It wasn’t that long ago that I graduated from college. Okay, maybe it has been, considering I graduated with a Masters in 1994.
Excuse me for a moment while I weep to myself and apply Ben Gay to my aching body.
Anyway, one of the aspects of graduating was having to pay back all the money I borrowed to go to college and get a degree I barely use. But, for what it’s worth, I’ve read a lot of books. Okay, now I have to weep again…
These days, the crying isn’t just limited to me. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon announced the department would start collection attempts on outstanding student loan debt in default. As you might expect, students impacted by this aren’t happy. After all, President Brick Tamland tried to forgive student loan debt through various means, the most obvious one being “I’m the President, or am I?”
This has become a political issue, so naturally politicians are going to get involved. And when they do, I am here to give commentary. Oh, and to mock the appropriate parties.
student loans
What the Left thinks it means – an oppressive economic burden placed on the backs of those least capable of paying it
What it really means – loans taken out to pay for a college degree that more often than not doesn’t translate to the real world
I will warn you at this point things may get tangental because there is a lot of ground to cover. Of course, if you’ve read me for any length of time, you’re asking, “So what’s different?”
Not that long ago, going to college was somewhat of an achievement. You either had to be really smart or really rich to go. Then, someone (probably someone in the admissions department) came up with the idea that more people needed to go to college. From there, the notion was put in the minds of young people (and their parents) that you had to go to college or else you wouldn’t be successful.
Then, someone else (probably someone in the accounting department) came up with the idea that more students meant more money. And what’s a great way to raise a bunch of money in a short period of time? I mean aside from stealing it. You raise tuition! That way even if your institute of higher learning has an enrollment drought you might be able to make a pretty penny. That, and the textbook prices.
There is a downside to this approach, namely pricing yourself out of the market. Then, a third person (probably someone in the government) decided the best way to address this is to offer student loans. Then, even more young people could go to college, which made everyone happy.
At least until the kids graduated and they had to pay back the money they borrowed.
See, the thing about the government getting involved in the student loan game is it allowed colleges and universities to jack up tuition costs, which meant prospective students had to borrow even more just to go to a 7 AM Color Theory in American Literature class three times a week. Or, more likely, not attend that class and crib notes off a classmate without a life. After all, there was drinking and drugs to do!
Not that I know anything about that, mind you.
The Left is on the right side of the student loan debt issue, at least superficially. The amount of debt that has to be run up just to attend college these days is astronomical, and with a job market that can be softer than Taylor Lorenz’s feefees, being able to pay back the money owed can be tough. Not impossible, mind you, but harder than it needs to be, just like the language in the loan application.
Where the Left goes banana-shaped on the issue is in figuring out who’s responsible, mainly because some of the finger-pointing would have to go towards some of their allies. Since student loans have come under the auspices of the federal government, it’s easy to think there is a Mount Everest-sized mountain of unending money just waiting for people to take without consequence. And that group of people includes…drumroll please…college administrators and Boards of Regents. These are the people who evaluate tuition costs, and in recent years they’ve refused tuition increases as often as I’ve refused to eat medium rare steaks: it’s never come up.
And when you consider a significant percentage of administrators lean to the Left, it’s Leftists who are making the student loan debt issue worse.
To borrow a phrase from Philip Joseph Watson, “Imagine my shock.”
But the damage goes even further. With the rising cost of tuition, are students getting the bang for Uncle Sam’s buck? Well…let’s just say a lot of the banging going on is limited to the coeds. Students and parents alike believe tuition is too high and can create economic anxiety with students, which negatively affects their ability to learn.
Not that the curricula may have that much value anymore. Sure, you’ll have the hard sciences and more business-focused courses, but most of the time the courses being offered will help you in the job market as much as tattooing “I’m Unhireable” on your forehead. And I’m saying that as someone with an English Language and Literature degree! So, if you’re looking for a cushy corner office job with your Non-Binary Native American Tap Dance degree, you’re shit out of luck.
Unless, of course, you decide to go into teaching. You may not get a corner office, but being a professor can be lucrative and, aside from doing scholarly research to keep up on the trends in the field of study, it’s not too bad of a gig. Of course, this doesn’t help the student loan situation any, but hey.
Another area of agreement I have with the Left on the student loan issue is the expectations being put upon young adults. The documentation necessary to apply for a student loan is enough to make the Sierra Club cry like the Native American from that commercial. There’s a lot of legalese and verbiage to wade through and even then you may not know enough of the details to know what’s expected of you. To help with this, I have a simplified student loan process.
1. Tell the borrower how much they owe.
2. Tell the borrower when and how to make payments.
3. Tell the borrower what happens if/when payments can’t be made.
That’s it. And really that’s as complicated as it needs to be. Cut out the “party of the first part” jazz and get to the point. It’s going to make everyone a lot happier.
There’s another level to the student loan issue where the Left is at cross purposes. One of the squawking points is it’s impossible for 18 year olds to understand the terms of a student loan, so it’s irresponsible for lenders to hold them responsible for the debt. Yet, they also believe a child can know whether he or she is trans as early as 3 or 4.
So let me get this straight (or whatever sexual orientation you are). A preschooler can know he or she is trans, but an 18 year old can’t figure out that if you borrow money you have to pay it back at some point? If you flip the ages, it makes more sense, but as it stands in Leftist circles, it doesn’t, and I can’t make it make sense.
The reason for this contradiction is simple: Leftists aren’t known for making sense. But more to the point, treating young adults as though they’re children creates victims in search of an oppressor. And, surprise surprise, the oppressor tends to be the nameless, faceless monolith of whatever Boogieman the Left wants to blame for it this microsecond. Combine that with the ideological instruction these students are getting, and you have a ready-made army willing to go to the wall for a cause.
