Yep. You’re getting two Leftist Lexicon entries this week. You’re welcome. Or I’m sorry. You know, whichever.
If you’ve been paying attention lately (and if you have, I’m sorry), there’s been a bit of an uptick in protests lately. And in some cases, these protests have resulted in property damage, particularly to Tesla owners, dealerships, and even charging stations. Good thing Leftists haven’t made electric vehicles a major part of their future endeavors…oh, wait.
Anyway, there’s a name that’s been bandied about as being behind these temper-tantrums…I mean protests, and that name is ActBlue. Anyone who’s followed politics in recent years has probably heard of them in one fashion or another But are they getting into funding protests, if they haven’t been involved previously? Let’s find out. Time to break out your SCUBA gear so we can do a deep dive.
And don’t worry. Your diving suit doesn’t make you look fat.
ActBlue
What the Left thinks it means – a valuable PAC that supports Democrat policies and politicians
What it really means – another way for Leftists to fuck up the country
Aside from being a pain in the ass, ActBlue is a non-profit organization that is a hybrid of PACs, which allows it to make payments to individual candidates’ committees as well as independent expenditures. Our good friends at OpenSecrets give a better description in their glossary under “Carey Committee.” To put it mildly, it’s basically playing both sides of the game because the rules surrounding PACs are fucking stupid.
Anyway, ActBlue’s purpose is to help Leftists raise money for causes or candidates they like. Of course, they’re not affiliated with any specific candidate due to the aforementioned PAC rules, but given their giving seems to be particularly one-sided, it’s a sure bet they aren’t going to be throwing money to anyone to the right of the Socialist Socialite.
In and of itself, that’s not a reason to rag on ActBlue. You can swing a dead cat in Washington, DC, and hit at least a dozen people either getting PAC money or lobbying on behalf of a PAC who wants to give their money to a candidate or cause. Of course, you might want to check DC laws about swinging dead cats before you try it. Under advice from my lawyers, that’s all I’m allowed to say at the moment.
This is where the other part of the PAC Frankenstein monster comes into play. Although they can’t endorse a candidate, they can still advocate for different causes. You know, like posting bail for George Floyd protestors in Minnesota. You remember the George Floyd protests, right? All the looting, fires, and general mayhem. I know Gwen Walz has fond memories of that time, but most of the rest of us aren’t fucking insane. Because the funding was for a cause, ActBlue was able to skirt any legal issues, or if they weren’t nobody bothered to bring them up on charges.
That is until recently. ActBlue has found itself in the metaphorical crosshairs (in Minecraft) of Republicans due to some minor little hiccups with their credit card donations. You know, a minor little thing like accepting donations without proper verification, which could open the door to fraud, accepting foreign donations for American elections, and…I shudder to think of it…funding another Nickelback album.
To my Canadian readers, replace “Nickelback” with “Lizzo.”
This concern was shared by others outside of Republican circles because of the implications, so it wasn’t just a conservative talking point. But the fact this fundraising organization would let such a huge security risk go by without so much as a sideways glance would raise some red (or in this case blue) flags.
Then, there’s the whole bail thing, I referenced earlier.
Recently, ActBlue has been in the news for not the best of reasons. For example, several senior executives resigned in the span of a couple of weeks, throwing the organization into turmoil. In fact, that’s exactly how the New York Times termed it, and if they’re calling it out, you know it’s gotta be a complete flaming shitshow! And there’s nothing that instills more confidence that an organization is to have a lot of long-time and high profile figures disappear in a cartoon cloud of dust.
Now, ActBlue and it’s charity arm are being accused of funding organizations linked to terror groups and I’m not talking about “The Squad.” With the aforementioned security issues, ActBlue has a major headache on its hands.
And now ActBlue is being implicated in a recent rash of attacks on Tesla products. Elon Musk alleged five ActBlue funded groups are responsible for these attacks, resulting in vandalism and property damage. So far, it’s just an accusation at this point, so for legal purposes I can’t say they’re guilty and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law to the point it would make the lawfare waged against Donald Trump look like traffic court.
Did I say that out loud? Sorry. Please don’t sue me.
As much as I enjoy watching ActBlue get the kabob treatment, a lot of the damage has already been done. By using the law to their advantage and skirting security measures, it has been a Leftist fundraising juggernaut, helping to advance causes and politicians that hurt this country. So, good job, kids!
To be fair, ActBlue is doing what other PACs are doing or may be doing, which is damnation enough as it is. Personally, I don’t care if you’re raising money for Leftist causes or Rightist causes because 1) it’s their rights as Americans, and 2) I’m not donating to them because 3) I’m too damn poor. Where I draw the line is when you’re dealing in shady shit to accomplish your goals. And from the research I’ve done, I get a pretty good feeling ActBlue is shadier than an albino’s favorite outdoor spot.
Yet, the existence of ActBlue calls into question the Left’s calls to curtail “dark money” and big money in general in politics. ActBlue has raised billions of dollars for Leftist causes, so they have a vested interest in keeping them around. On the other hand, Leftists like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth “Chief Running Mouth” Warren brag about how they’re funded by the “little guy,” not the big money donors. (Unless you count Big Pharma, of course.) So, which is it? Do you want to get the money out of politics or do you want to continue with the way things are?
My money is on a third option: allowing money in politics, but only for Leftists.
Regardless, ActBlue has been effective, but may be done in by sloppy security measures. If so, it will be replaced by something or someone else so the cash can keep flowing because that’s the way the grift continues. Kinda depressing when you think about it.
So, do what I do: point and laugh!
Tag: leftist lexicon
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Being a Leftist in the second Donald Trump Presidency has to be rough. Not only do you have to deal with knowing the man you’ve tried to sue into oblivion is in the White House again, but you’re whiny pussies on top of it. Because or in spite of this, Leftists have taken up the mantle of being “the resistance,” which gives them a source of inspiration to do things.
Like vandalizing Tesla vehicles.
And with a cable news network giving these actions a resistance tag, it’s bound to empower more Leftists to resist.
On the bright side, it gives me a opportunity to mock them!
resistance
What the Left thinks it means – standing up to the fascist/authoritarian Trump Administration and conservatives
What it really means – Leftist pussies cosplaying as badasses
Back in the heady days of 2017, Leftists were coming off a stunning upset after Trump beat former First Lady, Secretary of State, and general horndog enabler Hillary Clinton. As any mature adult would do, they looked back at the loss, recalibrated their strategy, and came back with a new approach to winning elections.
I’m kidding. They started pretending to be fictional characters.
Whether it was invoking the Rebel Alliance from “Star Wars” or Lord Voldemort from the Harry Potter books (before they decided J. K. Rowling was too toxic for…checking my notes…standing up for biological women against transgender women), the Left went into full-blown delulu mode. This served a few purposes, not the least of which was making themselves into the heroes and, by extension, their actions righteous. This made even their most egregious actions justifiable in their eyes since the “evil” they were fighting against was worse.
