Tag: leftist lexicon

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

To put it mildly, things are bad. And I’m not talking your garden variety finger-cut-while-cutting-lemons kind of bad. I’m talking wiping-your-eyes-while-cutting-habanero-peppers-and-balancing-above-a- pit-of-razor-sharp-knives-during-a-live-Yoko-Ono-concert bad. And yet, we find the stupidest shit to bitch about.

Enter Dave Chappelle. His recent comedy special “The Closer” garnered both positive and negative reviews. Namely, the people who watched it with the understanding that comedy is supposed to be funny loved it, and the reviewers who read the Cliff’s Notes version of the special written by the Unfunny People Against Comedians Union and hated it.

Welcome to Stupid Stuff to Complain About-Ville. Population…too many.

Part of the controversy surrounds Chappelle’s observation there are two genders. And we’re still having this debate in 2021. Regardless, members of the trans community objected to the special, claiming it was transphobic. But, as you might expect, there’s a whole lot to unpack here.

transphobia

What the Left thinks it means – any irrational hatred or fear of transexuals

What it really means – an overused catch-all term for anything the Left doesn’t like when it comes to transexuals

To make sure I was speaking intelligently about the subject matter, I watched “The Closer” in its entirety. (The things I do for you readers…) I have to say it was enjoyable on several levels, not the least of which being its brutal honesty. Everything from COVID-19 to race to, yes, transexuals with no sacred cows spared, just like much of Chappelle’s body of work to date.

So, when trans people and their supporters started to complain about his comedy being transphobic, my first question was, “Have you watched any of his comedy before?” As I’ve confirmed by watching “The Closer” and comparing it to the criticisms, the answer is no. But when has a lack of knowledge prevented the Left from speaking?

Although there are plenty of jokes about the trans community, they aren’t what I would consider jokes at their expense. If anything, “The Closer” is about inclusion by making everyone a possible target for mockery. And for people who throw around the word “context” to excuse their stupid shit, it’s amazing how little Leftists actually understand and apply it appropriately.

And with “The Closer,” actual context matters. If you are looking solely at the targets of the jokes, you come away thinking Chappelle is a transphobe. This position is augmented by the Leftist notion that jokes can be hurtful, along with silence and speaking for that matter. In other words, anything you say or don’t say will be used against you in the court of Leftist popular opinion.

Which is one of the points Chappelle made in this special, and one the Leftists crying “transphobe” continue to miss.
A significant portion of “The Closer” is devoted to the trans community going after Chappelle based on what one inaccurate information source said about him. In encounter after encounter, trans people and their supporters didn’t bother to consider anything but that one source as gospel. If anyone would have a Paul Bunyon-sized axe to grind with the trans community afterwards, it would be Chappelle. However, he flipped the script on his critics by showing an amount of grace they lack.

This is exemplified in the final segment of the show. Chappelle tells the story about a white trans woman who wanted to be a comedian and the first time she opened for Chappelle. Let’s just say it didn’t go well, but in the process Chappelle made a personal connection with the woman and helped her hone her craft. After the first round of “Dave Chappelle is transphobic” comments, Chappelle’s friend took to social media and defended him. Six days later, she committed suicide due to the bullying she received.
From whom, you might ask? Well, it wasn’t MAGA hat wearing Trump supporters. It was…the trans community itself.

Didn’t see that coming, did you?

Actually, if you have paid attention to the trans community, it’s not that hard to believe. I’m reminded of an old saying, “Get off my lawn!” Then, after I’ve realized that saying isn’t applicable, I’m reminded of a different saying, “The personal is political.” Anything that affects us on a personal level can be, and often is, used for political ends. And in this case, trans issues have become political issues, mainly because the Left wants to make them so.

And that’s where I feel the trans community goes off the rails like Joseph Hazelwood working for Amtrak. As personal as the issue is to you, there is a lot of work to do to turn these issues from narrowly political to more universal. And you’re freaking out the natives with the way some members of the trans community act. Furthermore, you’re not helping bridge the tolerance gap by throwing around “transphobia” when it is more of a lack of understanding. Yes, there are some actual people who hate the transgendered, but they’re rarer than the way Dracula likes his meat. (I would have said steaks instead of meat, but we know how he feels about them.)

The point is a lot of the oppression the trans community feels right now is self-inflicted, but the Left doesn’t care about making trans people a welcome part of society. Just the opposite. Leftists need there to be constant strife so their own ends are met. And if you’re still fuzzy about it, here’s the short version: the Left is using the trans community and will continue to do so until it’s no longer beneficial to do so. You know who didn’t do that?

Dave Chappelle.

The worst he did was to poke fun at members of the trans community for acting like judgmental assholes because, well, they were acting like judgmental assholes. If you’re pissed about that, you need to get some perspective. Contrary to Leftist opinion, words are not violence and “The Closer” is some damn good comedy from a master in his craft. And because of the aforementioned judgmental assholes, Dave Chappelle won’t be doing comedy until they realize he’s on their side.

If Mr. Chappelle is reading this, if you wanted to wait this out, I would suggest investing in cryogenic equipment because the trans community attacking you don’t seem to be all that keen on self-awareness.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The past couple of weeks has been difficult for the Biden Administration. Aside from its usual level of tone-deaf incompetence, its signature infrastructure bill, Build Back Better, has been getting criticized more than Dave Chappelle’s recent Netflix special. But unlike the aforementioned special, the Build Back Better agenda isn’t intentionally funny.

The more that comes out about Build Back Better, the less it seems to get people’s support. Of course, it doesn’t help matters any that information about it comes out in dribs and drabs, all while being promoted as costing nothing. As you might expect, I’m a little skeptical.

And by a little, I mean a lot.

This week, let’s look at the agenda and try to piece together what it is.

