To say Harvard’s reputation as an elite academic institution has taken a hit is like saying “The View” is a TV show where ignorant harpies spew Leftist talking points and generally make asses of themselves: technically accurate, but wholly insufficient. Whether it’s the university’s tone-deaf response to anti-Israel threats and violence on campus to Claudine “Xerox” Gay’s ever-mounting plagiarism scandal or just having David “I Dohn’t Uze Spel Chek” Hogg as a graduate, Harvard is in need of some serious rehabilitation.
And I, being the solutions-oriented guy I am, am here to help.
With any type of rehabilitation, actual or metaphorical, the first step is setting challenging, yet attainable goals that keep any current shortcomings in mind. If you’re three days out of having knee replacement surgery, you’re not ready to compete in a decathlon. And to be fair and honest, Harvard isn’t ready to be respected institution of higher learning just yet. We have to start with baby steps.
And the first baby step I suggest for Harvard is to scale back its reputation as a premiere university. In fact, I think we should scale it back significantly until such time as Harvard’s reputation has gotten strong enough to reenter the pantheon of Ivy League schools.
That’s right. I’m talking Harvard becoming a community college.
But not just any community college, mind you. The only model that Harvard can possibly excel in right now is that of Greendale Community College from the TV show “Community.” For those of you unfamiliar with the show, Greendale is quite possibly one of the most poorly-run community colleges ever, with classes that even David Hogg could pass (albeit barely). Only the dregs of the dregs of academia attend Greendale.
Which means it’s perfect for Harvard.
And don’t worry. Harvard’s extension college will translate well into our Greendale-ized Harvard University. In fact, I’m thinking maybe the extension should be considered the real Harvard until such time as the Greendale-ized Harvard can be whipped into shape!
There are many other steps towards rehabilitating Harvard’s image, but this is as good a start as they deserve. Plus, you get to have an annual campus-wide paint ball game at the end of the spring semester to look forward to! Now, the Harvard Crimson won’t just be the color of the faces of those who go to school there!
Oh, and by the way…#sixseasonsandamovie
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
By the time you read this, the Left will still be coping with the resignation of former Harvard President and known copycat Claudine Gay and trying to rewrite the narrative to make her into the victim of a vast right wing conspiracy. By the way, Hillary Clinton, please call your office. That part was predictable.
What wasn’t so predictable was the Left falling all over itself to redefine plagiarism to make it more acceptable. Granted, the Left loves to redefine words with the regularity of a guy who eats a lot of fiber and prunes, so it’s not surprising they would do it here. It’s the sheer fucking stupidity behind it that has me dumbfounded, but not speechless (which is a good thing because if I couldn’t put my thoughts into words, this would be a very short blog).
plagiarism
What the Left thinks it means – a not-so-serious offense where someone wittingly or unwittingly copies the work of another
What it really means – intellectual theft
When I was growing up…errr…going from childhood into adulthood, I was taught copying someone else’s work without attribution was a grave error. I’m talking worse than wearing leisure suits unironically here, kids. I will admit to having done it back when I was young and stupid, but now that I’m old and stupid, I know the error of my ways. By copying someone else’s work and claiming it as your own, you are at best depriving the owner of the original work of recognition.
So, why in the Wide World of Fuck is the Left suddenly okay with plagiarism?
To be fair, they’re not completely okay with it. Just if the wrong people use their stuff. See how Twisted Sister lead singer Dee Snyder reacts to Donald Trump supporters using “We’re Not Gonna Take It” as a theme song. Of course, he’s okay with it being used as a theme song for anti-gun activists and Ukrainians, so…yeah.
This isn’t to say he’s not within his rights to dictate who can use his song. Even though I don’t agree with the political reasoning behind his decisions, I can’t object to what he’s doing because it’s his intellectual property, and I’m sure Leftists would agree without question.
Just not for the intellectually consistent reason.
Let’s say someone were to copy an article by Taylor Lorenz and try to pass it off as his or her own. The Left would have a shit fit. Of course, this would never happen because a) you’d have to be dumber than a bag of hammers to do it, and b) Lorenz has the intellectual vigor and rhetorical skill of moldy bread. Copying one of her pieces is grounds for being declared mentally incompetent in 16 states.
