, back at the non-pie related subject, the Left views property rights the same way, although with fewer bakery references. If someone owns land or a house, they think it somehow deprives someone else of owning said land or house. Of course, the problems with this line of thought are a) it doesn’t prevent the second person from owning land/housing somewhere else, b) it presumes the first person did something to harm the second person, and c) it’s fucking stupid.
Then again, so are the Leftists getting their collectivist panties in a bunch over a person with land and a house.
You know, like…oh, I don’t know…Billie Eilish?
But apparently that’s okay because she’s saying the right thing about stolen land and illegal immigration. That’s the best thing about being a Leftist: as long as you have the “right” position, all of your sins get forgiven. The caveat is you have to keep the “right” position at all times or else you get excommunicated. Just ask Nikki Minaj.
But while you wait for her to get some time in her schedule, keep in mind the Left have a low opinion of property owners in general, whether it be a landlord or a business owner, mainly because they don’t understand how property ownership is a thing. (I refer you back to the number of Leftists who think socialism can work as evidence.) They especially dislike anyone who owns property and attempts to make money from it, citing it’s greed.
To which I say, “No fucking duh!”
Like it or not, people find ways to make money. Some people try counterfeiting, but most use their tools or talents to satisfy a need. That includes providing housing to people who want to rent a place to live, or who…now get this…need a place to house their goods and services. That in and of itself isn’t evil or even morally gray. It just is.
Which makes it all the more humorous to me when the Left tries to guilt/shame people into feeling bad about making money. There is no shame in using what you have to make a buck. Well, except if you’re a social media influencer, that is. The point is the Left wants you to feel bad because of something you have that they don’t. That’s why they lean into the rhetoric they do. Whether it’s “property ownership is racist” or “companies can go through insurance to pay for damage done” to “no one should be a billionaire” the song remains the same, and it’s no better with autotune.
Expecting a Leftist to be consistent with property rights is like expecting Hunter Biden not to do drugs; it’s theoretically possible, but highly unlikely. That’s why I’ve come up with a handy-dandy little tool to defend yourself against Leftist emotional manipulation.
Okay, I didn’t invent it, but merely adopted it from my schoolyard days. It’s called, “So What?” Whenever a Leftist tries to make you feel guilty about your property rights, ask them “So what?” You can also use the, “And?” approach if you’d prefer. What that will do is confuse them to the point you can make your escape if you so choose. Of course, if you do that, you’ll miss out on their heads exploding, but it saves on dry cleaning bills.
The secret of its effectiveness is in the fact it challenges the Leftist mindset that you must feel bad about property rights. Not only do they not expect it because they’re usually around like-minded individuals who don’t question the bullshit they’re saying, but it forces them to confront the reality that it may not be as morally egregious as they think. They’ll never admit that, though, and will try to double down.
Then, hit ’em with it again.
Blather. Rinse. Repeat.
At some point, the Leftist will either have an emotional meltdown that would make most toddlers look stoic or give up and move on with their days of…wait, what is it Leftists actually do? Oh, yeah, bilk taxpayer money through NGOs or get generous donations from Uncle George Soros to sit on their activist asses and pretend to be doing something meaningful.
You know, like making money off property ownership?
While we wait for Ms. Eilish to give up her stolen land (safety tip: don’t hold your breath waiting), understand the Left will not give up the fight against property rights for you, and in favor of property rights for them. The best way to fight back is to not even acknowledge their version of reality and insert your own, which I guarantee is a lot closer to actual reality.
What else do you expect from people taking their ideological cues from a pop star?
The Right is Stupid
Time after time I see that the Right is Stupid when it comes to technology with an almost Luddite mentality.
Wanting to return to paper ballots when a blockchain based ballot system would be far superior to anything we have now. Secure and tamper proof.
Being against electric vehicles and autonomous vehicles. These are the future of automobiles. Battery and computer technology continues to grow in leaps and bounds. And this technology will replace our current gas vehicles.