Build Back Better

What the Left thinks it means – an important approach to rebuilding our infrastructure, create jobs, and achieve more energy independence

What it really means – a laundry list of programs and expenditures that will do little-to-nothing towards infrastructure

Back in my youth, I loved this time of year because that meant all the national chain department stores would send out their Christmas-themed catalogs. There you could see all sorts of cool toys and gadgets to make children’s Christmas lists a lot easier to make, but more expensive to fulfill. These days, the best we can hope for is a list of things we’re going to be paying for on the federal credit card. With Build Back Better, we are hoping in one hand and shitting in the other and seeing which hand fills up first.

Let’s just say you might want to hold off giving high fives for a while.

Build Back Better is shrouded in mystery, mainly because the Left doesn’t want us to know what’s in it to avoid having to answer questions. Don’t get me wrong, there is some infrastructure in Build Back Better, but so far not a lot of what we know about it would qualify. Instead, much of it is recycled Leftist ideas that didn’t go over well the first time, including what I would call a soft reboot of the Green New Deal (complete with money going to the Socialist Socialite because reasons). And, surprise surprise, there are people out there who want more details before we spend $3.5 trillion.

Like Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema.

Well, the Left hasn’t taken this too well, considering they’re all-in on harassing the Senators and calling for them to be recalled, removed, or otherwise defeated in the next primary. To date, neither Manchin nor Sinema has changed their minds and it’s unclear whether pinning the Left’s failure to make an argument in favor of Build Back Better on them is going to work. I’m gonna go out on a limb and say…it’s not.

In a rare moment of self-awareness, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi admitted Democrats haven’t done a good job in selling the benefits of Build Back Better. Granted, there may not be much there to sell, but I have to give the Speaker credit for acknowledging the lack of persuasion. And for staying sober long enough to do it. Combine this with the “ram it through at all costs” approach used on Sens. Manchin and Sinema, and you have an image problem worse that Jon Gruden right now.

This begs the question of why there’s a problem getting people to support Build Back Better outside of the party faithful. A lot of it goes back a few months to the Left’s “X is infrastructure” approach. Child care, health care, living wages, and so on were thrown into the same bucket and people started to wonder why, including your humble correspondent. It created a lot of jokes outside of the Leftist hivemind, but the fact anything under the sun could be considered infrastructure if you wanted it to be undercut the validity of any infrastructure proposal by cheapening the idea of infrastructure. (And that is how you fit one word into a sentence multiple times without looking like you’re just trying to pad out a weekly blog post about words the Left uses…okay, let’s move on.)

Let’s not overlook the lack of transparency in this situation. Yes, it’s called Build Back Better, but what does that consist of and how is better being determined? Even the Biden Administration can’t come up with concrete answers, and it’s their fucking plan! When the people who came up with the thing can’t tell you what it’s about, you know it’s either horrible or they’re incompetent.

Insert “Why Not Both?” meme here.

Seriously, though, Build Back Better proponents can’t seem to get out of their own ways and level with us. Instead, we’re hearing how it will cost nothing (which it won’t, but try telling Leftists that offsets of costs don’t mean there weren’t any costs in the first place) and how it will make the wealthy pay their fair share (except the top 1% pays around 40% of the federal tax burden as of this missive). These are red-meat issues for Leftists, but they don’t play that well on Main Street. Most people today care about paying their own bills and ignore politics because it’s pointless. Except for a select few of us, that is, who pay attention to the minute details of every soundbite, campaign promise, or proposed spending.

Geez, we desperately need hobbies!

As long as Build Back Better is more high concept and less brass tacks (and more high tax), it’s going to be a hard pass from me. However, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I’ve come up with a new name for it, and the Biden Administration won’t even have to change the abbreviation. I call it Biden’s Big Boondoggle. Catchy, isn’t it?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

While President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better bill languishes in Congress, Leftists are trying to shame people into supporting it, including members of “The Squad.” For those unfamiliar with them, The Squad is the political equivalent of “The View”: a bunch of uninformed harpies whose voices create more cringe than YouTube. A member of The Squad, Rep. Ilhan Omar, recently tweeted America has a problem with greed.

By the way, this is one reason I don’t have a Twitter account: too many twits.

The Left loves to attack greed, but do they understand what it entails? Let’s just assume not and head right into this week’s Leftist Lexicon.

greed

What the Left thinks it means – unnecessarily hording money so others can’t use it to better society

What it really means – the lust for money, especially money that doesn’t belong to you

Greed is a human emotion everyone has, but the Left has found a way to weaponize it. To the Left, there is a direct line from greed to dag-nasty evil once you connect the dots. The problem is the dots don’t connect nearly as neatly as the Left will have you believe.

Take Amazon founder and executive Jeff Bezos, for example. In spite of his near-perfect record of supporting Leftist causes, he’s still in the crosshairs of the Left because of the money he’s made due to COVID-19. Gee, I wonder how Bezos could have made so much money delivering packages to people stuck inside due to a global pandemic…it’s a mystery!

Granted, the way Amazon treats warehouse workers makes China look good by comparison, which is a valid criticism of the Bezos way, but that’s usually not what the Left talks about first. It’s his money and what he’s done with it, namely going up into space. Shortly after Bezos and fellow rich Leftist Richard Branson took their money and built rockets that took them into space, Leftists went berserk…er. They said the money they (and non-Leftist Elon Musk) spent on what they termed joyrides could have been used for better purposes, such as education and the environment. Heck, they were so serious they made it into a meme! A MEME, PEOPLE!

Here’s the funny thing. Bezos, Branson, and Musk do contribute to society. Bezos alone gave $10 billion to fight climate change. Wait…isn’t climate change something the Left says they care about? Why, yes! Yes, it is! Combine that with the $2 billion and the millions of dollars Branson and Musk have given to numerous charities, respectively. And that’s not even getting into the Warren Buffets and Bill Gateses of the world. And what has the Left contributed?