That was before Ms. Gay, of course. As of this writing, there have been 40 instances where she has plagiarized someone else’s academic work while writing hers. Most of the academics she’s plagiarized and other academics have defended her, going so far as to say they don’t feel it was plagiarism. Now, this is where shit gets weird. Instead of calling it what it is, Leftists came up with new excuses, ranging from “sloppy attribution” and “sort of more like copying other peoples writings without attribution” to suggesting it’s more commonplace and, thus, not as big of deal as it’s being made out to be. Some went so far as to say the charges were “mostly bogus.“
And if you had “anti-plagiarism is racist” on your 2024 Stupid Shit Leftists Say Bingo card, you have a winner! Because Leftists have to bring race into everything from plagiarism to getting the wrong kind of cage free organic free range cruelty free bananas from Whole Foods, it was only a matter of time before Ms. Gay’s race was brought into it. And it wasn’t just one or two outlets, either. There were a litany of “muh racism” takes from all the predictable sources. Why, it’s almost like they…plagiarized their responses!
Or they share the same brain cell. You know, whichever.
More to the point, though, should the Left’s indifference to plagiarism spread outside the halls of academia, it would have a detrimental effect to any intellectual property. Patent law, copyright law, and even laws surrounding parody would definitely take a hit. As much as I’d like to see 50 porn “parodies” of Barbieheimer (all shot, produced, and released within at a pace that would make Roger Corman look like an overmedicated sloth), I’m not sure this is the direction we should want to go.
And think of the impact to social media sharing sites like YouTube, whose copyright system is more fucked up than Keith Richards as an AA sponsor. Or Keith Richards in general. Any video posted could get taken, renamed, and rebroadcast, including any previously copyrighted material. That in and of itself would impact a certain bay of pirates sailing on the interwebs.
Now, who would be hurt most by this attitude? Maybe…oh, I don’t know…the Leftists in the performing arts community? After all, if plagiarism is fine and should be excused with the lightest of wrist slaps, there’s nothing preventing someone like me from copying a Tyler Perry movie or a Cardi B song and calling it my own.
I mean, aside from me having taste, that is.
This is a situation where the Left’s adherence to social justice comes back to biting them in the collectivist ass. They can’t hold Ms. Gay accountable for what she clearly did because it would look racist and sexist. But in doing so, they’re going to be hurting their financial bottom line sometime in the future because they are undercutting intellectual property rights, which is how many of their prominent donors make their money. Hope it’s worth it.
Meanwhile, Ms. Gay is no longer President of Harvard, but is still employed as…a political science professor. Granted, plagiarism isn’t necessarily a criminal matter, but the fact she only got a demotion speaks volumes about how Harvard and the Left have put not being called racist and sexist above not enabling plagiarizers, in direct defiance of the rules Harvard has for its students. That’s right, kids. College students are now held to a higher intellectual and ethical standards than one of its professors.
At least for now. It’s only a matter of time before Harvard will have to deal with a student who uses the precedent it set with Ms. Gay to argue (and I daresay successfully) there is a double standard between students and faculty and demand plagiarism be allowed across the board with little to no penalty to the offender. And we thought Harvard fucked up its response to anti-Israeli protests on campus!
The Left’s response to Claudine Gay’s frequent plagiarism reveals fundamental flaws that benefit no one. Unless there is protection of intellectual property, we might as well start emulating China. Oh, wait…
Either way, Ms. Gay doesn’t have much to worry about. After all, she may not be President of Harvard anymore, but she’s already built up quite a resume to run for President of the United States.
The Aftermath
Like many teenagers, the social media of choice is a bit of Instagram and Tictok which holds true for the Perry school murderer. Of his accounts have been taken down and scrubbed from all platforms. Even from X that had others posting pictures from those sites. But there are screenshots on various sites showing what he did post still if one is interested in the truth.
The police and mainstream media will gloss over, or dismiss outright, the glaring true nature of this murdering fool. Because it doesn’t fit the narrative.
The murder’s social media profile listed his pronouns as “he/they”. And has multiple hashtags for gender fluid and transgender ideologies. Along with following such groups across social media platforms.
The boy was mentally ill to say the least. And instead of helping this young man he was pigeon holed into the trans and gender fluid movement. And those that did this washed their hands of it thinking they had done a good deed. But this is what caused the outburst of violence.
So many young people are being failed by the system with this trans movement nonsense instead of getting to the root cause of whatever mental illness or demonic possession is impacting them so they can get real help.
It saddens and sickens me that this is allowed to continue. But helping these youths goes against the narrative.
If this is acknowledged as fact at all in the mainstream media the spin will be that the Perry School District is backwards and not inclusive enough for their trans and gender fluid kids. All the blame will be shifted to the community and student body. And bulling will be the subject of discussion rather than the mental illness of the young adult that committed this horrific crime.