And then there is Social Media. During President Trump’s first term, the President and many other conservatives were silenced across multiple social media platforms. Even to the point of being banned for life. One of these was Twitter, before it was purchased and rebranded by Elon Musk.
There was a growing open source project called StatusNet. A twitter-like service that was decentralized. Anyone could setup a server and they would all talk to each other. And as it grew and developed it became the service known now as Mastodon. Which of course uses an elephant for it’s logo.
As a decentralized platform each server can have it’s own rules and and structure. Each server can choose to associate with any of the others or none of them at all. Or even allow its users to follow but not otherwise interact. It’s really a great system.
And like many new technologies the Left seems to adapt to them quickly. While the Right sits in the cave and bangs stones together.
Today the Mastodon Fediverse is free of ads. And none of use like the heavy use of ads on other services. The Right, after being banned from Twitter created a few of their own Twitter-like microblogging services. But they are full of ads. This was dumb move. The Right should have just flooded the Fediverse with servers. So what if the Left doesn’t follow them? We would Federate with others and still have a great system everywhere.
There is still time to do this of course if the Right decided to do something intelligent when it comes to technology. But they probably wont.
In the Meme Time
The idiotic Left is at it again. Here is yet another meme that is so full of holes it would never float. Yet to the Left this is so real. Scary how they don’t think.
Line by line we will take it apart. And of course there is usually a hint of truth to make something so idiotic as this believable by the ignorant.
“The are trying to bait us into violence.”
Well Leftist, violence is your specialty. The Right doesn’t commit violence, we have prayer vigils and peaceably assemble. It is the Left that riots, burns, attacks, and protests. All against the law. We don’t need to bait you in order for you to commit an act you were going to do anyway.
“That’s the plan.”
No, that isn’t the plan. The plan all along has been simple. To secure our borders, secure our cities, to secure our citizens. And in doing so we round up and deport the criminal illegal aliens from our nation. This is the plan and why we voted for Donald Trump.
“Kill Americans on camera until someone shoots a federal agent,”
There is no desire or plan to kill Americans or even the illegal aliens for that matter. The events in Minnesota would have happened without cameras present if agitators attacked federal agents doing their jobs. But most agitators want the cameras because it is all show to them. Their lives are meaningless to themselves. This is another example of suicide by cop. Don’t violate the law and you wont end up getting shot or killed because you did something stupid.
Now if some Leftist agitator DOES shoot a federal agent. That would be a crime, probably several, in the state of Minnesota. But that nothing that is hoped for at all. We would like our law enforcement officers and citizen to be safe.
“then declare “insurrection”, “
The quotes aren’t needed. If violent illegal mobs are attacking federal officers in the line of duty. That is insurrection. It would be a fully justified course of action to invoke the Insurrection Act. This part of the meme is true, if a federal officer is shot, I’m 100% behind invoking the Insurrection Act to restore order in Minnesota or anywhere for that matter.
“deploy the military”
Another truth. If the Insurrection Act is invoked due to a federal officer being shot by an illegal violent mob. Then the military would be deployed to restore order. That is part of the act’s powers.
“and cancel the 2026 elections.”
This is a scare tactic and fearmongering. It is also laughable unless one is unhinged and ignorant enough to believe the drivel. Federal elections cannot be cancelled. They are Constitutionally protected. They cannot be cancelled or postponed. They take place in November no matter what. Unlike other countries, we have no provision to stop federal elections. Leftist countries have those, not the United States.
“This is the fascist playbook.”
Yes it is a Leftist playbook item. And that is not a mistake, fascists are Leftists just as Marxists, Socialists, National Socialists (Nazis), Communists, and any other totalitarian regime. This is exactly what they would do but again it isn’t possible under the US Constitution. Sorry to burst your bubbles useful idiots.
“Do not give them their Reichstag fire.”
This of course is their inane juvenile attempt to compare Trump and the Right to Hitler and Nazis. Again, this just shows the ignorance. Nazism, National Socialism is a Leftist form of government. It has nothing to do with the Right. And Trump and Hitler have nothing in common at all.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
This is a topic I’ve wanted to cover for a while, but with the shitstorm of everything going on in the world, I had to put this one on the back burner.