Ah, moral relativism. Ain’t it great?
Empowered by their self-righteous indignation, the Left was able to parlay that into action, namely riots…I mean protests. Whether it was the George Floyd protests, Black Lives Matter, or taking over a section of Seattle and setting up an autonomous zone (CHOP/CHAZ for the people playing along at home), Leftists were able to grab attention and headlines.
Oh, and a few criminal charges. You know, for being dumbasses.
With the second Trump Presidency underway, the “resistance” has gone back to their old habits and become assholes again. When they aren’t going after Tesla vehicles (and the people inside them), they’re organizing protests in each state and boycotts. Because nothing sticks it to The Man like…gathering in public areas with signs and not shopping.
Don’t look at me. It doesn’t make any sense to me either.
And that’s pretty much the problem with the resistance we’re seeing these days. The closer you look at it, the less sense it makes. Sure, there are some causes like trans rights, immigration, and whatever the fuck Representative Jasmine Crockett says on any given day, but most of it is a patchwork of smaller causes coming together to fight fascism, authoritarianism, or whatever the fuck Representative Jasmine Crockett says on any given day.
And speaking of faux edgelords, another way the resistance is making itself known is through politicians using vulgarity. Granted, I don’t have a leg to stand on here because I can swear like a sailor with Tourettes sometimes, but then again I’m not Chuck Schumer or Elizabeth “Chief Running Mouth” Warren. Namely, old people. Watching Schumer and Warren do their watered down impression of Andrew Dice Clay while talking about political issues isn’t edgy; it’s cringy as fuck.
And if you’re watching Chuck and Liz, you’re not Betty White. She could pull off being vulgar at an advanced age. You can’t. You’re as edgy as a Nerf ball when you swear just to be swearing.
In other words, keep it up, you two! You’re doing great!
While I’m waiting for Bernie Sanders to break out an f-bomb during a speech, I can see where the resistance is headed: to the same junkyard Occupy Wall Street wound up. Although we still remember the name, they didn’t accomplish anything. I mean, aside from proving Leftists could fuck up a one-step instruction manual when left to their own devices.
The only thing that gives me pause is how violent the Left can get when pushed. Granted, you can push most Leftists pretty far by merely existing, but most of the time they won’t try to fight back. That is, unless they have the advantage. Just ask Kyle Rittenhouse. Even then, they are at a distinct disadvantage because they vastly overestimate their ability to avoid retaliation. The thing about engaging in violent behavior is there is always a chance for the other party to engage in violence right back. Just ask Moldylocks.
And as much as I would like to say Leftists know how to fight, let’s just say they make Pee Wee Herman look like Chuck Norris. And I mean right now, not when the former was…enjoying an adult movie a little too much. Maybe some of the trans women can teach the Left how to fight, provided you use their proper pronouns or else things could get messy.
Just remember, kids, trans women are women. Just bigger, stronger, taller, and overall more masculine women.
There is one constant with any type of Leftist resistance: the Right will always be on the hook for violence. No matter how much blood gets spilled from Leftist attacks, how much intimidation Leftists inflict on others, or how much property gets damaged as a result of one of their temper tantrums, the Right will always be seen as the ones who are most likely to commit violent acts. In fact, Representative Maxine Waters even said Trump wants a civil war to break out.
This is after Leftists vowed to get more aggressive in opposing Trump’s plans. Oh, and the number of Leftists who wanted Trump dead in one form or another.
You sure it’s the Right that’s getting violent? Because I would think you would know, considering the Right has more guns.
In the end, there are very few Leftists who are actual badasses. Seriously, if you can make a Leftist run for a safe space by eating Chik-fil-A in front of them, he/she/it poses no real threat to life and limb. Some “resistance.”
Having said that, the best advice I can give you is to be aware of your surroundings and the situation. Leftists will do anything in their power to get you to react badly to what they say or do. They want you to throw a punch or shove them because then they can claim to be the victims. And as long as there’s at least one more Leftist to corroborate the story, you will be the villain. Don’t give them that satisfaction. Don’t go looking for trouble.
If you must engage, keep a cool head about you. The worst thing you can do to a Leftist who wants to start shit is to not even acknowledge it. Shrug it off and go on with your day. If you want to take your chances, try the Thomas Two-Step Program for Dealing With Leftists.
Step 1: Point
Step 2: Laugh
Do not attempt to do this if you are mobbed by Leftists or the Leftist in question is bigger than you are because physical harm may come to you. If you need to, bring a hoss of a man with you to be your second. That way you’ll not only have some muscle to protect you if the Leftists want to start shit, but also have a witness to counteract the Leftists’ victim narrative.
Plus, you’ll have one other person who can also point and laugh, so triple bonus!
In the end, though, the current Leftist resistance is as dangerous as walking through a Leftist’s gated community with a “Coexist” t-shirt on. At least until they call security on you for trespassing in their neighborhood, but you get the point. And just like the resistances before them, the current one will end up with a lot of assmad Leftists, a lot of side-splitting laughter from the Right, and nothing actually getting done.
Fine by me!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
I am happy to announce our long national nightmare is over. As of Monday, March 3rd, we…finally have a new Secretary of Education! Although I doubt we’re going to see steel cage matches at Cabinet meetings (then again, this is the Don’t Give A Fuck Trump we’re dealing with here, so I can’t write it off completely), Secretary Linda McMahon might do something even more awesome: getting rid of the Department of Education.
While Leftists worry about how their scam…I mean money laundering…I mean direction for public education will impact the country, some of us (like your humble correspondent) are just saving up our money to spend at the DOE fire sale that will come about if Secretary McMahon can make good on her promise.
With public education coming under more scrutiny in the past few years, a little more scrutiny of the federal government’s role in it is warranted. And since we don’t have any experts on the payroll, you’re stuck with me.
I’m sorry. Or you’re welcome. You know, whichever.
Department of Education
What the Left thinks it means – a vital part of the government charged with ensuring the quality of American education
What it really means – a dumpster fire fueled by waste, corruption, and Leftist incompetence
Although the shitshow that is the Department of Education is relatively recently, its history goes back a while. Thanks to Andrew Jackson, the department came into being in 1867, so we have another thing he could have been impeached for. But it wasn’t until 1979 that the Department of Education became a Cabinet post. This meant two things: 1) DOE staffers could finally access the White House salad bar more than once, and 2) it became a far heavier hitter than it was before.
And that made it a target for lobbyists, especially teachers unions.
Since then, we’ve seen a strange inverse relationship. We keep spending more on education, but getting worse results. In spite of this, Leftists keep insisting more money needs to get spent because…well, they haven’t figured that part out yet, but I’m sure they’ll get to it. And I’m sure the Department of Education will get right on that.
Wait. You mean they’re too busy taking policy cues from teachers unions to do anything about it? Oh, silly me!