And given the media spotlight for the Iowa Caucus this will be a talking point for removing Iowa’s first in the nation status. The blame will be put on Iowa as a whole for not being inclusive.
Iowa School Shooting
A school shooting has taken place in my own backyard. Not some far away location on the coast or up in the mountains. But right here in the heartland of America.
As I begin writing this article the details are few. Injuries and possible deaths have been reported from some outlets but not yet confirmed. Details will come later. Although one detail is known, the shooter is dead.
But before the full extent of the news and information is released. The Left is up to its usual bag of tricks and “solutions” to the problem they created by instituting “gun free zones.”
Their solutions are metal detectors at the doors of schools. No backpacks at schools. And of course the gun grab of “military style” weapons. All of these are absurd.
Metal detectors might not detect some weapons and of course weapons can enter through other means as well. Not just the doors.
Backpacks and duffle bags are needed by students. These carry school books, homework, and gym clothing and sports equipment that are owned by the student. It would be insane to think how a student would carry these items without such a bag.
And lastly, we have the gun grab of “military style” weapons. The Left hates the 2nd Amendment. And it’s always the poor AR-15 that gets the blame. They still think AR means “assault rifle” when it really means Armilite Rifle. The original manufacturer of the AR-15. And every rifle available today is semi-automatic, just like the AR-15. So banning the AR-15 does nothing.
The agenda of the Left is not to end school shootings. But to end civilian ownership of firearms and the 2nd Amendment. If you really wanted to end school shootings let’s start by removing the “gun free zone” and arming responsible staff members who can end a potential shooting before it gets far at all.
Looking back in history, in the 1930’s, the height of the “gangster era” fully automatic machine guns were available to the general public. All the gangsters had them. (And they still have them today despite laws preventing it.) But there were NO school shootings then. In fact, school shootings are a recent event. Something that started in the late 1980’s or early 1990’s. Why?
Prior to this time. Students had guns in the parking lots in the back of pickups at school. Any would-be shooter would be dropped before they got far. But that wasn’t the reason.
No the real reason why school shootings started it because it had been a whole generation since God was removed from the schools and government buildings. The students that had God stripped from their schools were now sending their kids to schools. And God wasn’t allowed in the doors.
Ethics became situational or cultural. Thus anything was OK or good because of how one felt about it. This is what has caused this event and all the others like it to take place.
And this too was caused by the Left.
Extremist Makeover: Caucuses/Primaries Edition
As we enter 2024, this is like Christmas all over again for political geeks like me because we start having caucuses and primaries where the two major parties try to convince us they will do a better job at ignoring our interests than the other side. And for a few weeks, different states are the most important places for candidates to be. Then, before the confetti and balloons can be cleaned up, the candidates are off to a different state that will become the most important place to be.
This kind of political vagrancy isn’t without controversy, however. States like California have complained about how states like Iowa and New Hampshire get first crack at potential candidates while they have to wait for closer to the end of the selection cycle to pick who’s left. Iowa and New Hampshire, on the other hand, take pride in being the first in the nation to select candidates.
And then there is the barrage of political ads where PACs and candidates play fast and loose with the truth in an attempt to one-up the rest of the pack. Between the mailers, radio ads, TV ads, internet ads, and personal appearances, it’s getting to the point voters are tired of the process on Election Day…which is when the next campaigns seem to begin.
So, how do we fix this? Thankfully, I’m a solutions-oriented guy and I think I have some solutions.
1. Reduce the length of the caucuses/primaries to 4 weeks. With the interwebs, people are connected 25/8 (because Common Core math), so there really isn’t much of a need for candidates to travel from state to state to shake hands and kiss babies. Just don’t get the two mixed up, kids. Anyway, if we create a tighter window where candidates can meet with potential voters, there won’t be as much pre-election burnout and, at least theoretically, it will force candidates to make their best arguments first. Of course, some candidates don’t have good arguments to vote for them in the first place, so having their embarrassment limited to a month at most will help them realize their folly or retool for the next run.
2. Enforce truth in advertising laws for political ads. Every politician lies, and their campaigns only enforce the lies they want told. Compare that to, say, drug ads, where every possible side effect has to be named in case someone has an adverse reaction. Although electing a politician may not cause physical maladies, you can still have an adverse reaction. Instead of hiring a lawyer and filing suit against candidates, let’s take another tack and treat political ads the same way we treat drug ads with the same demand of honesty and transparency. That alone might prevent some political types from running in the first place, which makes the process better by subtraction! Win-win, baby!