A meme trying to get us to believe billionaires were bad people because they were greedy for wanting to go into space.

That’s a concept the Left can’t seem to get their heads around: it’s not their money in the first place. It shouldn’t be any of our business how people spend their money so long as it doesn’t infringe on other people’s rights, and I’m going to say taking a craft into space isn’t hurting anybody but NASA and the Left. Not that I advocate either, mind you. It’s a matter of keeping things in perspective, i.e. staying in your lane.

The Left doesn’t recognize that, though, because to them everything is or should be under their control, and I do mean control. If they can figure out a way to create federal control of anything, they will make it happen. Just look at their attempt to federalize fact-checking on Facebook, as helped by a “whistleblower” who just happens to give money to the Socialist Socialite. But I’m sure that was totally a coincidence, though!

The end goal for bringing up greed is to get the Left in control of as much money as possible. Instead of working to, you know, earn it, they try to guilt it into their wallets, and it usually works. That’s why a lot of wealthy people lean Left. Either that, or they’re trying to keep the Left off their backs for a little while. Either way, the Left isn’t satisfied with the money they get from wealthy Leftists. They need to have it all, and will use any means necessary to get it.

Which, oddly yet appropriately enough, is the very definition of greed.

No matter how righteous the Left thinks they are in trying to make things equal…ly bad, the fact remains they epitomize the very thing they claim to be fighting. Aside from the delicious irony and pure comedic gold this brings, there is no up-side to making people feel worse because they have more money than others. Personally, I don’t care if you made your money working in a factory or making TikTok videos because it’s not my purpose to tell you how to make money. If you want my sanction, you’ll have to talk to someone else. (It was part of my wedding vows.)

Besides, what exactly is wrong with being wealthy? The fact someone has more doesn’t mean the world has less. Money isn’t pizza, folks. There’s enough for everyone. Of course, if you made your money  harming others, then I have a problem with it. Fortunately, most wealthy people I know (because I hobnob with the elites on weekends) don’t do that. Even the worst among them have done something to earn their fortune, even if it is just being born into a wealthy family. The point is greed is neither good nor evil, per se, because it’s how we use it that makes the difference. If we use greed as a motivator to become the best in an industry, that’s positive. If we use greed to malign others because we’re too busy playing scratch-off tickets to work, that’s negative.

Let’s just say the Left has scratch-off crumbs on them.

Ultimately, though, we shouldn’t let knuckleheads from The Squad use greed as a weapon to support a $3.5 trillion dollar boondoggle. The only thing greater than the Left’s greed is their lack of self-awareness about it.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

To hear Leftists talk, the world is coming to an end. Granted, this is their default position on anything they don’t understand, but this week it’s been an impending government shutdown, and the only solution is to raise the debt ceiling so Congress can spend more money. After all, if we can’t pay our bills, past, present, and future, we’ll go into default and everything will go to Hell! People dying in the streets! Climate change causing floods and famine! Nickelback going on tour!

What is the debt ceiling? It’s not part of a government building, but it is something we need to deal with before it swallows us whole without so much as a courtesy chew.

debt ceiling

What the Left thinks it means – a necessary increase so the country can continue to spend money and provide services

What it really means – a way to enable bad fiscal policy

To put it mildly, the federal government has the spending problems of a shopaholic with an Amex Black card. It continues to spend and spend without consequence, save for the rare occasion when an incumbent gets toppled by an opponent. And, just like the aforementioned shopaholic, we’re buying some really stupid shit. Just look at the proposed $3.5 trillion President Joe Biden wants to spend on stuff like tree equity, making nursing homes more inclusive to LBGTQ folks, and reinventing an environmental service program that failed under FDR because the Socialist Socialite wants it.

If only the government were addicted to shoes instead of boondoggles…

Raising the debt ceiling is extending a line of credit to the federal shopaholic knowing we’ll never pay it back, but will ask to get more down the road. And those who helped us get the national debt higher than Willie Nelson in Colorado on 4/20 are the ones who get to decide whether we get that line of credit. A great gig if you can get it, but not a good way to run a country.

If only we had some guide to help our elected officials commit to spending money on specific things. You know…like a budget? Well, bad news, kids. Congress hasn’t done an actual budget since…2006. That leads to the question of how we kept our doors open without a budget. Thanks to a little thing called a continuing resolution, Congress is able to spend and spend without worrying about being tied down to specific numbers and purposes. Even when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, we kept funding things under a continuing resolution and asking for raising the debt ceiling when we got close to running out of money. Unfortunately, efforts to create a Congressional budget have failed to date, thus making it easier for politicians to spend without end on whatever caught their attention.

Here’s where things get tricky. At some point, we will run out of money, even with the vast resources the government can draw upon if they want to liquidate them. (Spoiler Alert: they don’t want to liquidate anything.) When we reach that point, raising the debt ceiling will be futile because we won’t have the money to have it raised. And unless we want to be the stereotypical brother-in-law who sleeps on our couch and never looks for a way to pay his share of the household costs, we have to do something major to affect change. Besides, I don’t think any of us has a couch big enough for the country to crash on while they look for jobs and Internet porn.

First off, we need fiscally responsible Republicans to come up with a budget when they get control of Congress again. Then, we need to stick to that budget without calling for raising the debt ceiling, even for things they want us to believe are vital interests. Our primary interest from an economic standpoint is getting our fiscal house in order sooner rather than never.

In fact, let me go a step further here. I think we should make raising the debt ceiling illegal, period. Imagine what that could do to a Congresscritter if he or she has to watch what they propose and keep an eye on how much it’s going to cost. You know, just like the rest of us have to do with our own budgets?