And therein lies a problem. When you have the ear of a powerful entity who will do what you want, you’re going to keep pushing the envelope more than a postal employee working straight commission. That leads to the organization moving away from the main reason it was established and moving towards whatever the unions want regardless of whether it helps the people they claim to be representing.
And if the Department of Education were in a BDSM relationship with teachers unions, it would definitely be the bottom. (Author’s Note: if you don’t know what I’m talking about, you’re better off not knowing.)
But where do politics enter into the picture? Many educators lean so far Left they could stand on the ground and be parallel to it at the same time. So, if they want the Leftist point of view to dominate the classroom, they have a vested interest in keeping the Department of Education in line with their vision. And how do you keep that happening? Why, voting for fellow Leftists! Oh, and attacking anyone who wants to throw a spanner in the works.
That explains the anti-DOGE sentiment with the Left, come to think of it. But I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.
One thing the Left had going for it was parental ignorance. For a looooooooong time, parents really didn’t pay attention to what their children were learning. Sure, you’d see a conservative mother complaining once in a while over a math question that involved unnecessary race elements, but these were the exception not the rule.
Then COVID happened. With public schools being shuttered tighter than a wet prostitute’s dress, parents had to take a more hands-on approach and got a chance to see what passed for education these days. To put it lightly, they weren’t happy. Out of this came groups like Moms for Liberty who (despite being labeled extremist by the dipshits at the Southern Poverty Law Center) had a core belief that parents have a say in public education. How radical!
And I mean that in the 80s sense, kids.
Although Ronald Reagan and other Republican Presidents have called for the abolition of the Department of Education, it’s always been a pipe dream, thanks in large part to the media repeating Leftist squawking points (because, well, the media are Leftists, too). Plus, the Department of Education has been such a part of our societal conscience that it’s hard to imagine what it would be like not to have it around.
That’s where I come in.
I am one of those folks who was educated while the modern Department of Education was a gleam in a bureaucrat’s eye. Granted, it was around the time when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, but I kept my cave drawings to refer to here. Up through the 4th grade, school was the way it was presented to me, but by the 5th grade, I noticed a subtle change.
And it involved the Pledge of Allegiance.
In the 4th grade, my class would recite the Pledge every day without fail. It became a part of the school day, one that I didn’t fully appreciate at the time because I was a dumb kid. Then in 5th grade…we just didn’t do it anymore. It wasn’t the lack of the Pledge that caused the slide in educational quality, mind you, but it was the touchpoint where I noticed things were changing. Being the youngest of three boys also gave me an insight into what my older brothers learned, and even then I noticed the stuff I was learning wasn’t as extensive as it was with them.
And judging from the advent of Common Core math, standards have gone down further than a toboggan run down the Grand Canyon.
With results like what we’ve seen since the Department of Education became a Cabinet post, why should we keep it around? No matter what excuse Leftists come up with to keep it on the payroll, the results we’re getting aren’t worth the money we’re spending to get them. Something has to change.
Many parents have looked to homeschooling and private schools as potential fixes, and they’re not wrong. Call me crazy (and you wouldn’t be wrong to do so), but it seems the further away from Washington the control of education gets, the better it gets. And, really, you’re not going to find a federal bureaucrat who will give as much of a shit about the students at your local school than you do. Even if you don’t have a kid in school, you kinda feel like you owe it to them to support the school in some fashion because a) you want the best for the kids, b) you want to set a good example, and c) you’re not a complete shithead.
And this is the best reason to give the Department of Education the rhetorical Tombstone Piledriver. The closer the parents are to the people making the decisions, the more of a reason the decision-makers have to listen. And if someone has a torch and pitchfork concession on the way, you can shop locally, so win-win! You may run into the same hassles you do now with teachers unions and their political lackeys, but the bureaucracy will be far easier to navigate, and you won’t have to fight DC traffic unless you live there.
So, if you haven’t guessed by now, I’m all behind Secretary McMahon’s goal to lead the Department into oblivion. And that’s the bottom line ’cause Stone Cold said so!
And by Stone Cold, I mean me.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
This week has been a goldmine for content, but not if you’re on the Left. Seems one of their favorite sinkholes…I mean news networks is having to make some cutbacks, including the firing of some on-air talent like Joy Ann Reid.
Sorry. I have to take a moment to let the laughter subside at using “talent” and “Joy Ann Reid” in the same sentence.
Several hours later…
Okay, I’m back. Now where was I? Oh yes, talking about MSNBC! Because I’m a giving person, I want to give it the attention it deserves and the audience it is sorely lacking. With the tens and tens of my readers out there, I can see their ratings skyrocket!
So let’s get into it.
MSNBC
What the Left thinks it means – a valuable cable news source full of diverse opinions and smart analysis
What it really means – the Air America of cable news
As a recovering journalism student and a child of the 70s and 80s, I was there when cable news really became a fixture in the reporting game. Yes, back in the days when various hair products gave us hairstyles that were hard enough to take a sledgehammer to without a single strand being out of place, cable news was a bit of an oddity at first because we weren’t sure just how much news there could be on any given day. Sure, if you had a couple of high profile stories, you might be able to stretch it out over an hour or two, but 24 hours?
Well, that’s why God made filler content.
As cable news found out you could make any story run for hours by a) reporting it, b) analyzing it, c) bringing in panelists to analyze it, and d) repeating the cycle, more people decided to jump in the pool. Nowadays, cable news is dominated by Fox News, with CNN and MSNBC not so close behind. Fox News’s popularity is understandable, as they seem to have the hot newsreader demographic on lockdown. CNN is a shadow of its former self, both in content, quality, and ratings.
That brings us to MSNBC. They are the number two cable news network (both literally and figuratively), and they have a loyal following. And so did Charlie Manson, but that’s besides the point. With Donald Trump coming back into the White House like a wrecking ball, one would think they would be set up nicely to rake in the money bashing the President left and, well, further left.
You would think that, but these are Leftists we’re talking about here. They tend to make money in spite of themselves, and MSNBC is no different. If you are an opposition network when a President from a particular party is in power, it’s practically a license to print money. Fox News did it under Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Brick Tamland, and MSNBC kinda did under George W. Bush and the first Trump Presidency.
There is one slight problem with that, however: the potential lack of crossover watchers. The harder you lean into a particular ideology, the harder it gets to get viewers outside of that ideology. Fox News gets away with it because, well, hot newsreaders, but MSNBC is a bit harder of a sell. I mean, who wants to listen to a bunch of unattractive smug assholes complaining all the time? If I wanted to do that, I could just go to a Leftist rally.
And in some cases, my attendance would double the attendance.
Just look at their prime time line up. Aside from Rachel “I’m Only Here One Night a Week But Still Manage to Rake in $25 Million a Year” Maddow, who else is there? Lawrence O’Donnell, whose inability to grow an audience is only surpassed by his contemptuous arrogance? Joy Ann Reid…oops! Too soon? Chris Hayes?