3. Split up the caucuses/primaries so they can be done in a month. There are 56 caucuses and primaries among the states and American territories. By my math, that means we could have 14 caucuses and primaries for each of the 4 weeks. And, yes, California, it can be alphabetical, so you can be first in the nation for something other than bad ideas and worse politicians.
There are other options that are tangentially related to the process, but I think these will be a good start to making caucuses and primaries better for everyone.
Failing that, there’s always cage fighting.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
I know Christmas is over, but I wanted to take a moment to talk about holiday traditions. For some, it’s caroling and eggnog. For others, it’s decorating the tree and driving around to see all the houses lit up and decorated.
For Leftists, it’s telling conservative Christians they’re not following Jesus.
This year, though, the Left put a little twist on their annual airing of grievances not directly connected to Festivus. They outdid themselves by making so many bizarre and illogical statements about one third of the best power trio that isn’t named Rush.
So, grab yourself your cousin’s killer eggnog made with lighter fluid and prepare for a trip from the ridiculous to the sublime…ly ridiculous.
Jesus
What the Left thinks it means – a possibly fictional figure worshiped by rubes who can’t even follow his teachings
What it really means – a religious, possibly historical, figure who Leftists still can’t figure out
Leftists are of two minds (or would that be brain cells) when it comes to Jesus. Many don’t believe He existed. Others think He was a progressive. Others think He was a socialist. He was black. He was an immigrant. He was gay.
And just when you thought they couldn’t add more, the Left found a few more. This year’s additions are Jesus was Asian, a Palestinian refugee, technically Palestinian, had a “trans body,” and even had a CNN religion reporter claim He would have been buried under rubble if He were born today.
Give them a year and they might say Jesus was a gender fluid wheelchair bound crossdressing furry who believed sex with minors was okey-dokey.
And people wonder why I laugh when Leftists say they’re smarter than us?
I will admit I’m not a theologian (although I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night), but you really don’t have to be to understand who Jesus was. For those who believe, He is the son of God who died for our sins. For those who don’t (and not a flaming Leftist), He was a man whose influence is undeniable and provided a decent guide to living a good life. For those who pretend to believe, He’s a good source of cash.
I’m looking at you, Joel Olsteen.
So, how do Leftists get it so wrong when it comes to a simple Jewish carpenter? A part of it is how they view Jesus, not as a religious figure, but as a tool to bash believers. Some of this is easy to understand, as the Left’s main religion is bureaucracy. When you put your faith in the size and scope of government, you don’t want competition, especially not from the Son of God.
But the Left doesn’t need to believe in Jesus for Him to be useful for their needs. That brings us back to an old friend, Saul Alinsky and his “Rules for Radicals.” In particular, let’s look at Rule 4:
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
When Leftists bring up how they believe Jesus would have acted, they’re using Rule 4 with the expected outcome being the conservative Christian either shutting up completely or giving a defensive answer the Left can then use against him/her. (Spoiler Alert: still 2 genders.) That’s why they keep making up stories about who Jesus was: they need Him to be their religious tofu and take on the traits the Left want Him to espouse.
The problem with this tactic is two fold. First, these are interpretations by people who may or may not have studied the Bible closely enough to be knowledgeable (which, surprise surprise, goes against Uncle Saul’s second rule “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”) As such, saying Jesus was gay because he hung out with 12 disciples, for example (all the while ignoring the women who also followed Him), shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the source material. Therefore, why give credence to a group keeps getting facts wrong in an attempt to shame you into becoming a Leftist?
This second one relies more on logic, namely we can read what Jesus said. Granted, there are language translation and theological/political issues that make a straight one-to-one interpretation harder than figuring out why people care Taylor Swift is dating Travis Kelce. Having said that, you can compare translations and get the gist of what He was saying. Even if you aren’t a Christian and/or conservative, you can still read the Bible and compare it to what the Leftists are saying to figure out they’re full of…well, since this Lexicon entry is about Jesus, I’d better not swear.
The way the Left keeps reinventing Jesus reminds me of the Buddy Christ from Kevin Smith’s “Dogma.” In the film, the Catholic Church “retires” the Christ figure they used for centuries and replaced Him with a friendlier version. This winds up backfiring, causing two fallen angels to bring back God’s vengeance on humanity. I won’t spoil the movie in case you want to see it, but I encourage you to watch it with a careful eye and ear because Smith brings up some valid criticisms of how modern Christianity is practiced.
Still looking at you, Olsteen!