There’s a new epidemic loose in the world, one that is worse than COVID, SARS, and Dylan Mulvaney getting a Broadway gig combined. It’s…whiteness. And it’s not some weird Bluesky bullshit either; it’s coming from the University of Minnesota. (Great. As if having Governor TIMMAH! wasn’t enough of an embarrassment.)
Little did I know my skin color was such as contagion! But if I had to learn about it as part of my research for this week’s Lexicon, you have to! (Don’t blame me. I don’t make the rules.)
whiteness epidemic
What the Left thinks it means – the widespread proliferation of white culture and its negative implications
What it really means – another attempt to make white people feel guilty for something out of their control
Much like Hunter Biden at a crack dealer’s convention, there are some things in life you cannot control, and skin color is one of them. Of course, that doesn’t stop Leftists from trying to make whites feel guilty about it. This is because white Leftists already feel guilty about it and they love to share their misery and expect everyone else to carry the cross they’ve put on our collective backs.
The thing is they’re not completely wrong. Whites have been utter pricks throughout world history. For every Issac Newton or Jonas Salk, there’s been an Adolph Hitler or agent who told Johnny Knoxville he could act. And to be fair there’s been more of the latter than there is of the former.
Now, having said that, unless we are the pricks in the aforementioned paragraph, we don’t have to share in the guilt by default. Last I checked, we haven’t invented a time machine that allows us to go back and prevent bad things from happening…or maybe somebody did and it fucked up the space-time continuum…
That would explain everything post-2020.
Or have I said too much?
Never mind.
The point is we aren’t responsible for the bad shit our ancestors did anymore than they’re responsible for the bad shit we do. Great Grandpa Zeke didn’t invent dub step, after all. That’s on us, and more specifically, the person who invented dub step.
The Left doesn’t see it that way. (White guilt, not necessarily the dub step thing.) To them, anything our ancestors did has to be atoned for right now, regardless of our family history. For example, I have two ancestors who fought for the Union in the Civil War, so that should exclude me from having to feel white guilt, right?
Nope!
Because as the University of Minnesota puts it:
Race matters in the United States because racism still exists and young children perceive much more than we usually realize. When parents and other adults are silent around race, it communicates apathy or approval of racism even if this is the opposite of what adults intend. On the other hand, parents can push back against racism through their words and actions, sending a powerful message to their children.
So, it’s not enough not to be racist anymore. You have to be anti-racist, as the Left puts it. But even that’s not enough unless you do everything the Left tells you to do, and even then that can be undone with an insensitive comment (that only the Left can determine because they’re aware of all the racism out there).
I know I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating. If Leftists are the ones hearing all the racist “dog whistles” that the rest of us can’t, wouldn’t that make them the racists?
I saw something similar to this during my college years at the University of Bedrock (Go Brontosauruses!) with Political Correctness. The Left attempted to change the culture through changing the words people used. On the surface, it was okay because it was sold as being done to raise awareness and be more respectful to others.
Then, everything went banana-shaped.
Once people bought into the idea of Political Correctness, the Left started holding us accountable for the rules they made up, which gave them a lot of unearned power. Then, the rules would change and those who weren’t using the “right” terminology anymore were shunned like a hooker in Amish country.
So much for inclusion and respect for others, amirite?
Although Political Correctness has gone the way of Crystal Pepsi (and thank God for both being out of my life), there are still remnants of it today. Remember how the Left insisted Latinos and Latinas be called Latinx to be more inclusive? Same principle, and same outcome in that it was resoundingly rejected by anyone with a lick of sense.
Eventually, the whiteness epidemic is going to wind up the same way, but it’s going to take some time. And in the meantime, there are some things to consider for our Leftist friends out there.
1. The whiteness epidemic is designed to address racism, yet by definition racism involves either the denigration or elevation of one race over another. So, how does it address racism when it’s racist by its very nature?