At the very least, we need to stage an intervention. Get the federal government into a room and have taxpayers tell them how it’s hurting us and it needs to get help for its spending addiction. And if we can turn it into a reality show, we might be able to recoup some of the debt on merchandising alone!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Being a member of law enforcement at any level isn’t a cakewalk, especially in these politically charged times. This is doubly so for the men and women on the front lines of our southern border, who tend to catch heck for sneezing in the general direction of an illegal immigrant.

This past week, a photo of a Border Patrol agent on horseback apparently whipping an illegal immigrant from Haiti made the rounds, setting off a firestorm of criticism. Even though there were no actual whips in the photo, the Left whipped up resentment towards the Border Patrol. Yes, the same people who want to defund the police, abolish ICE, and say no human is illegal thinks the people enforcing our borders are meanie-heads.

And as we’ll see, it’s no coincidence these issues are connected.

Border Patrol

What the Left thinks it means – the tyrannical arm of the US government, targeting poor defenseless people trying to make a better life in America

What it really means – a group of people trying to hold the line against illegal immigration without much support from politicians

America has been a beacon of hope for many an immigrant for centuries. But as anyone who has ever owned a bug zapper will tell you, a beacon can attract less desirable elements who will use every trick in their arsenals to take advantage of our largesse. Unlike the bug zapper, though, we tend not to electrocute illegal immigrants. Instead, we take them into our country without stopping to think about the consequences.

To try to curtail the criminal element and deter future border jumpers, ICE and the Border Patrol work around the clock trying to get a handle on things. Unfortunately for them, we as a country haven’t gotten a handle on things since the 1980s. Politicians from the Left and the Right have failed to put a dent in the waves of illegal immigrants coming into the country and using our resources. Thanks to current President and hairplug spokesmodel Joe Biden, ICE and the Border Patrol have their short-staffed hands full.

Provided, of course, the Left doesn’t smack their hands for trying to do their jobs. Just look at their “solution” for dealing with the Border Patrol agents who were accused of whipping Haitian immigrants: take their horses away. Thus, making their jobs more difficult. All because the Left jumped to a conclusion Robbie Knievel wouldn’t even try with full medical coverage. But that’s par for the course for the Left in this situation.

See, the Left has a vested interest in keeping a steady stream of illegal immigrants coming into the country like teenagers to a K-Pop concert. This interest takes on multiple forms, but they all wind up fulfilling the Left’s political and social goals, thanks in to figures like Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, Saul Alinsky, and our good friend Uncle George Soros. All four of them have had a pretty strong hand in shaping Leftist ideology for decades, and it doesn’t end well for us. Here is a brief description of what they’ve added to the Leftist hivemind.

Cloward and Piven – developed a strategy to overwhelm the social support system to create more poverty and upset within the country, causing discord and fomenting revolution

Alinsky – the author of Rules for Radicals, which outlines ways for Leftists to make progress on social and political issues

Soros – advocate/creator of the Open Society Institute, which advocates for no borders whatsoever and everyone being a part of one global society, as well as an effort to control state election offices to help Leftist politicians get elected

With Soros and his disciples promoting the idea there shouldn’t be borders, it allows Leftists to promote ideas that will give the green light for illegal immigrants to come here. Once here, the Cloward and Piven strategy kicks in, putting a strain on existing programs through sheer volume. When critics come out against the first two concepts, Alinsky’s rules come into play. The result? More potential Democrat voters, which allows the cycle to continue. It’s brilliant in its deviousness.

And what’s one group of people who can throw a King Kong-sized monkey wrench into all of this? The Border Patrol. If they’re allowed to do their job, it will curtail the number of illegal immigrants coming into the country and getting all the bennies the Left is willing to give them because…reasons. So, instead of figuring out a way to…you know…change the laws on the books, the Left focuses their attention on the ones least capable of fighting back.

Including purposely mischaracterizing a photo to make it look worse than it actually was.

Unfortunately for the Left, the narrative is starting to break down like the Socialist Socialite after losing her battle to defund the Iron Dome in Israel. The primary source (i.e. the photographer who took the picture the Left is using to bash the Border Patrol) is saying the photo is being taken out of context and doesn’t reflect what really happened. Furthermore, the Border Patrol and eagle-eyed horse riders are pointing out the lack of whips in the photo itself. Even so, Twitter Leftists and their governmental counterparts are clinging to the original lie…I mean story. There are a few reasons for this, but one that should be at the top of the list is confirmation bias.

For those of you who have a life, confirmation bias is when a person believes a certain way because it affirms what they already believe. The Left already believes the Border Patrol is a bunch of racist thugs anyway, so it’s not that much of an effort to believe in the narrative in spite of the evidence to the contrary. That, and the fact the Left hate to admit they’re wrong more than The Fonz. Imagine that. A group of dishonest idealogues that already hates law enforcement trying to paint a group of law enforcement agents in a bad light? Who knew???

Well, those of us outside the Leftist hivemind did. While we wait for Jen Psaki to circle back and tell us another lie, keep the Border Patrol in your thoughts and prayers. They need them now more than ever.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

There are some weeks when your humble correspondent struggles to find an appropriate Lexicon entry based on the events of the day. Other times the Topics Gods shower me with topics.

Let’s just say I hit the motherload of motherloads this week. From the Socialist Socialite wearing an expensive dress with “Tax the Rich” on it while attending an event catered to the wealthy to the FBI being shown to be the Keystone Kops with federal funding, there was no lack of content. But I’m going to focus on a new Leftist turn of a phrase that came up during a recent confirmation hearing.

President Joe Biden nominated Jennifer Sung for a position on the 9th Circuit Court, and during the hearing she was questioned about a letter from Yale Law School students and alumni that she signed regarding then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh that said he was “intellectually and morally bankrupt” and that “people will die” (a direct quote from the letter) because of his stances on abortion and gay rights. Sure, she’s a nutter, but on the bright side the 9th Circuit Court is going to easily retain its title of Worst Circuit Court EVER.