In the interest of fairness, I admit the Right uses Jesus in a similar way, suggesting he’s fair skinned and closer to Edgar Winter in hue than Bishop Desmond Tutu. Where the Left and Right diverge is in sheer volume of attempts to use Him as a political cudgel. Where some members of the Right will smack you with the Son of God once in a while, the Left uses Him as a cat-o-nine-tails. And if you remember the Crucifixion, you know why that analogy is fitting and quite possibly will get me a one way ticket to Hell.
Speaking for myself, I’ve always seen Jesus as apolitical. He wasn’t concerned with who won elections or how the government should use the power the people gave it. His eyes were always on something more substantial: being a sacrifice for all of our sins. Any politician who tries to tell you he or she can make you a better deal is a liar, but I repeat myself
The greatest irony in all of this is the Left wants Christian conservatives to live up to rules they either don’t believe in or have no concept of how to follow. And that’s the one lesson they always get wrong: we can never be like Christ completely because we are flawed. We mess up all the time, unlike Jesus who was perfect from conception. The best we can hope for is not to mess things up too badly, and even then we are forgiven. It’s the simplest of truths to believers, and the simplest of things to disregard if you’re not down with the divine elements of that concept. Just don’t use Jesus as a theological Louisville Slugger, okay?
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
If you heard a loud squee recently, it came from the collective orgasm the Left had after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled former President Donald Trump could be removed from the 2024 ballot. The reason cited (and gobbled up by every Leftist like a crack whore looking for a fix) was the “insurrection clause” of the 14th Amendment due to what the court found was Trump supporting an insurrection on January 6, 2021.
Even though there’s a lot of debate over whether January 6th constituted an insurrection (short version: it wasn’t), there was no surprise the Left would try this tactic, and it would be a matter of time and/or court shopping to find a bunch of black robed dupes willing to do what Hillary Clinton couldn’t: visit Wisconsin more than once. Oh, and beat Donald Trump.
This gives us a chance to take a closer look at the “insurrection clause” to see what all the hubbub is.
“insurrection clause”
What the Left thinks it means – a provision in the 14th Amendment that disqualifies Donald Trump from running in 2024
What it really means – more proof the Left can’t read the Constitution very well
The 14th Amendment covers a lot of ground, but the part the Left has focused on is Section 3:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
And when you consider the Left believes Trump supported the January 6th “insurrection”, it’s not hard to come to the conclusion they did. Too bad that conclusion makes zero sense when the facts are examined.
I’ve discussed the “insurrection” previously, but the TL;DR (Too Long; Didn’t Reblog) version is January 6th wasn’t an insurrection because it doesn’t fit the legal definition of one. Furthermore, there’s an extreme leap of logic that has to be made to make the argument, namely the “insurrectionists” who were there to support Donald Trump would have needed to be in favor of overthrowing him for it to be an actual insurrection. After all, Trump was still President that day.
But leaps of logic alone aren’t enough to totally mock the Left’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Nah, we also need to mock their inability to read the damn thing from top to bottom. For this, we need to look alllllllll the way down to Article 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The case that originated this clusterfuck of a legal decision is Anderson v. Griswold, which brought up the question of whether Trump could be disqualified from the ballot under Colorado law. Although each state has the power to determine its own election laws, the application of law in this case runs afoul of the very Amendment being used to deny Trump his name on the ballot.
Remember that pesky thing called due process, kids? Yeah, it wasn’t used here. Trump wasn’t a direct party to the lawsuit, but his right to due process was violated in that he was essentially convicted of insurrection without every being charged or convicted of it. The special counsel’s indictment doesn’t even charge him with it! Also, he has yet to be formally charged with it!
So, what did the court do? Determined he was guilty because…fuck if I know.
The reason they gave was a “preponderance of the evidence,” would could mean anything from a hand-written letter on White House stationary signed by Trump saying “I’m going to incite an insurrection today, and it will be the best insurrection ever,” to the court not wanting mean tweets anymore. As of yet, I don’t think we’ve seen the evidence the court referred to, and I’m tempted to say we’re not gonna because that might expose the entire ruling for the farce it most certainly is.
Back to the point about due process. Insurrection is a federal crime, which means only the government can bring the charges. Since that hasn’t happened, the Colorado Supreme Court wouldn’t have the standing to bring the charges, and without there being an actual charge or conviction, there can be no application of the 14th Amendment. And without there being an actual trial (sorry, Ted Lieu), Trump was denied due process. Not even a fucking stupid statement from Colorado’s Secretary of State declaring Trump guilty of inciting an insurrection will overcome that.