2. This is going to be a “whataboutism” but fuck it. Take everything you attribute to the whiteness epidemic and insert any other race or creed. Now, imagine you saying that to a member of that race or creed. More than likely, you’re going to get looked at funny at the very least. You know why? Because it’s fucking bigoted.
3. If whiteness is an epidemic, what is the cure? On the website, you say you want “to better understand the culture of Whiteness and support parents to challenge it, which motivated the Whiteness Pandemic Project, a research study in Minnesota.” If the cure is anti-racism, how will we know we’ve achieved the end of the epidemic?
4. Along those same lines, the way most epidemics are dealt with is through quarantine. How will you separate the parts of white culture you find objectionable from the other parts of white culture that help society? Is it going to be an all-or-nothing approach? And how will you separate white culture from human culture as a whole?
5. And while we’re here, what exactly is “white culture”? It wasn’t that long ago that the Left was calling George Zimmerman a “white Hispanic.” So, would that include him, even though his life choices would repulse a number of whites, including Leftists? What about people of different races who don’t think whiteness is an epidemic or who think white culture is okay? What role do they play in the “whiteness epidemic” and how will you deal with them?
6. Just how far up your ass does your head need to be to think like you do?
Okay, that last one is just for me.
The point is this idea hasn’t been fully fleshed out enough for it to accomplish anything. That may be by design in order to keep money flowing, but from a practical standpoint it’s a not-even-half-baked solution looking for a problem that may not even be a problem for most people. If you want someone like me on board, I’m going to need some more data.
You know. Follow the science?
Or pseudo-science as the case may be.
Iowa Gubernatorial Debate
After the first gubernatorial debate in Iowa I have a new favorite. But I will give a rundown of my opinions of all the candidates running. Even if they didn’t take part in the debate.
Representative Eddie Andrews is now my current favorite for the nomination. He has done well in the Iowa House representing his district. And continues to do so even while campaigning across the state for governor. Visiting all 99 counties.
He lacks funding, but doesn’t see that as a hindrance. He also seemed a bit unsure of himself on the stage and fumbled a bit. But not too badly.
Brad Sherman was my original choice, back when Governor Kim Reynolds hadn’t decided if she was seeking another term or not. However, after seeing and hearing him on the debate stage I have doubts. His age shows, it really does.
I was at Zach Lahn’s announcement party in West Des Moines. My opinion of him hasn’t changed and has only been reinforced. He’s a farmer and businessman, although an outsider is always good to have it’s not one of his faults. What drives me away from Mr. Lahn is his effeminate and soft spoken nature. It gives the appearance of lacking a leadership. He would easily fit into the crowd at The Garden in downtown Des Moines. But not in the Governor’s office.
Adam Steen was professional and polished. He could have easily taken the lead in this debate and contest. But, he was endorsed by The Family Leader, who in the last decade has had a number of bad picks for their endorsements. The nail in the coffin however is that Adam Steen supports the Convention of States. I cannot in good conscious support that at all. It is a dangerous form of Pandora’s box.
Lastly we have Randy Feenstra. Another Family Leader pick I might add and the current Congressman from Iowa’s 4th District. He was invited to the debate. Came to Iowa on the Air Force One with the President. But declined to attend. He is the establishment pick for Governor. He has more funds than the other 4 combined and has great name recognition.
He is not truly a deep conservative. His record shows that with easy. And the Left knows this as well. This is why Rob Sands, the Democratic candidate is hoping that the November election is between himself and Feenstra. Many know that if Feenstra is the Republican nominee, then Sands will will that November election and become Iowa’s next Governor.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Although the Lexicon primarily features issues originating in the US of A (as opposed to Canada, which is the US of Eh), sometimes the subject matter crosses international boundaries. In this case, the origin of this week’s Lexicon starts in Jolly Old England (as opposed to Canada, which is Jolly Old Eh-gland.)
It starts with an online game called Pathways (think a cheerier version of “Depression Quest”) where the user navigates through a series of events in an attempt to dissuade him or her from falling for online extremist propaganda. Welllll…let’s just say it backfired. Instead of educating users (primarily teenagers) about the dangers of propaganda, it is propaganda in and of itself by painting anyone to the right of Josef Stalin as an extremist.