In attempting to defend her position, Sung used the term “rhetorical advocacy.” Leftists glommed onto this, accusing anyone who found it nonsensical of being too dumb to figure out what it means. Unfortunately for them, I’m a word guy, so I will take a crack at it.

rhetorical advocacy

What the Left thinks it means – supporting a position in a general, high-level way

What it really means – a stupid way for a Leftist to get out of a public statement

The year was 2018, and then-President Donald Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh for the open seat on the US Supreme Court. At that point, the Left lost their collectivist hivemind because Kavanaugh was…a conservative! Before you could get Christine Blasey Ford on an airplane, the Left went to town trying to find a way to take down Kavanaugh.

Enter Ms. Sung and the aforementioned letter. At the time, the letter didn’t make the news because it didn’t meet the Left’s definition of news. To them, Kavanaugh being “intellectually and morally bankrupt” was an article of faith and, thus, didn’t need to be questioned. The funny thing? If Kavanaugh were a Leftist, that bankruptcy would be a resume enhancer.

Three years later, Ms. Sung’s signature is coming back to haunt her own judicial nomination. Even if you buy the idea of rhetorical advocacy, the problem of whether the words themselves were hyperbole comes into play. Granted, I haven’t been spending the past 3 years keeping track of the number of deaths directly related to Kavanaugh’s position on social issues, I’m going to go out on a limb and say the number is in the neighborhood of, oh, zero.

As the late Rush Limbaugh said, “Words mean things.” If Ms. Sung were concerned about the language used in the letter, she had a personal obligation not to sign the letter. Yet, she did because she never thought it would come to light. Oops.

Rhetorical advocacy is a ten-cent word that sounds impressive, but really isn’t. Once we break down the parts of the phrase, we can see what I mean.

Rhetorical involves the use of language, written or spoken, to convey an idea. This Leftist Lexicon post is an example of what I mean. Maybe not a good example, but an example all the same. Advocacy involves the support of an idea or cause through thoughts, words, and deeds. Put the two words together and you get…a redundancy. Advocacy uses rhetoric, and rhetoric can be used to advocate for a desired outcome. When you put it in the context of the letter Ms. Sung signed, the two terms are interchangeable.

This leads to the question of why the Left has adopted this meaningless term while mocking those who don’t think it’s all that great. Fortunately, there’s a simple answer: it’s to give them cover for their bullshit. Remember, Leftists love to play word games to make themselves sound smarter than they actually are. By throwing together the two words in question, it makes the result sound high-minded and intellectual. As we’ve seen, it’s neither, and it’s not that effective when it comes to providing cover.

I have a simple philosophy when dealing with people: take them at their word until they give me reason to doubt it. Although I disagree with Ms. Sung’s conclusions regarding Justice Kavanaugh, the fact she’s shying away from the words she signed off on now that the letter has come to light tells me she’s not willing to own up to them. Cowardice in the face of potential career advancement is no virtue, no matter what fancy-sounding words you use to soften the blow. I would have rather had her say, “I signed that letter because I agreed with the sentiments within it” because it would have been honest. Absolutely wrong, but honest.

Putting all that aside, the fact the Left is attacking those of us who think “rhetorical advocacy” is a bunch of bullshit is a sign they have no valid argument for the letter, nor Ms. Sung’s nomination. Who would want a judge on any level of the judiciary that can’t stand behind a statement without parsing it through an ideological lens? Any verdict offered by such a judge would be suspect and grounds for an immediate appeal to a higher court.

Which, if you think about it, makes her perfect for the 9th Circuit Court.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

There are some things about the 1970s that I miss. Great music. The Bicentennial. The lack of millennials. Yet, there are some things I wish would stay there.

One of those things is leisure suits, but since they’re not really that relevant, we’re going to talk about inflation. If you’ve been watching your nickels and dimes lately, you’ll see those nickels and dimes aren’t going as far as they used to, say, a year ago. Hmmm…I wonder what happened within the past year that could have caused that to happen. I don’t know, but I’m Biden my time, if you know what I mean.

But if listen to the Left, this current round of inflation is no big deal and we shouldn’t freak out over rising costs. Of course, these same Leftists think Paul Krugman is knowledgeable on economics, so you can take that with a grain of salt. Meanwhile, let’s take a look at inflation from someone who isn’t notorious for being wrong.

inflation

What the Left thinks it means – a normal economic condition that shouldn’t concern us

What it really means – an economic condition worsened by bad economic policy

I recognize economics is a subject so dry it makes the Sahara Desert look like Atlantis, but I do have to go into a bit of it to give us a baseline of knowledge to understand the impact.

When the cost of business goes up, goods and services get more expensive, resulting in the producers getting less money for the same effort. The producers then have to make a decision to address the shortfall, everything from adjusting the price to firing employees. More often than not, they raise prices, which in turn affects the value of our money.

But that’s not the only thing that affects monetary value. Politicians indirectly have an impact on it through legislation, regulation, and regurgitation (of talking points). One glib comment from a politician or squawking head and the economy can tank faster than a Proud Boys stand-up act at the Apollo. Even the hint of some new taxes or regulations of a particular industry can create economic instability.

Fortunately, we don’t have a current President who is notorious for making ill-informed staaaaa…oh, crap.

Say what you will about Donald Trump (and, believe me, I have), but one thing I will give him credit for is understanding how the economy works. And before you comment on the number of bankruptcies he’s filed, keep in mind Trump has been a part of the American social fabric since the mid 80s. He’s been all over everything from casinos to reality shows to steaks to online education. He’s the orange Ron Popeil.

