Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

There are times when I have to really dig to find Leftist Lexicon subjects that will excite, entertain, and inform you, gentle readers. This week is not one of them, and I have former Vice President Joe Biden to thank for it! During an online interview on The Breakfast Club, Vice President Biden said “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.” That’s bad enough on its own, but at the time he said it, he was speaking to a young black man, and his tone was, to put it mildly, scolding. After Biden’s campaign surrogates and members of the media (who are pretty much the same people) tried to convince people the former Vice President’s sentiments weren’t racist, he later apologized…to a completely different group of blacks.

The Left pins some of its hopes for 2020 Presidential and Congressional victories on the black vote, which has been predominantly Democrat for a couple of generations now. However, the 2016 Presidential election showed blacks moving away from the Democrats and warming up to the possibility of voting for a Republican, or at least voting for Donald Trump. With this key voting bloc being so important to the Left, it’s time we take a closer look at it.

the black vote

What the Left thinks it means – black voters who have been disenfranchised from society due to racism and classism, a key component to any campaign

What it really means – black voters who the Left thinks can be convinced to overlook their mistreatment from the Left by throwing money at them and giving lip service to their concerns

Before I begin, I realize I’m white (or Honkey-American, if you prefer). To many, that makes my commentary on blacks as valid as Elizabeth Warren’s claims to be Native American. If that’s what you think, that’s fine, but I think I have some insights that you won’t get anywhere else (mainly because I’m the only one crazy/stupid enough to advance them).

The Left has taken blacks for granted for quite a while now, and with good reason (at least to them). The Left’s default position is blacks, or any minority for that matter, need people to speak up for them within the current power structure. Barring electing people of a certain color who parrot the Left’s squawking points, that duty falls to…rich white Leftists. Funny how that works out, isn’t it? Either you have to be a rich white Leftist to speak for minorities or talk and act like one to get ahead.

Even for a Honkey-American dude like me, that’s messed up.

For all the talk from the Left about respecting a person’s agency, they simply don’t apply it. Then again, the Left doesn’t actually care about the plight of anyone outside of their cul de sac in their gated communities. Remember the Flint water situation? Still hasn’t been addressed yet, even though Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, is Governor. And who does that affect most? Blacks, unfortunately. Granted, the Right has been as effective as Nancy Pelosi’s impeachment of the President at attracting black votes, but in recent years we have seen black conservatives and Republicans become more visible, for lack of a better term. And, of course, white Leftists either pretend they don’t exist or call them racial sellouts.

But the Left is better on racial issues. Just ask them.

This may sound like a “not all X” statement, but black voters aren’t a monolith. They may tend to vote Democrat, but there are plenty who not only see through the Left’s high-minded rhetoric, but actively push back. And, much like their white counterparts, each has his or her own style. Whether you like sober and intellectual rhetoric like Dr. Thomas Sowell or the take-no-crap-nor-prisoners style of Candice Owens, you will find a greater diversity among black conservatives than you find among Leftists, let alone black Leftists.

That’s how Donald Trump was able to do better with black voters in 2016 than Hillary Clinton. Well, that, and she’s a horrible candidate. Trump not only reached out to the black community, but he offered them an opportunity to take a long, hard look at their environment to see if they wanted the change Barack Obama promised, but never quite delivered. In his time as President, it’s hard to overlook the strides Trump has made to improve conditions in the black community and act on some of the issues they’ve been talking about for years, like prison and sentencing reform. If black voters look at actions instead of words, they have the opportunity to put Donald Trump back in the White House.

And it’s that possibility that scares the Left. Even though Joe Biden walked back his comments and his fans and the media (again, pretty much the same people) are trying to turn this situation into a non-issue, it is an issue on a grander scale. Biden tried to wave it off as his being “cavalier,” but one has to ask why he felt comfortable saying it in the moment. And we can’t overlook the dismissive and scolding tone of the initial statement. Within the context of the moment, it doesn’t make a good case for black voters to pull the lever for Biden.

Also, this opens him up to a lot of scrutiny of his past statements. Spoiler Alert: Joe Biden has made some questionable statements about blacks, which will certainly be used as attack ads by the Trump campaign. Plus, there’s the snubbing of up-and-coming Leftist superstar and self-identified Governor of Georgia, Stacey Abrams. During a recent joint interview, Biden had a chance to introduce her as his running mate, only to ask others (read: white Leftist women) to be vetted for the position.