How fucked up is this situation? A former Trump lawyer not known for sucking up to him after being let go says the US Supreme Court could rule 9-0 to overturn the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling. And this is a guy who has said Trump was “toast” in his criminal indictments.
If this wasn’t bad enough, there’s even some debate over whether the “insurrection clause” would even apply to the Presidency. Given how loosely the law has been interpreted to disqualify Trump, I’m sure the Left would be willing to stretch the logic so much Reed Richards would need a chiropractor. In my non-legalese reading of it, I can see where it could be, but it’s not nearly as much of a slam-dunk as the Left thinks it is. There’s just enough wiggle room for Trump to argue it doesn’t apply (even though the arguments I’ve put forward above about the lack of due process would be stronger, but I’m not advising him).
Then, there’s Section 5:
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
What the Colorado Supreme Court did completely ignores this part of the Amendment used to remove Trump in the first place. Congress didn’t disqualify Trump via legislation (and, to the Leftists reading this, this is not an endorsement of such action being taken). It was done by a majority of judges who are clearly incapable of ruling within the confines of the law. Leftists may be okay with it, but wait until it gets turned around on them.
If this decision is upheld by the USSC, it sets precedent, which can be used to disqualify politicians from both sides based solely on a politically-convenient interpretation of “insurrection” and a process where a favorable court decision is more certain than if you asked Hunter Biden if he wants crack for Christmas. Let’s take our good friends from the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest from that bastion of progressive living, Seattle. What the group did and advocated could be considered an insurrection (personally, I don’t, but for the purposes of this sketch let’s say I do). Using the Left’s argument here, no one who participated in CHOP would be eligible to run for public office.
And neither would any of the politicians who supported CHOP.
Then, all it would take would be a Republican with more balls than sense to find a court in Texas that would rule so and before you can say jurisprudence, a good chunk of Democrats would be out of a job. And it would be thanks to the Left’s “Orange Man Bad” rhetoric.
Okay, I’ll admit this sounds too good to be true because, well, Leftists have more double standards than they have genders (this just in…still 2), but it would be detrimental to the country as a whole. It would be weaponizing the legal system to get what an ideologically-driven segment wants. Or, as the Left calls it, Tuesday.
Regardless, the “insurrection clause” being used in Anderson v. Griswold shows a level of desperation on the Left because they know Puddin’ Head Joe is slightly more popular than an anal cavity search done by Willie “Giant Hands” McStuffins, and his accomplishments on issues that really matter to the people are sparse at best. He can’t run on the economy (but he can run from it), foreign policy, or any of the kitchen table issues that Joe Six Pack and his family worry about on the daily. But at least he can run on being the first Administration to hire incompetent and dishonest trans people, amirite????
To try to curtail a possible Trump 2024 victory, the Left counted on the courts to eliminate him from the running before the caucuses and primaries could begin. If the High Court (as opposed to the court in Colorado who appeared to be high when they rendered this dumbfuck decision) rules according to the law, there should be no doubt it will get overturned. If they rule according to political ideology, it will get overturned most likely, but it will have the stink of partisanship all over it and the Left will redouble their efforts to expand the court.
And, yes, my irony meter overloaded after typing that.
In the end, it should be noted there’s a reason the “insurrection clause” is rarely used and/or prosecuted: because there’s a fine line between legitimate protest and insurrection. Redressing grievances with the government is protected by the First Amendment. Acting out in a way that threatens the very fabric of our government isn’t. To conflate the two for the purposes of electoral victory is dishonest, detrimental, and a dick move.
If you read this before Christmas, I wish you the happiest of holiday seasons.
And if you read this after Christmas, I wish you the happiest of post-holiday sales.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
It wasn’t that long ago that Harvard was seen as one of the upper echelons of intellectual pursuit. Only the smartest, most well-off students could even breathe the air on campus, and only the best of the best of the best could graduate. Then something happened.
Harvard got stupid.
Nothing drove this point home more than a recent Congressional hearing involving Harvard President Claudine Gay and her inability to articulate the simple concept that wishing death on anybody is bad. Oh, but it gets a lot worse, as we’ll explore later, but it’s worth reviewing the fall from grace and bringing a whole new meaning to the Harvard Crimson.
Harvard
What the Left thinks it means – an excellent university where free speech and activism are embraced
What it really means – a diploma mill for well-heeled Leftists
Although Harvard is in the spotlight for being absolute dipshits, it’s not lost on me the fact higher education in general has gone to hell, and I may not mean figuratively here. Not only has the Left set up camp on campuses (or would that be campusi?), but their influence on academia has created a self-perpetuating hug box/bubble where only the “right” opinions can be heard.