Compare that to the laundry list of political and media knuckleheads who can’t tell their assets from a hole in the ground, and yet have the power to impact the economy without knowing how it works. (I’m looking at you, Socialist Socialite.) And, as it turns out, these are the ones who make the statements that cause the most economic headaches.
Take the aforementioned Paul Krugman, for example. He may have a Nobel Prize, but the fact he’s wrong more often than he’s right condemns both Krugman and the Nobel Committee. I mean, would you follow the advice of someone who said the Internet was a fad and would go the way of the fax machine (it didn’t) and advised people to get out of the Stock Market after Donald Trump was elected because it was going to crash (it didn’t)?

Oh, and did I mention Krugman is also one of the people saying inflation isn’t that big of a problem right now?

Although inflation is a pretty easy concept to grasp, the Left doesn’t get it, mainly because they aren’t economically-minded (except when it comes to their own bottom lines). A big reason for that is because they rarely think of money as a tangible matter. To them, it tends to be symbolic in nature, namely as a symbol for the rich oppressing the poor, men oppressing women, and so on. As a result, their “solutions” to the problems they make up…I mean find are simplistic. Just take X amount from Person A and give it to Person B and all will be right with the world!

Of course, they never see themselves as being Person A because they love spending other people’s money on stuff they want. They see money as power, which I can grant them to an extent. As long as they have money, they think they have power, but only they know how to use it property. Just ask them. That’s why there are a lot of rich Leftists out there. And the irony of their greed while chastising others for it is not lost on your humble correspondent.

The problem is their lack of understanding of the actual costs of inflation usually winds up hurting the people Leftists always want to court come election time. When prices go up, the ability for a significant chunk of the population to buy even basic goods goes down. The Leftist solution is to give more of other people’s money to that population while getting them to believe they deserve it, or should I say entitled to it. It works great to keep rich white Leftists in power, but it sucks if you’re constantly on the economic treadmill trying to make ends meet. But it’s never the Left’s fault. It’s always someone else. For example, President Joe Biden blamed the rising cost of beef, chicken, and pork on…wait for it…the meat producers! To believe that, though, you have to believe the Left had no influence on prices skyrocketing due to inflation when they have control over the laws getting passed and policies getting enacted.

But they don’t care because a) they assume everyone is as dumb as they are, and b) most of the Leftists who are okay with rising inflation make enough money to afford it. And it all goes back to their greed. After all, as long as it doesn’t inconvenience them, the Left is fine watching people suffer at their hands.

The Party of Compassion, everybody!

In order for us to weather the self-inflicted economic storm, we need to use our heads when it comes to spending. Cut coupons, comparison shop, budget for needs rather than wants, and do what you can to keep costs down, including learning how to make or grow what you might need to buy. Granted, not everyone is Bob Villa or has a green thumb, but it’s never too late to pick up some pointers or ask questions from those who are more knowledgeable. The one currency that never experiences fiscal ups-and-downs is human kindness. Even if today’s more divisive world, you can find someone willing to lend a hand in times of need.

The other thing we can do, which might a bit harder, is to vote for candidates with a strong understanding of economics. This isn’t a “Vote Straight Ticket Republican” idea, since the knuckleheads who got us into this mess come from both major parties. Take a hard look at what a candidate says and grill him or her on the economy. If they give a half-hearted or nonsensical answer, strike them from your short list. If they give a solid answer or an answer that checks out from the research you do ahead of time, give them a second look. Even if they aren’t your favorite person, ask yourself if you can afford a popular dullard impacting any part of the economy and vote accordingly.

The dollar you save might be your own.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

As I’ve noted a few times in these missives, the Left doesn’t do long-term thinking, or thinking in general to be fair. Since Democrats took control of the Senate back in 2020, the Left has been drooling over the potential policy gains they could make. But there was a problem, or more accurately, two problems named Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. Both identify as Democrats, but aren’t necessarily on the Leftist bandwagon. Which means, Leftists hate them.

Manchin and Sinema have been on the lips of many Leftist vipers, including our favorite Socialist Socialite most recently decrying how things would be so much better if they would just put party above country and vote the way they’re supposed to. (I’m paraphrasing, but that’s the general gist of the Socialist Socialite’s tweets.)

Normally, internal struggles within the Democrats brings a smile to my face, except when it makes the Left mad. Then, I laugh a lot. Either way, it’s time we look at the two Senators responsible for so many Leftist breakdowns.

Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema

What the Left thinks it means – Two Democrat Senators who prevent any and all progress from being made

What it really means – Two Democrat Senators who understand the role of the Senate better than the Leftists

Back in the day, the Founding Fathers envisioned a two-body legislative branch: the House, which would be responsible for listening to the people and proposing legislation, and the Senate, which would be responsible for thinking through the logistics of what the House sent them. Today, neither body is particularly interested in listening to the people and the hardest thing most Senators deliberate about is their belly button lint. Just be glad Jerrold Nadler isn’t a Senator, kids.

When it comes to Manchin, he’s garnered the ire of the Left for years because he’s an exception to the rule. I may not always agree with his decisions, but it’s clear he doesn’t just think about what his party wants. He actually thinks about what the voters in his state want. That bastard!

Then, there’s Sinema. On paper, she’s a Leftist’s wet dream. She’s attractive, bisexual, and was able to beat a Republican to win her seat. She’s practically Katie Hill, but without a thing for staffers. I think you see where this is going, but I love to say it. Eventually her star in Leftist circles dropped when she decided to vote the way her constituents wanted instead of how the Left wanted her to vote.

The reason for the Left’s dismay is the same in both cases: they feel entitled to Manchin and Sinema’s votes because of their party affiliation. Granted, the Right has the same problem, but they aren’t as butthurt as the Left are. To wit, there aren’t any Republicans trying to force Lisa Murkowski to vote a certain way through insults, invectives, and appeals to popularity, but there are a lot of Leftists who keep bringing up how Senate Democrats need to either pressure Manchin and Sinema to vote “the right way” or strip them of their committee assignments.