Looks like Abrams isn’t the only person who will be relegated to self-identified leadership in the near future.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

If there’s a figure in the Trump Administration that is a lightning rod of criticism (outside of the President himself), it’s Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos. Some of the criticism (she doesn’t have an education background) is legitimate, while some of it (she wants to take away victims’ rights on college campuses) is as valid as a Nigerian prince’s email. It’s not secret Secretary DeVos has been pushing for changes to Title IX that would give accused sexual assault attackers the opportunity to defend themselves against allegations.

Enter our good friends, the American Civil Liberties Union. For decades, they have championed rules of evidence and due process. What did they do? They…sided with victims’ rights group and filed a lawsuit against Secretary DeVos to try to prevent the proposed Title IX changes. Yes, you read that right. The ACLU came down against due process on college campuses.

If you’re still scratching your head over this, keep reading. I have a lot to unpack here.

ACLU

What the Left thinks it means – an organization whose sole purpose is to defend civil liberties against those who would seek to undermine them

What it really means – an organization whose commitment to civil liberties is spotty at best these days

Before we get into the specifics of the lawsuit against Secretary DeVos, it’s important to understand the ACLU isn’t what it used to be. Throughout much of its history in the 20th Century, it defended everyone from conscientious objectors to neo-Nazis. Their commitment to civil liberties was unquestioned, and justifiably so.

Even so, there were parts that would cause fans of civil liberties to take pause. Their commitment to the Second Amendment is weaker than Richard Simmons’ handshake. Their interpretation of the freedom of religion section of the First Amendment pretty much ignores the whole “Congress shall make no law” verbiage and comes down that any entity even remotely funded by Congress can’t express any religious sentiments (well, except for Islam because…reasons).

If these were the only issues, the ACLU could skate past any criticism. Yeaaaah, about that. There are a lot of issues beyond that. In recent years, the ACLU has decided to give up its commitment to civil liberties for everyone to whatever civil liberties the Left wants to promote this week. In other words, the ACLU has gone from the American Civil Liberties Union to Always Cucking to Leftist Underlings.

Which brings us to the situation with Title IX. Previous Administrations attempted to walk a tightrope between protecting equal treatment of male and female students and maintaining a common sense approach to enforcing that equal treatment. Then, President Barack Obama came along and decided due process on colleges campuses was best handled by letting people not in the legal profession hold kangaroo courts where the accused is presumed guilty even if proven innocent. But remember, President Obama is a Constitutional scholar and the smartest man to ever be President (without knowing what was going on without watching the news), so the Left thought it was okay. Besides, men are icky, amirite? How dare Betsy DeVos try to prevent colleges and universities from trampling on Constitutional rights in the act of sweeping bad press under the rug?

Although I have some misgivings about Secretary DeVos, she’s in the right here, and for the ACLU to ignore their previous stances in defense of due process shows how far left they’ve gone. Yes, there are scumbags like Brock Turner on college campuses, but there are also scumbags like “Mattress Girl” who invented sexual assault charges out of whole cloth and were rewarded for it by the same Leftists who tell us repeatedly victims tell the truth. The fact there is such a dichotomy in dealing with something as serious as sexual assault under the auspices of Title IX with the backing of a civil liberties group should have more people outraged than there are.

I’m sure no one from the ACLU will be reading this, but it has to be said: you have utterly lost your ever-loving minds (and I say this as someone who remembers when a couple of your members went to bat for NAMBLA). Civil liberties aren’t subject to ideological litmus tests; either you’re all in or all out. What’s truly scary is what impact this lawsuit will have on justice as a whole. Sure, your position is that relaxing the protections you say are in Title IX will undercut sexual assault victims and make them feel as though they won’t be believed, but there is another party in this equation that will definitely get the shaft if you get what you want. The falsely accused get railroaded under the current system precisely because their civil liberties are ignored. They don’t get to face their accusers, offer an alternate opinion of what happened, or even have an attorney to cross-examine the accusers (if they’re even allowed to represent the accused in the first place). At the risk of invoking the wrath of “whataboutism” from the Left, I would say you would be far less forgiving if this happened in a courtroom in, say, Alabama.

And that’s the problem.