Since the start of the Israel/Gaza conflict, campuses/campusi like Harvard saw tensions rise, as well as the number of anti-Jewish incidents. On the one hand, you have Jewish students and their supporters, and on the other, Leftist freaks who see Israel as the aggressor and as an apartheid state. On a side note, “The Apartheid State: not a good state slogan.
Anyway, this created a razor thin line for school administrators to tread. If they showed even the slightest bit of support for Israel, the Leftists would cause as much chaos as possible at the bare minimum, and given the fiery but mostly peaceful Summer of Love 2020 edition that chaos could be (and probably would be) destructive. If they sided with Gaza, they would run the risk of losing donations from Jewish supporters.
Which means the administration did the stupidest fucking thing they could and caved to the Leftist mob.
If that wasn’t bad enough, President Gay’s response to questions about whether wishing death to Jews was against their policies caused Harvard to lose $1 billion and inspired calls for Gay to resign. More on this debacle later.
I’m not a Harvard graduate, but I think I could have crafted a better response than Gay gave. Let’s see…
Harvard University respects both the importance of free speech and the delicacy of the current situation in Gaza. As President, I cannot in good conscience allow calls for violence against any group on campus, as it is inconsistent with not only the spirit of the freedom of speech, but also the culture of intellectual vigor I strive to foster at Harvard. What happened on my campus is abhorrent and I denounce it fully.
Seriously, was that so fucking hard????
Granted, this would have pissed off campus Leftists, but it would have struck the right tone and avoided a lot of backtracking and “clarifications” from Gay. Besides, if you wanted to disperse a crowd of Leftist protesters, you could always carpet bomb the protest with job applications. Or carpets, if you’re so inclined.
After that shitshow of a Congressional hearing, Gay faced new scrutiny, namely that of her academic accomplishments. Seems she may have plagiarized parts of her 1997 dissertation and other papers she copied…I mean wrote. Of course, Harvard downplayed the severity of the matter, calling it “a few instances of inadequate citation…” which is fancy talk for “yeah, she fucked up, but we can’t really punish her for what she did because it would make Leftists fuck up the campus.” Even some of the people she copied tried to downplay it while acknowledging it was plagiarism.
Even so, the Left went into damage control mode by supporting Gay in her time of self-imposed need, but claiming…get this…rules against plagiarism are racist. And I’m sure it has nothing to do with the fact Gay is a black woman and, thus, would be covered by the Left’s new rules on plagiarism. It’s just a coincidence…
On the plus side, Gay is qualified to go from substandard President of Harvard to substandard President of the United States, thanks to the Puddin’ Head Joe standard.
So far, Gay still has her job, which speaks volumes to how far Harvard has fallen as an institution of higher learning. At this rate, they might be at best an institution of middling learning, but that reputation is going down faster than a hooker going for a world blow job record working straight commission. Is a diversity hire worth this much trouble? Not only is Gay inept, inconsistent, and a plagiarizer, but her continued presence as anything other than a former Harvard President negatively affects the Harvard brand.
Consider if you will the fact Harvard has a website that not only defines plagiarism and outlines a clear policy, but openly discusses why plagiarism is a bad thing. The fact the President of this university is allowed to violate these standards and gets Leftist support for it would be humorous if it weren’t so disgusting. Throw in Harvard’s tone-deaf response to the anti-Jewish sentiment on campus and we’re looking at the point of no return to turn things around. Harvard, if it weren’t already FUBAR, would be sending Change of Address cards announcing their new address in downtown FUBAR.
Although the financial hit Harvard has taken so far is a start, it’s going to take a lot more to remove the stench from the burning dungheap Claudine Gay and the Left created. To start the healing process, Gay should be fired and replaced with someone who would run the campus competently and apply the rules consistently across the board. I would volunteer for the job, but I don’t want it. Although it would be fun to make Leftist heads explode when I apply the rules to them, I have more important shit to do.
You know, like making a bag of microwave popcorn without it burning.
In the Meme Time
Another Leftist meme. This time they have gotten everything wrong. Usually, they have some truth but not this one. It’s completely false.
First of all the image doesn’t depict a nativity scene at all. This looks more like people traveling somewhere. To be a nativity scene it must show the process or circumstances of being born. There is no birth scene here. This is not the scene right after birth either.
The creator of this meme, and the useful idiots that propagate it, are woefully ignorant of the term “nativity” and the story of the birth of Jesus from the Gospels.