Yeah, I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say the Left’s approach isn’t going to work because…how can I put this delicately…pissing off the people you’re trying to persuade doesn’t end well.

Of the two, I think Manchin has an easier road because he’s established himself in his home state of West Virginia, which means better name recognition. Combine that with the fact West Virginian Democrats tend to be more purple than blue (which Manchin understands far better than the Leftists suggesting he should be primaried), and he could fall into a coma and still win reelection. (Not that I want that to happen, mind you.)

Sinema, on the other hand, hasn’t been in office that long, so she will see far more pressure from constituents in a bluer Arizona. If current polling is accurate (and even that has to be taken with a lake of salt), Democrats see her unfavorably, lagging behind fellow Senator Mark Kelly and President Joe Biden. That may have been before Biden’s recent Afghanistan debacle, though. Either way, she does have an ace up her sleeve: non-Democrat voters. There is a segment of the population who think the Left go too far and look for people who buck the party or try to put the brakes on their agenda. Sinema checks those boxes and looks sympathetic, especially when she’s being attacked constantly by Leftists. Whether that will be enough to overcome the Leftist exodus from her corner will be seen soon enough.

The impact of Manchin and Sinema’s reluctance to join the Left on matters ranging from eliminating the filibuster to statehood for the District of Columbia cannot be overstated. With the Senate so close to the political tipping point, Democrats need every vote they can get, including those from more Left-leaning Republicans, to advance their agenda. The more Democrats break away from the leadership, the harder it gets for Democrats to get anything done. Even with Kamala Harris as the appropriately-yet-ironically-worded trump card in a 50-50 tie, Senate Democrats need to be able to get to 50 votes to force the issue. Let’s just say it gets harder to get to 50 when you keep lambasting two of the Senators necessary to pass what you want.

The Left also overlooks two other Senators who tend to vote with the Democrats, Independents Bernie “Five House Socialist” Sanders and Angus “Burger” King. These two could be under the microscope next, provided they decide to actually be independent. Fortunately for the Left, Sanders and King tend to roll over like a dog wanting belly scritchies, so the Left doesn’t attack them much. If Manchin and Sinema would do the same, the Left wouldn’t have a reason to attack them.

But I don’t think that’s in their character. They have strong beliefs and, dare I say it, character, which make the Leftists attacking them look petty by comparison. (Of course, they are petty, but that’s beside the point.) For the self-professed party of inclusion to be so exclusionary when it comes to ideological matters draws the curtain back so we can see what’s motivating the Left to attack Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema: lust for power.

Either that or they’re just assholes.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The world has some really evil people in it, but there is one who is at the top of the heap. His actions have caused thousands of COVID-19 deaths, threatened millions more, and doesn’t follow the science like the way we’re told it has to be followed. I’m speaking of, of course, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.

Or at least that’s what the Left thinks of him.

With the attention DeSantis has garnered with the Left, I think it would be worthwhile to do a deep dive into the Governor to see if we can pinpoint why the Left hates him with the passion of a thousand suns.

Ron DeSantis

What the Left thinks it means – a cruel, incompetent governor who will kill as many people as he can through bad decisions

What it really means – Donald Trump with better impulse control

I think we’ve hit on the main reason the Left hates DeSantis, but more on that later.

Trying to keep track of how well different governors have been doing with the pandemic is like trying to calculate the color bleen: theoretically possible, but more likely to be maddening, and definitely pointless. While the sensible thing would be to count the number of cases and the number of deaths, the Left kept changing the rules to soften the blow of the multiple custerfucks from Democrat governors and to criticize Republican governors who had enough sense to, you know, not put COVID-19 patients in nursing homes where those susceptible to it were.

Among these eeeeevillll Republican governors was Ron DeSantis. While the Left fawned over Andrew “Sexual Assault and Letting Old People Die Are a Part of My Culture” Cuomo, DeSantis actually did the job Cuomo was being lauded for doing without actually doing it. And for that, the Left hates him.

Well, along with being a threat to the Left’s plans to keep the White House in 2024. And given how the current guy is doing, DeSantis only needs to keep breathing to beat him. If you think the Left had a hate boner for Donald Trump, prepare for one that will last far more than four years and will not require seeing a doctor because DeSantis dares to do something Donald Trump did and continues to do: call out the Left when they lie about him.

Let’s just say the Left has been very busy lying about DeSantis.

As I’ve noted before, the Left hates anybody who fights back against them in any way, and I do mean any. Even a marginal disagreement over policy can turn you in to persona non grata in Leftist circles. Just as Lawrence Summers, a former Harvard President whose only crime was to note men and women are better at different tasks and fields of study. How scandalous! When it comes to DeSantis, though, the Left have been having fits over how he and his communications director keep calling them out.

Of course, Leftists have fits at the drop of a hat, so that’s nothing new.

There is a line of thought that the reason Leftists are going so hard at DeSantis is because they’re afraid he’s going to run in 2024. I agree with this to a point, but I think there’s a bigger fear at work here. The Left is afraid of a 2016 repeat where a candidate who wasn’t supposed to win actually does. It wasn’t that long ago that the Left underestimated Donald Trump (when they weren’t using him as a ratings boost, I might add) and miscalculated just how unpopular Hillary Clinton was (or at least how clueless the Left is when it comes to acknowledging the screamingly obvious).

If current trends continue, 2024 is going to come down to an established Leftist pawn…I mean candidate in Joe Biden, an inexperienced Leftist pawn…I mean candidate in Kamala Harris, and whomever the Republicans put forward. If current trends continue further, the Republican candidate is going to be Ron DeSantis, which works against the Left. Whether the Left supports the doddering old fool or the doddering young fool, they will have a hard sell for the American people, although not as hard a sell as when they tried to convince people to vote for Hillary.