When you base your commitment to civil liberties on what will get you more Leftist street cred, you erroneously conclude only the Left cares about civil liberties. News Flash for you, kids. They don’t care about civil liberties until they can find a way to get support and money for supporting it, and it seems you’re okay with it.

For the purposes of this point, I did a quick search to see how the ACLU responded to Senator Kamala Harris’ practices of mass incarceration of blacks while she was Attorney General of California. How many hits did I get? If you guessed 0, you’d be right! But I did find a lot of press releases praising her work in the Senate defending “protesters of color” from surveillance efforts. Just a bit of a disconnect there, kids.

The ACLU should no longer be considered the benchmark for the protection of civil liberties because they’ve long since given up any pretense of living up to the principles their name suggests they have. And with their recent lawsuit against Betsy DeVos, they’ve brought their own backhoe so they can bury the last remnants of their credibility.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Although COVID-19 put the kibosh on a lot of festivities this year, we still had the Pulitzer Prizes awarded. Aren’t we lucky? Among the wieners…I mean winners were reporters who wrote about global climate change being bad, Vladimir Putin being bad, and President Donald Trump being bad. You know, the same topics the media report on during any day ending with a Y.

And speaking of Y, why are these reporters winning an award for journalistic excellence when there is very little deviation in the subject matter? That, dear readers, is a fine topic of discussion.

the Pulitzer Prize

What the Left thinks it means – a prestigious award given to the very best in the journalism field

What it really means – an award as worthless as the reporters who win them these days

I wouldn’t want to be a journalist or a reporter today. The pay sucks, the hours are as erratic as Joe Biden going off script, and more often than not the only time you get recognized is when you screw up or get nominated for a Pulitzer. And more often than not, you get known for the former because most people don’t care about the latter.

So, why should we care? The people who are getting nominated are the ones who have an incredible, albeit waning somewhat, amount of power to shape narratives. There was a recent story that spread like wildfire that President Trump had a financial interest in a company producing hydroxychloroquine, a drug he promoted as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The press reported it without highlighting the fact the interest was 1) part of a mutual fund, and 2) so financially insignificant he could have found more money under his couch cushions. Even after the facts came out, people believed the initial truncated reporting.

And we’re no longer just dealing with half-truths being heralded, either. One of this year’s Pulitzers went to Nikole Hannah-Jones for the 1619 Project, a major New York Times undertaking reviewing the history of slavery in America. And by “reviewing,” I mean “making shit up.” One of the major contentions Hannah-Jones made was the American Revolution was fought to keep slavery alive here. Yeah, nothing about taxation without representation, unfair treatment of the colonists, and, oh yeah, “The Shot Heard ‘Round the World” that sparked the American Revolution (and included the death of Crispus Attucks, who just happened to be black). It was totes about slavery, yo!

Yet, in spite of the fact historians called out the multiple historical inaccuracies and Hannah-Jones promised to revise her derisive drivel before it gets published as a book, the Pulitzer Prize Board shrugged its collective shoulders and gave her the award anyway. Granted, it was for Commentary and not actual reporting, but the fact she was rewarded for making up easily refuted shit should tell you all you need to know about the Pulitzer Prize and journalism in general today.

While the New York Times can pat itself on the back for winning it, the real payoff is the credibility it gives them with fans and the general public. Joe Sixpack may not be able to name many, if any, Pulitzer winners, but they may recognize the name and extrapolate it means something good for the recipients. But we shouldn’t let the award dazzle us into thinking the Times is worth a damn. Let’s not forget the Times keeps Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman on staff to write about economics, and he’s an idiot on the subject. Then again, it would explain how Hannah-Jones got her job…

In preparation for this week’s Lexicon, I did a little research on past Pulitzer winners, as well as the members who decide who get them. (The sacrifices I make for you…) To put it mildly, it’s mostly a Leftist circle jerk. There are the occasional exceptions to the rule, but it’s safe to say there are some real journalists getting shafted so the “right” people win and the media outlets they work for can pretend they’re actually doing something great for the journalism field.

Of course, they’re not. The profession has undergone a death by a thousand newspaper cuts, combined with a push (or in some cases a gentle nudge) to advance an agenda at the expense of the truth. Nowadays, bloggers like your humble correspondent are the ones digging through the layers of bullshit to get to the heart of a story and then tell it to the world. And we do it without killing trees or brain cells.