Wait. Has anyone seen Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow in the same room at the same time? I’m just asking questions here, kids.
And that’s pretty much the list of heavy hitters MSNBC has. Everyone else, including Al Sharpton, is either washed up or a virtual unknown. I’ve seen SyFy movies with more star power. And when you’re dealing with attracting an audience, you need more than an ideological connection.
The other thing that hurts MSNBC is repetition. If you watch Rachel Maddow (and for God’s sake why would you), you’re going to get the same perspective, sometimes even down to the same squawking points, on another show. And another show. And another show. And…well, you get the picture. The lack of variety tends to bore an audience.
Now, before you say “Faux News does the same thing, idiot,” let me remind you Fox News does bring on Leftists in prominent (and more watched) shows to offer opinions, as wrong-headed as they are. MSNBC typically doesn’t, or when they do it’s self-styled Republicans who are so far left they make Karl Marx look like Ronald Reagan. Not quite the same thing, kids. It’s closer to what the kids like to call “controlled opposition.”
The MSNBC business model reminds me of the Leftist attempt at talk radio, Air America. If you don’t remember it, be glad. I’ve talked about it before, so I’ll be brief here. Air America tried to create a Leftist talk radio network by taking the right wing radio network model and just putting in Leftists. And it worked about as well as you’d think.
And who had a show on both Air America and MSNBC? Rachel Maddow. Dun dun DUNNNNNNNNNN!
Okay, that has nothing to do with anything. Moving on…
The bad news for MSNBC right now is it’s not as much of a cash cow as it once was and should be given Trump Presidency 2: Electric Boogaloo. There are going to be more cuts coming, and it’s going to affect more and more people. And you thought corrupt politicians sweat a lot when the Epstein Files got released! But there is a way out, one that CNN is trying to do and having marginal success doing.
Try reporting the fucking news with some balance.
Sure, you’ll lose the hardcore MSNBC audience who counts on you to feed them the misinformation they want to hear, but you’ll gain a little credibility in the process. Not much, I grant you since, well, you’re MSNBC, but it might make for an interesting experience for you all. Not every idea that comes from your hivemind is a good one (see Harris/Walz 2024), and not every idea that comes from outside of your hivemind is a bad one (see DOGE). By opening your ideological lens a little wider and giving different perspectives equal footing, I guarantee you’ll find solid footing again.
Just in time for Elon Musk to buy your sorry network.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
For those of you who don’t know, I studied journalism in college. And in my defense, I was young, dumb, and in love. Now, I’m old, dumb, and in love, but that’s besides the point.
I bring up that therapy-inducing memory to ease you into this week’s Lexicon entry involving journalism. During my studies, the Associated Press was one of the gold standards in the news game and was generally considered a neutral source of information. Oh, how times have changed.
This past week (please check local listings for the week in your area) the AP broke the cardinal sin of journalism by becoming the story rather than reporting it. And it’s all over a body of water, the Gulf of Mexico/America. President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order renaming the Gulf, but the AP refused to acknowledge it. As a result, the White House barred an AP reporter from an Executive Order signing ceremony and other events and trips on Air Force One, which of course lead to the AP suing members of the Trump Administration for the act.
And you thought high profile divorces were messy.
Anyway, for its efforts to gain my attention, let’s take the Associated Press on a tour of Leftist Lexicon Land!
the Associated Press
What the Left thinks it means – a trusted news source and vibrant defender of the free press
What it really means – another water carrier for the Left, this one masquerading as a wire service
To complete my old curmudgeon cosplay, I must invoke the “back in my day” power.
Back in my journalism days, there was an expectation of neutrality in news reporting because journalists at the time believed personal biases would get in the way of the public interest. This commitment to serving the public before advancing an agenda is what helped build a stronger, more intelligent society.
Then Watergate happened. The country’s eyes were opened to the dirty corners of our halls of power, and it created a rise in the interest of journalism as a form of activism. Now, instead of just reporting the news, reporters would seek out the news related to a particular evil they wanted to expose and uproot.
There is nothing inherently wrong or unethical in this, mind you. But it opens the reporter up to letting emotions (and possibly greed) taint the end result. Yes, you’re still trying to meet the public need for information, but you also have a personal stake in the outcome. That leads to potential conflicts of interest.
Not that modern journalism has any problems with that. This may come as a surprise to you, but our media sources tend to lean left more than a runner trying to avoid getting tagged out at first during a pickoff attempt. In other news, the Chicago Cubs are already eliminated from post season play before spring training, but that’s not important right now. By taking a side, journalism has gone from being watchdogs to lapdogs, and as much as I love lapdogs, I would prefer journalists play it straight.
The Associated Press used to do that, but has since moved more towards the Left, as slight as some think it has. Even if it’s considered to be factual and, thus, credible, the bias still poses a problem because it can lead to misinformation.
Of course, the AP and its defenders will say it’s fighting against misinformation through fact checks, even the slightest implication that is supported by an extrapolation of the fact checks they do can be misinformation in and of itself. Take the fact checks the AP does and who tends to be the target of those fact checks, namely conservatives. Leftists claim fact checkers have to do more fact checking on the Right because they lie all the time, but there’s one tiny problem with that.
It’s a little thing the kids like to call confirmation bias. When you have a set of beliefs as we all do, you tend to reject information that contradicts those beliefs and accept information that conforms to them. So, when a certain allegedly credible source of journalism decides to fact check the Right more than the Left, that gives the impression that…wait for it, kids…the Right lies more than the Left.
But it also gives the impression the AP covers up the lies of the Left more frequently.
Of course, Leftists and the AP would never admit that because it would expose the misinformation they both agree with, but that’s that’s neither here nor there. The point is the AP has a credibility problem.
Which brings us to their lolsuit. (And, no, that’s not a typo.)
The AP is arguing their ban violates the First and Fifth Amendments, more specifically the freedom of the press and due process, specifically. Not to be pedantic, but both arguments are bullshit to anyone with even a Schoolhouse Rock level of Constitutional knowledge. Or anyone who can read, which might be over the journalism class’s pay grade, but here we go.
The freedom of the press argument doesn’t work because of five little words from the First Amendment. Sing along if you know the words:
Congress shall make no law
Since this beef is between the White House and the AP, Congress doesn’t have a role and, thus, the First Amendment doesn’t apply. Even if you accept the notion freedom of the press is being violated by the Administration, there is a secondary problem, that being access. Just because you’re a reporter doesn’t give you a VIP pass to go where you want for a story. You see, the freedom of the press doesn’t equate to a right to access. What the AP’s First Amendment argument tries to do is establish they have a right to be where the President is.
Of course, if I were advising the legal team defending the Administration officials, I would limit that access to only when the President is in the can, but that’s just me.