The other aspect that scares the ever-loving bat snot out of the Left is DeSantis isn’t as unpredictable as Donald Trump was. Oh, DeSantis is as passionate and driven as Trump was, but he has a better control over his passions and words, which makes him Trump 2.0: all the Leftist butt-whuppin’ with a smaller likelihood of mangling the English language. That alone makes DeSantis dangerous to the Left. Oh, they’ll still paint him as a racist/sexist/homophobic/bigoted/fascist/religious nutjob/Hitler-wannabe, but it won’t affect him while having the potential to pimp-slap the Left in the process. Because…lack of self-awareness.

While DeSantis isn’t going to be everyone’s cup of Earl Gray (I’m looking at you, Lincoln Project), there is something to be said of someone who doesn’t take shit from Leftists and lets them know exactly what he feels about them. If some people have their way, that something will be “Mister President.”

For others, it will be “Skippy.” Don’t ask me why.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The year was 2001, and it was an even bigger odyssey than Arthur C. Clarke or Stanley Kubrick could have ever imagined. We were still reeling from a contested election, and making all sorts of hanging chad jokes in the process. We were still learning about the evil that is Nickelback. And there was the War on Terror, which sent thousands of young men and women to the Middle East to fight with different factions, such as the Taliban.

Now, 20 years later, we’re leaving Afghanistan (at least in part) and leaving it to…the Taliban.

As much as I like reruns, there is a logical limit to everything, except Leftist rhetoric. While the Left is trying to put a positive spin on the debacle…I mean successful withdrawal from Afghanistan, we would be remiss if we didn’t take a look at the new boss, who is the same as the old boss.

the Taliban

What the Left thinks it means – bad guys who are better than the far right in America

What it really means – terrorists who should have been wiped from the face of the Earth when we had the chance

In the aftermath of 9/11, we were looking for the people responsible for the multiple attacks on America and landed on the Taliban, both figuratively and literally. After some fighting, the Taliban were removed like David Duke at the NAACP Image Awards. Then, we did something which, in retrospect, was kinda dumb. Like inviting David Duke to the NAACP Image Awards.

We let them go.

Instead of curb stomping them, we let them get away, including one Osama bin Laden. You know, the mastermind behind 9/11? Although we eventually found and killed bin Laden, that didn’t kill the Taliban. Quite the opposite, actually. That’s because of the nature of Middle Eastern terrorism.

Even though there are multiple terrorists groups operating in the Middle East, they aren’t exactly working out of different Q’orans. Their main purpose is to spread Islam worldwide through conversion, coercion, or, their personal favorite, killing the non-believers. So far, they haven’t been that successful with the first two methods, but with the third option, they’ve done a bang-up job. Literally.

And the Taliban are no different. They will be as bad as they were in 2001, if not worse. That means women and children will be endangered, rights will be restricted, and we will have to learn more hard-to-pronounce names to at least appear to be educated on the goings on. And it means our political leaders will have no clue of what’s going on in the first place.

Case in point, the Biden Administration. Instead of worrying about the destabilization of the reason and the geopolitical implications of the Taliban regaining power in Afghanistan, our fearless leader and his ever-on=the-ball Administration are concerned with…the Taliban being inclusive. And remember, kids, Joe Biden is supposed to be the foreign policy expert.

In other words, we’re boned.

Although the Biden Administration is willing to take the Taliban at their word, there are two big reasons we shouldn’t. One, they have no reason to follow through with any agreement they make with us. Granted, I’m no expert on the Muslim faith, but when their interpretation of their holy book makes it okay to lie to and kill non-believers, I’m pretty sure they’re less trustworthy than a car dealership working straight commission and with a lot full of lemons that would make Country Time want to file a lawsuit against them.

Oh, and the second reason? They’re freaking terrorists!

Of course, this hasn’t been a problem in the past because we used to have a good intelligence network in that part of the world. Then, some Leftists (such as the Commander in Briefs, Bill Clinton) got it in their heads that getting intelligence from terrorists might make us look bad. Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news to the Left, but the best intelligence against the bad guys comes from the bad guys. The result of our insane pearl-clutching can be seen where the Twin Towers once stood.

Am I blaming Bill Clinton for 9/11? No, but it’s hard to argue his actions didn’t have at least some bearing on what lead up to it, including the infamous briefing that amounted to “Osama bin Laden may try to do something with airplanes at some point down the road” written by the same group of people that thought satellites could do a better job of getting secret information from terrorists than having actual people on the inside.

The point is the Left got us into this mess by inadvertently giving terrorists what they want and getting nothing in return. This is because the Left’s version of foreign policy is always having to say we’re sorry. That’s sure to get you a lot of friends, but very few will be allies, especially if there’s hard work to be done. You know, like trying to execute a mass exit from a country where the enemy is heavily entrenched and now has access to the toys we’re abandoning?

The Left isn’t the sole party to blame here, but they are the ones who keep setting the rules of engagement and making the blunders that lead us into having to deal with groups like the Taliban on a regular basis. Unfortunately, there’s not a lot we can do until our leaders change their minds on how to deal with the Taliban. And if I could humbly offer a suggestion, one that I’ve held since 9/11.

Go back to the original rules of engagement, namely 1) take out the enemy, 2) take or break their stuff, and 3) do steps 1 and 2 in such as way that it makes the enemy reconsider whether they want to continue hostilities. If so, repeat steps 1-3. If not, then they might be willing to knock off their shenanigans for fear of us repeating steps 1-3. In recent years, we haven’t had the courage to even attempt step 1 without feeling guilty. We need to stop feeling guilty when it comes to dealing with people who want us dead.

Until then, we will have to put up with history repeating itself. in other words, a geopolitical version summer TV.