That’s more than I can say for the Pulitzer Prize “winners” this year.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Since Tara Reade came forward with allegations former Vice President Joe Biden sexually assaulted her, the Left has been in two modes: attack the accuser and the Right, and defend a man who in on video sniffing females’ hair. When people of all political stripes point out the Left’s double standard, the Left talks about “fake outrage” and suggests the people calling them out don’t really care about women, just scoring political points.

You know, like they did with Brett Kavanaugh?

However, it is interesting to look at how the Left uses outrage to achieve ideological goals. Before we do that, let’s define the term.

outrage

What the Left thinks it means – an expression of righteous anger over a grave injustice

What it really means – the rhetorical equivalent of holding your breath to get your way

Today’s society is an emotional minefield. Say something, do something, or believe something that offends a Leftist’s feefees, and you are subject to a world of hurt. If you’re lucky, they will stalk you, find out every piece of information they can about you and release it to the world, protest in front of your house, leave threatening messages for you and your family, contact your employer to get you fired, and make you look like Sybil’s crazier cousin. Just think of what they might do if you did something really bad!

This is only possible due to outrage. Leftists love mobs because they give the impression of popular opinion without the niggling little detail of confirming whether the mob actually represents popular opinion. The other aspect of this is volume, as in loudness. A mob can make a lot of noise, which underlines the impression of public opinion being on its side. It, too, fails to go the extra step to confirm whether the public agrees with the mob.

Let’s look at ANTIFA, for example. This group of happy-go-lucky miscreants make a lot of noise and come out in droves, and the Left uses them to justify their positions on social injustice. It’s a win-win for them…until ANTIFA starts breaking the law and the Left has to pretend they don’t agree with ANTIFA’s methods (Spoiler Alert: they do). And all of this is made possible through outrage.

And, unfortunately, outrage works. Humans have a natural desire to be accepted by a community, and anything that threatens that makes us defensive. Imagine a bunch of blue-haired pink pussy hat wearing Leftists appearing outside your house saying you were Adolf Hitler. The most obvious response is to deny it and try to persuade others (and possibly the mob) you aren’t. Some will believe you, but most will either keep quiet or agree with the mob to avoid having the mob come after them. Or at least to try to get the blue-haired pink pussy hat brigade to stay out of their begonias.

Here’s the funny thing: the Left is always outraged about something, which is as close to a perpetual motion machine as we will see in our lifetimes. As a result, the world outside of their ideological bubble will tick them off at the drop of a microaggression, and we will all have to walk through the resulting minefield while wearing clown shoes. It’s not a matter of if we’ll offend them; it’s a matter of when.

This brings us back to fake outrage, which is a way for the Left to defend themselves against those who see what they do as fake. The Left believes all of their motives are noble and anyone who doesn’t agree is ignoble. Therefore, all of their fake outrage is real and all of our real outrage is fake. And, yes, I realize this makes no sense, but the Left don’t care about facts and logic, only feelings.

Oddly enough, that is exactly how to overcome the Left’s outrage. They need to feel it, but we don’t. If we accept what they believe to be true, we surrender the rhetorical high ground to them. If we don’t, all they have to fall back on is their outrage, which inevitably escalates and makes them seem a lot less persuasive and a lot more cray-cray. Eventually, the line between true outrage and abject insanity gets so blurred as to be non-existent, and the Left is pretty much tap-dancing on the line as it is. As a result, it’s easy to turn their outrage against them by denying them the oxygen for their outrage bonfire.

This isn’t to say the Left is completely full of bullshit when they get outraged. Most of the time, yes, but sometimes they do bring legitimate points to the table, albeit couched in layers of bullshit. I do believe there is a stigma around victims of sexual assault and it needs to be called out no matter who it is maintaining the stigma. On the flip side, there are also people who are unscrupulous enough to make up sexual assault allegations for any number of reasons, which furthers the stigma. I observe Tara Reade’s allegations with the same critical eye I used with Christine Blasey Ford’s: there may be something there, but we need a full investigation to be sure to make sure we move forward with the right course of action. One based not on outrage, but on facts.