More to the point, the press pool tends to be rotated and cover various beats, so the AP being excluded from certain events isn’t as egregious as they want you to think it is. And what’s more, there are these things called pool reporters who compile the news from multiple sources and pass it along to those media outlets who didn’t get the luck of the press pool draw. This doesn’t impede the AP’s ability to distort…I mean report the news, so there is no violation.
In short, get that weak-sauce shit outta here, AP!
Now for the Fifth Amendment. Let’s start with the text itself.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness agThe ainst himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The AP’s argument in this case is based on the “due process of law” element, suggesting their ban was put in place without being allowed a day in court. Aside from all the reasons I cited above as far as access, there’s also another pedantic but vital detail: there is no allegation of a crime. This whole thing, as fucking stupid as it is, surrounds the name of a body of water. Even if the Gulf of Mexico self-identifies as the Gulf of America, it matters not. The AP isn’t being denied due process so much as it’s being denied a spot at the table over a disagreement outside of any legal constructs.
No allegation of crime? No violation of due process.
Checkmate, bitches.
Of course, the AP and its defenders will try to argue the contrary and may actually score a court victory depending on which Leftist judge gets a chance to shit on the Constitution to give them a victory over the Evil Orange Man. Which will give them reason to crow…at least until the case makes it to the Supreme Court or gets laughed out of court by a judge who reads beyond an AP reporter’s grade level.
How the mighty have fallen. From globally trusted news source to the punchline of a blogger’s weekly journey into Leftist madness.
Seems they’re getting off a little light, don’t you think?
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
This is a continuation of sorts of my previous Leftist Lexicon entry about government waste. If you haven’t read it, you can read it here. If you have, read it again! We could use the clicks!
While discussing the giant Leftist slush fund…I mean humanitarian aid provider USAID, Leftists tried to go all geopolitical on us by talking about “soft power.” And, no, it’s not the power that drives the ice cream machines at McDonalds because a) it doesn’t involve electricity, and b) those machines never fucking work.
Much like Leftists.
Anyway, I figured we could take a spin around the Leftist mind on this topic, just as long as we don’t run into anything important. Something tells me…that’s not gonna be an issue
soft power
What the Left thinks it means – using non-military solutions to bolster relationships between the US and countries that may be persuaded to work with us
What it really means – mostly just paying foreign countries to like us, no matter how dickish we are
To put it in simple terms, hard power is using our guns to get our way (or as they call it in parts of Texas, Tuesday). Soft power is using a fruit basket instead of guns to try to get our way. And by “fruit basket” I mean money. Lots of money.
Although a lot of soft power comes with a price tag with more zeroes than the line-up at MSNBC’s recent Democratic National Committee chair forum, there are non-fiscal means to try to persuade a foreign country to work with us. Like sending over food or helping build water wells. There may be a cost to do that, but it’s not the primary focus. That comes later.
But keep in mind America isn’t the only country in the world that uses soft power. Any country with something to offer, large or small, can use soft power to move the needle. But it’s mostly the big boys, like America, Russia, and China, who swing the biggest sticks.
That’s where the Left’s defense of USAID comes from: the potential that we don’t swing a big enough stick. It’s their idea if we don’t send money to produce an Iraqi version of Sesame Street or help get a trans-friendly musical off the ground, one of the other big guns is going to step in and fill the void we leave by not wasting money.
Now, on the surface, that makes sense. If we need to spend money to keep a foreign country from going the way of the Star Wars franchise, why not drop a few bucks into its hat? It helps them, it helps us, and everybody wins except for the countries who want to take our spot.
Of course, it’s a bit more complicated than that. Soft work works best when there are legitimate mutual benefits to be had. Sure, you can drop a few million on the heads of the citizens of BassAckwardsistan, but what do you expect to get from them in return? What strategic benefit do we get from a favorable relationship with BassAckwardsistan? What can we deny other countries who want the relationship with BassAckwardistan by flexing our soft power muscle?
And at the core of the scenario, what is our current relationship with BassAckwardsistan?
The lack of presence in an area doesn’t automatically open it up to other countries’ soft power efforts because they may not want a relationship either. Going back to the BassAckwardsistan example (mainly because I love typing it), let’s say their only strategic asset is the little plastic tables they put in pizza boxes to prevent the box from hitting the pizza. Sure, it would be a boon to pizza places everywhere, but we might be able to handle that high-level tech on our own. And if you’re in a country where pizza isn’t exactly a must-have, having a favorable relationship with BassAckwardsistan isn’t a priority, so you’re not going to pursue one in favor of relationships that better fit your needs.
Under normal circumstances, this wouldn’t be an excuse to throw money at BassAckwardsistan, but to Leftists it’s the perfect excuse. I mean, you don’t want Russia and China to get access to that kind of pizza-related technology, right?
Sounds vaguely familiar…like circa early 2000s “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” familiar. But that would be fucking stupid, and we know Leftists aren’t that fucking stupid, right?
Not so much.
Let’s try a more realistic (i.e. not BassAckwardsistan) example. As part of the Trump White House’s initial salvo on the wasteful spending done by USAID, there was mention of $70,000 doing to produce a DEI musical in Ireland. This is an example of the usage of soft power the Left uses to justify the spending. I mean, I don’t think Russia or China support DEI musicals, but after the past few years, I shouldn’t be surprised by anything.
Now, for the kink in the Left’s plan. According to our State Department, US-Irish relations seem pretty good. That in and of itself negates any soft power arguments the Left can make. There is no opportunity to make the relationship better, and the expenditure itself is so specific that it would only affect a small section of the Irish people. The needle wouldn’t move, and there’s no indication China and/or Russia would swoop in and pay for it. And in China’s case, an hour after you fund it, you’re hungry again.
I’ll see myself out.
Actually, before I do, we should see the Left’s use of soft power to explain away the more questionable expenditures as what it really is: a way for the Left to use our money for their ideological purposes with no consideration of whether such spending has any effect on the relationship we’re allegedly trying to create or maintain. On a completely different level, it shows the Left has no fucking idea of how soft power works and is using the term to make themselves seem smarter than they actually are. After all, USAID helped Hamas, and I’m gonna go out on a limb and say they’re not going to be inviting us over to their hovels for Ramadan anytime soon.
But this is to be expected. An 8 year old boy playing Call of Duty has more military knowledge than any Leftist, if not most of them. And you don’t even need to have a military background to figure this shit out. The logic just doesn’t, you know, logic. At some point, the countries willing to take our money are just taking our money without any thought of soft power. Good luck explaining that to a Leftist.
Since it’s going to be a hopeless cause getting Leftists to understand the difference between soft power and just throwing money at a problem, we can only work on ourselves. And much like I said in my previous blog post on government waste, we must be open to the possibility we need to cut something our side agrees with if it serves no positive ends. Just because we think it will help doesn’t make it okay to waste money if we can’t justify it. Don’t be a hypocrite, no matter how good it may feel.