Secondly, what they are actually trying to say is also a false narrative as well. I have written about that before in a similar posting.
This meme is a total fail.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With all of the chaos of world events and the holiday season, it’s easy to miss pretty important things, especially if the federal government gets involved. And especially if Puddin’ Head Joe is involved.
After not wanting to take on rising drug prices because we had other things to spend money on, like a war an ocean away where we don’t have a direct interest in either side winning (but only a complete moron would do tha…nevermind), Puddin’ Head Joe is finally addressing it. By trying to exert federal power to address it. More specifically, Puddin’ Head Joe’s clown car…I mean Administration has put together a plan to use something called “march-in rights.”
Well, that doesn’t sound ominous!
Needless to say, I have questions. And statements. Oh, and jokes!
march-in rights
What the Left thinks it means – a measure that will allow the government to control drug prices if federal funds were used to develop the drugs
What it really means – a way for the Left to screw up worse than they already do
The origin of march-in rights was the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. The TL:DR version: this law set up conditions where some entities outside of the public sector could develop inventions they could patent and monetize while receiving federal funds. But there’s a catch, one Leftists have been pushing to use. Under certain circumstances, the government can “march in” and take over, making changes the outside entities may or may not agree with, but have to abide by because…they took federal funding.
Yep. Completely innocuous. Nothing unsavory could happen.
Hell, even someone from Harvard Medical School says there’s nothing to worry about because it’s just the federal government exercising its rights in an agreement. And since it came from Harvard, we know it’s…probably bullshit.
For those of a small government mindset like your humble correspondent, this is the ultimate nose in the tent situation. If you take federal funds to develop a product, that shouldn’t automatically give the government the authority to come in after the fact and screw shit up on a whim. Or as the Puddin’ Head Joe Administration puts it, “extreme, unjustified, and exploitative of a health or safety need.”
Once a government official who may be confused about the number of genders (spoiler alert: still 2) determines this threshold is met, the federal government can swoop in and allow third parties to make the products, in this case drugs, cheaper. On the surface, this doesn’t sound like a bad idea. We all like to save money, especially if we have multiple high-cost prescriptions. So, why do I get the feeling this isn’t going to wind up being as much of a benefit as we’re being told?
Let’s see…Obamacare, the PATRIOT Act, the EPA, the FDA, the USPS, Amtrak, student loans…
For the Leftists out there, these are all things the government has told us would help us, but wind up being really fucking expensive without much actual benefit. But as long as we print the money to keep them rolling, the Left don’t care!
To the Left, money means power, and the most powerful currency in the country is government money. It’s the carrot, the stick, and the whip. It can entice people to act a certain way, as well as to punish wrongthink. And once you take the federal government’s money, you are its bitch until you can find a way out from under its thumb. And, trust me, they won’t make it easy.
Even if the Puddin’ Head Joe Administration figured out how to get its head out of its ass and make march-in rights work with drug costs, there’s going to be a major shift in contract law, especially with federal contracts. If the government decides what you’ve worked on for years runs afoul of what it thinks the fruits of your labor are worth, march-in rights give them the authority to alter whatever agreement you had. And with the criteria as presented being so vague, it could be for any reason it wants, as long as the government can justify it. I don’t know about you, but that’s fucking scary to me.
And it gets worse! Since the government can print money, it doesn’t have to play by the same laws of economics the rest of us do. Government isn’t in the money-making business. If they experience a loss because one of their ideas go tits up, they’ll print more money to cover the loss. And since they’re the only game in town for a lot of things they do, they don’t have an incentive to keep costs low to attract customers. We need what they provide, so they set the prices and the service level and if you don’t like it, fuck you!
There is another aspect to march-in rights that concerns me greatly. If Puddin’ Head Joe is successful here and the courts don’t uphold any challenges to the application, this opens the door for other government-funded projects to be subject to the whims of bureaucrats. You know, like…oh, let me just pull something out of my ass quick…the Internet? A pretty good case could be made that the Internet as we know it came from the Department of Defense, thus it was funded by the government and anyone else who distributes it can expect a knocking at their chamber doors and told what to do going forward or else.
The Corleone family would have killed for this kind of power. Oh, wait…
The point is we can’t let the possibility of lower drug costs blind us to the reality. If you give the government an inch, they’ll take a few thousand miles and then tax you up the ass for it. March-in rights are the governmental equivalent of a Faustian deal: you’ll almost get what you want but not ever get it completely, and you will pay dearly for it.
Like eating Chipotle, only without botulism.