I could talk all day about propaganda (as my lovely wife will tell you), but the focus of this week’s Lexicon is on the concept of online extremism. I’ll be the first one to tell you the Interwebs is a hotbed of people nuttier than elephant shit, but does that make them extremists?
Depends on who you ask.
online extremism
What the Left thinks it means – Internet propaganda designed to persuade gullible people to adopt right wing beliefs and ideas
What it really means – Internet propaganda designed to persuade gullible people to adopt any wing’s beliefs and ideas
So, where do I begin? Well, let me just start by saying online extremism is not just a right wing issue. There is and always has been a section of online culture dominated by left wing thinking, but they’ve been mostly relegated to backwater channels with an echo chamber bigger than the Grand Canyon. Or, as it’s called today, Bluesky.
That in and of itself isn’t that big a deal to me. I’m a big fan of letting people say what’s on their minds, even if I disagree with it. For one, it fosters more and better communication than banning it out of turn. For another, it’s always a good way to see where the assholes are so you can avoid them. Unless you want to point and laugh, which is easier when they make themselves known. So, there are plenty of good reasons not to silence people.
Having said all that, there are people out there who have completely lost the fucking plot and say/advocate for the weirdest shit out there. And that’s just the diaper fur community. (Safety Tip from your buddy Tom: If you don’t know, don’t look for it. Only furry evil in diapers greets you there.) Up until recently, people have been able to ignore the fringe players because they’ve been woefully unequipped to do anything about it. I knew a Pat Buchanan supporter who talked a big game, but was so short he made Nick Fuentes look like Andre the Giant. Needless to say, he wasn’t considered much of a threat.
Nowadays, it’s that kind of freak that has the power of an echo chamber telling him/her what they’re doing is completely cool and not at all too extreme. And it’s shit like this that got Renee Good shot and killed. Somewhere in her mind, she thought “running over an ICE agent is totes normal, dude” and used that thought to spur action.
Now, who could have put that idea in her head? I mean, it’s not like the Left has painted ICE in a negative light by calling them Nazis or comparing them to secret police or the Gestapo, right?
Except for Governor TIMMAH!
And Governor Gavin Newsom.
And Governor JB Pritzker.
And Senator Jeff Merkley.
And Senator Mark Warner.
And Representative Eric Swalwell.
And Representative Rashida Tlaib.
Wow. Come to think of it, there are a lot of Democrats and Leftists pulling the “ICE is the secret police/Gestapo/fascist/Nazi” card.
So, maybe the Left has a hand in the escalation of rhetoric against ICE, which is inspiring Leftist extremists to act. But remember, kids, it’s the MAGA crowd that are the violent ones because January 6th.
All that IMAX-level projection aside, online extremism is a legitimate problem, one being stoked by people we shouldn’t want to hang out with at all, man. And they all have the same problem: a messiah complex that rivals Oprah’s. With that messiah complex comes a lot of gatekeeping so only the true believers can stick around.
Naturally, that means more sensible people saying “Yanno, you might not want to drive a truck into a bunch of protesters/ICE agents” will be excommunicated and turned into the enemy, even if their opinions align with everything else the self-professed leader believes. The odd thing about these leaders of cults of personality is they often don’t have one of their own, so they borrow from someone else. Even self-styled “free thinkers” may fall victim to the kind of extremism that meets them where their biases are.
Not that this happens to too many people, right? (I’m looking at you, Bill Maher.)
Those assholes can be dangerous, what what of the followers themselves? That’s a bit of a mixed bag. The more gung ho a follower is, the more extreme he or she (still 2 genders) is likely to be. As you get further and further away from the epicenter of extremism, the less likely it is you’re dealing with an extremist. Sure, there are some who will drink the Flavor-Ade because everybody else is doing it (gotta love that peer pressure), but you’re going to find some who see the folly of it all and aren’t as willing to go along to get along.