Oh, and point and laugh at Leftists talking about soft power, no matter how good it may feel.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
This past week had more Leftists’ heads exploding than, well, since last week. Among the numerous outrages and impotent protests against Donald Trump and his plans to remake government, it seems we found out a certain government agency has been spending money like a drunken fleet at a whorehouse in Amsterdam.
In other words, spending like they were Congresscritters.
Throughout this discussion trying to reconcile humanitarian aid with condoms for al Qaeda (and I wish I was making that up), the subject of government waste has come front and center. As a result, I would be remiss if I didn’t discuss it in some fashion, mainly because it will piss off the Left and that’s always fun!
government waste
What the Left thinks it means – a rarity in government only harped on by Republicans and Conservatives wanting to destroy the social safety net
What it really means – par for the course in Washington
Before we jump in, there are some foundational ideas we need to discuss. The concept of government waste is foreign to the Left because to them government is the sole source of all that is good and right in the world. By extension, anything government spends must be in pursuit of all that is good and right in the world. And cutting spending? You might as well say you want to drown Leftists’ cats.
You know, because they hate kids?
Anyway, the concept of government as Daddy Warbucks (one of the few wars Leftists have no problem supporting) makes addressing government waste more difficult because in order for them to address it, they would have to change their minds. And that’s tougher than you think. Leftists are notoriously stubborn and unwilling to admit they’re wrong.
How do I know this? I was one of them for a long time, and I can’t chalk up my stubborn streak completely to being part German.
That’s not to say they’ll never do it. To their credit, Leftists have been complaining about military spending, and I have to agree there is a lot of room to improve there. After all, if they spend $450 on a hammer that I can get at a local hardware store for a fraction of that price, that’s clear government waste.
Come to think of it, that could apply to Congresscritters….
Meanwhile back at the main point, the Left have a number of ways to continue the wonderful world of waste. Some of it, like with USAID, is done in plain sight because they know no one will really look at it. It’s a line item in a federal budget that gets sent over to the agency to dispense as it sees fit. Which apparently includes a transgender opera in Columbia (again, I wish I were making that up).
There are also non-government organizations (NGOs to the hip kids out there) that handle a cornucopia of issues. Which can lead to a cornucopia of waste. Because of what they are, they operate in an area where they get public funding, but don’t have the levels of oversight government agencies do, which makes it a perfect way to waste money without accountability. Nice work if you can scam it!
Then, there’s word magic, as I like to call it. This is when someone comes up with a long and complicated name for a common item, which invariably makes it sound more impressive/expensive. Imagine coming across a vertically operational transcribing tool with an internal liquid disbursement system. Sounds pretty awesome, right? You happily spend the $100 or however much it costs, and you get sent…
A fucking pen.
That’s government spending for you in a nutshell, or a nutcase if you’re dealing with Rep. Jasmine Crockett. So, how do we fix it? Well, we don’t have to worry about Leftists fucking up our plans, so there’s that.
The first step is what the Trump Administration and Elon Musk are doing now: identifying the waste. And the way they’re doing it makes it all the better. By putting it on blast, anyone who wants to do some digging can verify the information and act accordingly, which in this case would be pissed. And the cherry on the top of this government waste sundae? Leftists now have to defend spending money to promote tourism in Egypt (again, I wish I were making that up) and other silly expenditures. Sure, they’ll link it back to humanitarian efforts like fighting hunger, but they haven’t gotten around to explaining how spending $70,000 for a DEI musical in Ireland (you know the words, so sing along!) helps feed a starving child.
Why, it’s almost as if…Leftists don’t want to discuss government waste because a lot of the shit they promote is government waste. Funny how that works out isn’t it?
Now, to my friends on the Right, I have to advise you government waste isn’t just a Leftist thing. If we’re going to be serious about reducing waste, we have to be willing to look at things we want/need that can be less expensive to obtain. Providing for the common defense is in the Preamble of the Constitution, but that doesn’t give us the government’s black diamond American Express card to spend on whatever we want regardless of the price. We have to be willing to take a scalpel and a chainsaw to the waste so we get rid of the fat without getting rid of those things that actually do good.
So, I guess my suggestion is to be somewhere between a sensible budget hawk and Ron Swanson. Just don’t touch Ron’s bacon, or mine for that matter.
Meanwhile, to my Leftist friends, understand this is a necessary process. We can’t keep running up the national debt and having other countries own a significant chunk of it without making a change. And, yes, that means some of your sacred cows are going to have to become hamburger (or if you prefer, impossible meat) to make progress. After all, you can’t fund your transgender comic in Peru (one more time!) with government funds if your country is bankrupt.
But I can’t leave you Leftists without an option. If you really feel passionate about funding a project…fund it your own damn self! Don’t rely on government to pick up your tab, especially when that tab is using tax dollars of people who might not share your passion. Leave the tax dollars for shit we actually need, like national defense, infrastructure, and stuff that is more universally accepted. So, start your GoFundMe for your pet projects and Go Fuck Yourself if you can’t get it done without Uncle Sam.
Government waste affects us all one one level or another, and we have to rein it in somehow. Say what you will about Trump and Musk (and I know you will), they’re at least trying to do just that. And if you’re screaming about cutting government waste, think about the reason why. It may not be because essential services are getting slashed, but because your shit is about to be exposed.
So, good luck with that.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Another week, another round of Senate hearings over the nominees President Donald Trump has put forward for consideration. And that’s on top of the other bullshit that’s been going on with Executive Orders, illegal immigration, and, oh yeah, Leftist freakouts over it all.
But one of the craziest shitstorms came during the nomination hearing for Trump’s nominee for the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Between Chief Running Mouth Senator Elizabeth Warren sticking up for Big Pharma while sounding like a shrew (to be fair, that’s her everyday voice) and Senator Bernie Sanders shitting his onesie over literal onesies, I was reminded why I hold politicians in such low esteem: they make the functioning humans look bad.
While the Senate treated us to some of the worst theatrics this side of an off-off-off-off-Broadway production of “Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark” done by Miss Reedy’s second grade class, there was another massive figure in the Senate chamber (aside from Senators’ egos) that had as much to do with the theatrics as it did the confirmation hearing itself. I’m talking of Big Pharma, the entity every Leftist hates…or do they?
Big Pharma
What the Left thinks it means – an entity that makes people suffer with illness so they can make a buck
What it really means – an entity that provide both a punching bag and a source of income for Leftists
America has a health care problem, several actually. One of the biggest ones is Americans typically don’t give a fuck about health care until they don’t get it for one reason or another. A lot of this can be traced back to our society where we want to do the least amount of work for the most amount of benefit. I mean, if there’s a pill or a shot we can take so we can fill our gullets with deep fat fried unknown chicken parts smothered in gravy (because the chicken makes it healthy), we’ll go that route every time.