The Left doesn’t agree. Whether it’s male college students, a Supreme Court nominee, or a former Vice President, their course of action is the same: protect the Left, no matter how absurd it makes them look. Knowing this makes it possible to see the Left’s outrage for what it is: a temper tantrum designed to get people to knuckle under to whatever they want, only to have them throw another one the next time they want something. As any parent who has had to deal with this from their children will tell you, it never ends well.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

I have been waiting a long time to write about this topic (partially because of the hacking attack on the site, partially because this is a fun topic).

With Coronavirus-A-Palooza running roughshod around the world like a Guns N Roses concert with security supplied by the Hell’s Angels, people look for someone or something to guide us. One such something is the World Health Organization. The Left loves the WHO for multiple reasons, with the main one being…Orange Man Bad.

Yet, are they truly the go-to folks for a global pandemic? That’s a matter of opinion, just like these Leftist Lexicon pieces you kind folks keep reading and circulating. However, unlike some of the people rooting for the WHO, my opinions tend not to be tainted by anti-Trump ideology. Plus, I tend to bathe regularly.

World Health Organization

What the Left thinks it means – a team of professionals devoted to scientific discovery and the advancement of medical science as they combat global health issues

What it really means – a group that is to medicine what the United Nations is to global stability

The real definition isn’t an accident. The WHO is a part of the UN, which should raise more than a few eyebrows considering what the latter group is known to have done. Unless, of course, you’re cool with child rape, giving a non-existent country more of a platform than a member nation, and allowing such human rights champions as Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Syria spots on the UN Human Rights Council unironically.

Well, at least the WHO is above board, right? Yeaaaaah, not so much. Just with the COVID-19 situation, we’ve seen them proclaim there was no evidence of person-to-person transmittal of the virus, even as it was literally happening. The head of the WHO, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, spoke glowingly of the way China handled the COVID-19 outbreak in January, even as China hid their real numbers. Although his name would get you at least a Triple Word Score in Scrabble, his value has fallen more than oil prices, and just about as rapidly.

Although this begs a lot of questions, one of the primary ones should be what the WHO actually does. If you listen to the Left, you would think they’re hard at work in laboratories working around the clock trying to figure out how to combat COVID-19. Which, of course, is bullshit. As you might expect with any organization connected to the UN and with the word “World” in its name, it’s a bureaucratic nightmare that would make the DMV look like The Flash.

And just like with any bureaucracy, the WHO has a nasty spending habit with few tangible results. According to an internal report, the WHO spent nearly $192 million in 2018 on…travel. And that number was down from what they spent in 2017 on the same expenses. And what did the World Health Organization spend in 2018 on medical supplies and materials? Half of what it spent on travel. And we’re not talking about economy class flights here. The WHO lives large off our tax dollars.

That’s right, kids. We are the number one financial contributor to the WHO, even higher than the UN itself. Which is exactly what we do with the UN: pay out the nose for service that we would ask to see the manager for if we received in real life. Especially if we were named Karen. (Yes, I went there.)

The aforementioned internal report also mentioned the WHO spends its time trying to find medical solutions for social and economic problems, which takes it out of the realm of medicine and into the world of Leftist ideology. The Left keeps trying to apply science to problems that have little to do with science because it lends credibility to their hare-brained ideas that have yet to actually work. Most people, unfortunately, buy into this line of thinking because we’ve been taught to listen to the experts. Well, at least until the experts prove the Left wrong.

The Left needs the WHO to be the experts with COVID-19 because it ticks all of their ideological boxes: a bloated unaccountable entity focused more on social justice than actually doing its job. Plus, more people are going to reflexively believe the WHO over President Trump’s COVID-19 task force solely because of the name. This is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority, where the seemingly logical conclusion is based solely on because someone with presumed superiority over us says so. That is the go-to Leftist position because they believe they are the experts.

Yet, when you consider what the WHO is doing with the money we’re giving them and what they should be doing, it’s hard for me to say they are the experts we need to be listening to on COVID-19. It’s clear they’re operating either as a willing culprit in the whitewashing of China’s poor handling of the disease or useful idiots doing China’s bidding at the expense of its reputation. Just like CNN!

And until the WHO can show the class they are completing their assignments within the set parameters, we should trust them as much as we trust Joe Biden’s memory. Given how they’re more enamored with cushy travel perks than with decidedly non-cushy jobs working on behalf of the world’s health, I’m guessing we’ll see that happening about the time Stacey Abrams accepts losing in 2018.