The problem is neither side wants to separate the reasonable from the batshit insane. That would take too much effort, after all, and we don’t want people to think we’re not down for the cause because we happen to think not engaging in stupid shit is the correct path forward.
This is the time when we have to determine whether the loudest voices are the leaders or just so loud they drown out the actual leaders. I’ve seen this with the gay rights movement, the trans rights movement, the pro choice and pro life movements, the Religious Right, and so many others. And when you’re faced with the loudest voices, it gets really easy to slide into groupthink and become one of the masses, minus the “m.”
But that’s where being able to determine the difference comes in handy. If someone is loud, it doesn’t make him or her right; it just makes them harder to ignore. But is also makes them easier to mock for being loud and annoying, so there’s that.
How this applies to extremism is we have to separate the ring leaders from the ring followers because they are not always the same people. A militant trans rights activist may talk a big game, but wuss out at the first signs of it being go time. These are the ones who probably won’t decide to shoot up a Christian school, but they still have the ability to give those who do have a propensity towards violence to think the only way to fix things is to pull a “Death Wish.” They’re extremists of a sort, but more extremist-adjacent.
Think Charlie Manson versus the Manson Family members who murdered Sharon Tate, among others. The members committed the crimes, but they wouldn’t have happened without ole Charlie.
“But, Thomas,” you might be saying, “are you literally comparing trans activists to Charles Manson?” No. What I’m saying is there are some people who can inspire others to take action they might not otherwise take by instilling them with destructive thoughts. And we’re not just talking about Leftists here, folks. There are plenty of hair-triggers on the Right who would love nothing more than to start shit so they can pretend to be badasses, all from the safety of their double-wides, while others are doing the actual shit.
And all from the behind protection of a computer or phone screen.
There is a term from the Interwebs that describe these people perfectly: keyboard warriors. Now, there are some willing to put the emphasis on the latter rather than the former, which makes for a really awkward time all the way around when the fit hits the shan. (Hat tip to Larry Elder for that one.)
What Pathways gets wrong is it tries to water down the definition of extremism to an absurd degree. Even someone saying “we should be proud of being British” gets looped in with anyone who wants to put every immigrant into a chipper shredder, when that’s simply not the case. There may be some overlap between the two, but not enough to lump the former in with the latter.
Unless, of course, you’re being intellectually dishonest, which Pathways is being. The “right” course of action according to the game isn’t always the most logical. In one part of the game, you are given a choice to ignore what they deem inflammatory rhetoric, look for more information, or go from 0 to extremist by joining in the inflammatory fun. In the game, the only viable option is to ignore the rhetoric. Anything else gets you branded an extremist.
Put another way, the game punishes you for trying to be well-informed.
Which makes you more susceptible to extremist positions.
Which defeats the purpose of the game.
Unless, of course, the purpose of the game is to enable certain extremist positions…
Saaaaaaaaay! I think I’ve stumbled upon the real reason this game exists! And considering it’s targeting teenagers (who cling to popularity and clout like Hunter Biden hangs onto his crack dealer’s number), the goal is to get them to accept a set of ideas so they’ll be popular, cool, and have social clout, all without having to do anything but listen and believe.
Hmmmm…that’s a catchy little saying. I hope nobody unscrupulous ever latches onto it.
Meanwhile, what we can do to avoid being sucked in by online extremism, or extremism in general, is apply a little common sense. If you wouldn’t allow someone else to do it to you, don’t do it to other people. And if someone you know is rushing headlong towards extremism, try to pull them back. If they don’t want to come back from the edge, let them go. It may hurt, but it hurts a lot less than being buggered night after night in federal pound you in the ass prison.
Not that I know anything about that, mind you…
Joining the Fediverse
I have always been fond of the original Twitter. Before it was taken over by ads and junk that unfortunately has followed it since becoming X. But there is the Fediverse which is a microblogging system that isn’t plagued by ads. So we are joining it.
This means that you can follow the Something For Everything blog from your favorite Mastodon instance and follow us like you would follow anyone else.
Just add @somethingabouteverything and you can get our feed.