That’s where Big Pharma comes in. Like most business models, the end goal is to create profit whenever possible. And when you have a business model that requires people to be less-than-healthy, that profit comes from human suffering. Or at least the concept of human suffering. Although modern medicine can and has developed ways to help improve the lives of those afflicted with diseases or conditions, Big Pharma has also sold us on the idea we can live better lives if we just inject this or ingest that. Now, Mom, Dad, Billy, Suzie, Grandma Mabel, and the family dog Scruffy can live a better life free from the annoying and personally devastating effects of…whatever malady they can come up with to sell their products.
This is where the Left actually has a point other than the ones on top of their heads. Pharmaceutical companies can be a bit on the shady side, which is like saying Michael Moore is a little husky. As much of a capitalist as I am, I can’t really say the way Big Pharma does business is legit. Even if your drug is going to be a game-changer, it’s hard to reconcile the good it will do with the bad it takes to get there. Overall, you need to have a real moral vacuum in your soul to be a Big Pharma employee.
And that brings us to Congress.
To put it mildly and geekily, Capitol Hill makes Mos Eisley look like Amish country. And for any Amish readers out there, I’m sorry for comparing you to Capitol Hill. Also, how in the fuck are you reading this?
Anyway, one of the areas where Big Pharma has a lot of power is in Congress. And in the halls of Congress, money talks to both sides. Remember this for later because it will come in handy.
Although Big Pharma swings a big…hypodermic needle, there are some who see what they do and aren’t afraid to speak out. One of those individuals is…the aforementioned Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Regardless of what you think of the man, the fact remains he puts his money where his mouth is and promotes good science when it comes to vaccines. Now, who would be opposed to that?
Big Pharma. And their minions in Congress.
When you take on a big entity like Big Pharma, you put a big target on your back and expect to hit once in a while. If you’re connected to Donald Trump in any way, you might as well grab a helmet because you’re going to get bombarded.
Just ask RFK Jr.
Fortunately for him, the metaphorical sharpshooters (i.e. Senate Democrats) are the Gang Who Couldn’t Shoot Straight. With every gotcha question, every bit of theatrics, and every bit of disregard for parliamentary decorum, Kennedy looked and sounded like the adult in the room. Mainly because, well, he was.
But there’s another tie that binds the Senate Democrats questioning Kennedy together. Remember what I said earlier about Big Pharma playing both sides? Yeah, each of the Senate Democrat big hitters are Big Pharma puppets.
Chief Running Mouth? $822,573 from 2019 to 2020.
Bernie Sanders? Almost $2 million since 1990.
Ron Wyden? $351,513.
Maggie Hassan? $313,576.
Angela Alsobrooks? $96,643.
Tim Kaine? $200,824.
And the shits keep coming! All of these Democrat Senators going after RFK Jr. for trying to hold Big Pharma accountable…all having a financial stake in protecting Big Pharma from people…like RFK Jr. How do it work????
Quite well if you’re a fucking hypocrite.
With both major parties beholden at least in part to Big Pharma, you’re more likely to hear Mazie Hirono ask a salient question than you are to get Big Pharma to shape up. But with Donald Trump pushing for a Make America Healthy Again and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. heading it up, there’s a chance it could happen.
Especially if the Leftists continue to bring their meh game.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
History has a tendency to repeat itself at times when you least expect it. Or, if you pay attention to Leftist rhetoric (which may be against the Geneva Convention, or at the very least the 2024 Shriners Convention), it happens every time a Republican gets into office. And if you’re not paying attention, you will Nazi this coming.
See what I did there?
In the waning hours of the Brick Tamland Administration, history repeated itself when he announced the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. This sentiment was echoed by Queen Kamala the Unappointed (see what I did there?), Senator Kirsten “I’m Angela from ‘The Office’ Without the Charm” Gillibrand, and Leftist groups like the Center for American Progress. And just like the previous times the Equal Rights Amendment was at the center of conversation, advocates are proclaiming its necessity to ensure equality between/among the sexes.
Yeah, about that…
Equal Rights Amendment
What the Left thinks it means – a ratified Constitutional Amendment necessary to ensure equality of the sexes
What it really means – an irrelevant Constitutional Amendment that Leftists want to enshrine anyway
Although it’s become a hot topic, the Equal Rights Amendment has a bit of a history. It was first proposed in 1923 as part of the women’s suffrage movement. Eventually, the ERA finally came into being as a proposed Amendment in 1972. The wording is as follows:
Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
This is where things get a little tricky for the ERA. Although it was passed by both houses of Congress, 38 states still had to ratify it, and there was a time limit placed on it. This time frame expired on June 30, 1982. So, that should be the end of it, right?
Ooooh, sor-ray. The Left continued to push for the ERA to be ratified like they would get an ice cream cone after it happened. Well, that explains why Brick Tamland was hot and heavy to get it ratified. Anyway, Virginia ratified the Equal Rights Amendment in January 2020, barely missing the deadline by…let me check my notes here…almost 40 years. So, so close…
In spite of this, the Left continued to push for the ERA to be ratified because a) the conditions were met aside from the time frame, and b) they really wanted women to have equal protection as men. You know, back when they thought there were only two genders? (And at the break, it’s still Genders 2, Leftists 0.)
On the surface, what the ERA stands for is pretty reasonable and a good step. We love people to be treated equally in theory. These days, though, the practice is situational and only when we’re directly impacted. You know, just like when Leftists support police officers until they don’t? And, surprise surprise, the Left is the same way when it comes to women.
The Equal Rights Amendment has become obsolete because society has changed without it. Today, women occupy many high profile positions in business, politics, OnlyFans, and so on. In some areas, they’ve even surpassed men. Maybe it’s just me, but the fact women have these positions shows the ERA is a non-starter. What more equality do women need that isn’t already covered by laws and society?
The quickest answer for the Left is abortion, or as they call it “bodily autonomy” or “health care.” Or maybe they can just call it infrastructure like they did everything else for a time. But even this fails with a cursory knowledge of recent Supreme Court rulings that made abortion a state issue rather than a federal issue. Then, there’s the logic problem. Abortion laws by definition affect women more than men because…and I can’t believe I have to say this in 2025…MEN CAN’T GET PREGNANT. Equality of rights based on sex can’t apply here because there is no equivalent male counterpart to abortion. Oops.
The wage gap? To my knowledge, there are no laws on the books right now mandating women be paid less than men for doing the same job. What’s more, there are already laws and practices on the books that prohibit it, thus the ERA would be a redundancy like having two Leftists scream about the pay gap when none would suffice.
So, this begs the question of why the Left hasn’t done anything substantive about the ERA since the Reagan era. The simple answer? Leftists don’t really give a fuck about women, just their votes and money. The more complex answer? Leftists need women to be victims, even if it’s self-inflicted victimhood. Challenging the ratification status of the ERA or even coming up with another attempt to ratify it when they had control of both houses of Congress was never a top priority to the Leftists in power. After all, we had to save the rare triple breasted albino puddle jumping raven! And how do I know that bird is rare?
Because I just made it up.
Imagine being a Leftist woman and having your equal rights take a back seat to an animal that may or (probably) not affect the world in any way, shape, or form. That should make any sensible Leftist female (a stretch, I know, but I like to dream) pack up shop, take their pink pussy hats, and look for a non-Leftist man to settle down with. But since they think they’re victims of “The Man” or “The Men” or “The Patriarchy,” they stay firmly planted in the back seat and let other causes take all the attention.
And the ERA is part is the mythical carrot that keeps them there.
But there is another angle that few, if any, have explored: the impact the ERA will have on the trans community. While it’s easy and fun to mock the Left’s inability to follow actual science and conclude most people fall into one gender or the other, there is a perverse genius involved. If we accept the Left’s idea that even genders are more complex than they actually are and that there are more that can be claimed merely with an assertion, it throws a lot of things into question.
Like…oh I don’t know…the Equal Rights Amendment.
Once the Left gets a foothold on a legal matter, they will use it as a catapult for other matters only tangentially related to the original matter. That’s how the gay rights movement went from merely asking to be treated like regular people to “bake the cake, bigot.”
I have no hard data to back this up (aside from the fact the Left abandons women like Leonardo DiCaprio does when they turn 25), but having seen how the Left has used other social issues to push an alternate agenda, I can’t rule out the possibility of the ERA being “ratified” by Presidential fiat being used to further their transgender agenda. Or as I am calling it the transgenda.
See what I did there?
Although the Left is going to call the next steps in the ratification process uncertain, that’s only because they know as much about the Constitution as they do about economics: very little, but they’ll still try to convince you otherwise. The fact remains the Equal Rights Amendment had its shot to be ratified within the time limit Congress set and it wasn’t. No matter how many social media posts or proclamations from current and former political figures get made, the ERA is DOA, and it doesn’t l0ok like the Left wants to do the heavy lifting to make it a priority.
Which is fine by me. I’m not a fan of redundancy except when it comes to my jokes and pop culture references, but it’s clear America has moved past the notion that women have only certain societal roles. Now, we can confidently say women can fuck shit up just as well as men can!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With the incoming Trump Administration, there are going to be a lot of confirmation hearings for his Cabinet. And without exception, Leftists are obsessed with qualifications. To hear them speak (and I’m not sure why you would want to), none of Trump’s appointees have the basic qualifications to tie their own shoes, let alone run a section of the American government.
Let’s just say the irony is not lost on your humble correspondent.
But what exactly do Leftists mean when they talk about qualifications? Good question, and I hope I have a good answer, or at least an answer entertaining enough that you won’t throw your computer in the dumpster.
qualifications
What the Left thinks it means – important characteristics that show someone is capable of doing the job
What it really means – qualities politicians have little room to talk about
First, a bit of a rabbit hole to set up the shitshow proper. Under the Constitution, the Senate has the responsibility of advice and consent. Under normal conditions, this can be a useful tool to determine whether a potential government official has the knowledge, background, and judgment necessary to fulfill the duties of the role. Under current conditions, it’s a way for know-nothing assholes to preen for the cameras and look for their “gotcha” moments. And that’s when the Senate is being less horrible than usual.
Through this advice and consent process, nominees get dragged in front of Senate committees and either given more ball gagging than on a gay porn set (not that I know anything about that, mind you) or a gauntlet of nonsensical, partisan bullshit questions that makes you wonder if the Senators asking them actually want to hear from the nominee.
In other words, any given Tuesday on Capitol Hill.
The reason qualifications is such a buzz word recently is because Democrats and Leftists want to make the public at large believe everyone Trump nominates is dumber than a bag of hammers, even if they have more experience than the assholes asking the questions. And when these assholes aren’t asking gotcha questions, they’re heading to their favorite media outlets to brag about what they did, and so they can get their balls sucked.
Yes, even the women, or for any Leftist reading this, birthing people.
Although we would like to get the best people for the job, there’s one significant hurdle: the best people for the job wouldn’t take it because it would be a downgrade. For most people, getting a cushy government job where you couldn’t get fired even if you tried would be a dream. But within that dream, there is the nightmare of being stagnant. Great ideas rarely get implemented, excellence is seen as a detriment, and good employees are pushed to be as mediocre as they can be. And qualifications? It’s more about connections or other factors unrelated to the job than it is about whether you can do it.
That’s one of the reasons I chuckle when the Left starts talking about how unqualified Trump’s appointees are. Leftist hate achievement and want everybody to be equally…meh. Just check the right boxes and you, too, can be the Undersecretary of Beverage Acquisition for the Undersecretary of Waste Disposal under the Secretary of Environmental Justice, Transgender Division. In other words, you’re getting coffee for trash collectors under someone who got a shitty degree that couldn’t get you hired by a temp agency.
And it might give you a fast track to being in Congress or some President’s Cabinet if you play your cards right. Just ask Pete Buttigieg.
Which brings me to another reason I’m chuckling a lot at Leftists demanding Trump’s appointees be qualified: they’re responsible for confirming some of the Brick Tamland Administration’s worst picks, like Pete Buttigieg as Secretary of Transportation. Not to pick on Mayor Pete here, but what in the wide world of fuck were his qualifications? Fixing roads in South Bend, Indiana.
Let’s ask the people of East Palestine, Ohio, how they feel about his qualifications for Secretary of Transportation. That is if you can get them to drop their pitchforks and torches at the mention of his name.
The fact many of the same Senators who question the qualifications of Trump’s appointees thought nothing of the lack of qualifications of many appointees of the Brick Tamland Administration makes me want to tell them to take a seat, but that wouldn’t be any fun.
That comes when you ask these sanctimonious assholes obsessed with qualifications to pontificate on the California wildfires, where the people in charge aren’t qualified to run a free water outlet in the desert, let alone fighting a major fire. I would particularly like to hear from new Senator Adam Schiff, one of the ones who keeps warning us about the dangers of having incompetent people in positions of power. Or he could just look in the mirror to see an incompetent person in power.
Yeah, I went there. And I’ll continue to go there so much, I’ll get my mail forwarded there.
The whole kerfluffle over qualifications right now is based on partisanship, just like it has been with previous appointees from both sides. As much as I like Ted Cruz (which is slightly more than I like most politicians), his questioning of Ketanji Jackson Brown over issues like Critical Race Theory only feed into the problem. Which gives me an idea for an Extremist Makeover, but that’s a blog post for a different time.
In the meantime, it should be pointed out these hearings are like the plot of a horrible mystery novel: you know what’s going to happen before we get to the end because it’s so fucking obvious. Democrats are going to vote against the nominees, Republicans will vote for the nominees, both sides are going to claim victory, and the qualification kerfluffle gets tossed aside.
And we’ll get stuck with the results.
So, yay, I guess?