And a bunch of underinformed foot soldiers looking for direction.
This piece of advice may be a little late for some, but it needs to be said. Before you apply for any loan, look over the terms. This is Common Sense 101, but far too often people sign the documents before they think about the consequences. That’s one big reason so many people ran into problems during the mortgage industry implosion of the late 2000s: they assumed the good times would keep rolling. Then when shit went sideways, they weren’t prepared.
And that brings up another piece of advice. If you have a child or teenager in your lives, teach them about fiscal responsibility early and often. (Like voting in Chicago!) Taking a few hours to teach them about budgeting, saving, and smart spending will save them years of having to deal with the negative repercussions of overspending and underearning. If you want a quick course, tell them about the national debt and how both major parties spend like drunken sailors.
And if you’re in the group of young adults coming to the realization those loans you took out are coming due, you won’t get anywhere by complaining on TikTok, nor looking for Big Daddy Government to bail you out. After I graduated college, there were more than a few lean years as I tried to find my footing in the corporate world. That’s normal, but it’s not impossible to overcome if you plan accordingly.
This isn’t to give the Right a pass when they suggest graduates stop eating avocado toast to make ends meet. That’s a simplistic viewpoint that doesn’t help the problem. If you want to help, offer your knowledge on how to budget and determine how to recognize needs versus wants.*
*Offer void to anyone in government right now
Student loans have become a necessary evil (emphasis on “evil”) due to forces outside of the borrowers’ control. Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, we should strive to address the core issues and bring them under control so college students and their families don’t spend restless nights worrying how to pay for an education and focus on ore important activities.
Like heavy drinking!
Tag: leftist lexicon
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
The Leftist world was all atwitter (or if you prefer all aX) recently with the story of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a poor illegal alien soul who was deported back to his home country of El Salvador, allegedly without due process. Without going too far into the weeds, let’s just say you’re more likely to catch Bernie Sanders flying on a private plane than you are to understanding the ins-and-outs of this case.
Wait. Scratch that.
So, to borrow a phrase from hack comedians, what’s the deal with deportation? It’s a complicated issue that deserves sober thinking to understand the gravitas of the subject. But since I’m already a few beers into this, you’ll have to put up with me.
deportation
What the Left thinks it means – a practice that needs to be done by the book, no matter how long it takes
What it really means – the legal consequence for illegal immigration
Contrary to what Rep. Jasmine Crockett says, illegal immigration is a crime. The law in question is the Immigration and Nationality Act which, along with other laws and regulations, provides direction for the immigration and deportation processes. Seems everything should be in order, right?
Not so much.
Much like Disney with negative reviews of “Snow White,” our political class loves to ignore the laws on the books when they’re inconvenient. And let’s just say the immigration laws are mighty inconvenient to the Left. After all, that’s the use of following immigration laws if they prevent you from ensuring Democrat control? You know, aside from those laws being the fucking laws.
That’s not to say Leftists don’t follow the laws all the time. In fact, one area where they demand the laws be followed to the letter is in…you guessed it, Frank Stallone. Actually, it’s deportation, which is really convenient considering it’s our topic for this Lexicon entry. After allowing people to enter the country through our southern border like wine moms going to a Taylor Swift concert, it’s funny to watch Leftists be such sticklers to the letter of the law.
And by “funny,” I mean calculated.
I know I’ve mentioned our good friend Saul Alinsky so often I could be his agent, but one of his Rules for Radicals applies here: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” Since Republicans believe in the rule of law (unless they find the laws inconvenient for political gain), the Left knows it has them in a box when it comes to immigration. If we have to follow the laws when it comes to stopping illegal immigration, we have to follow the laws when it comes to deportation.
And that’s where Constitutional law comes into play. The US Supreme Court previously ruled all aliens are entitled to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. So, that means regardless of the way they come into the country, they get their day in court.
A noble gesture in theory, but a burden in current practice, thanks to a little thing the Leftist kids like to call the Cloward-Piven Strategy. In short, this strategy is designed to achieve Leftist goals related to poverty by forcing the system to get overwhelmed. And guess how that gets accomplished: illegal immigration.
“But wait, Thomas. Wouldn’t illegal immigrants be ineligible for federal benefits?” you might ask. Or “Are you aware you’re not wearing pants?” The answer to the former is they should be, but thanks to loopholes in the law and soft-hearted and soft-brained politicians (I’m looking at you, Gavin Newsom), they gain access.
So, what does this have to do with deportation? By having to follow due process and the delays caused by so many illegal immigrants being processed over the past few years, the strain to the social safety net continues unabated.
That is, until President Trump got back into the Oval Office and decided to start enforcing immigration law. In the first six weeks, the Trump Administration deported 27,772 illegal immigrants, which is a step in the right direction. Where I think they’ve gone wrong is through fast-tracking the process. Yes, I know this plays into the Cloward-Piven and Alinsky playbooks, but it’s necessary to ensure the Left has no room to bitch. Not that it will stop them, mind you…
Nor will it stop the Left from lying. With the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case alone, we’ve seen attempts from the Left to paint him as an innocent victim denied due process and attempts from the Right to paint him as a gang-banger terrorist who has been legally deported back to his home country of El Salvador. Well, the truth is a bit murkier than these extremes are letting on.
First off, Kilmar Abrego Garcia freely admits he entered the country illegally, but has received a court order preventing him from being deported back to El Salvador out of fear of being attacked by a rival gang. So, not only have we confirmed he’s a member of a gang (MS-13 to be exactly, and I ain’t talking about Microsoft) and that he’s not supposed to be here, but he’s already had due process. But he also has a court order that should have protected him from deportation, as well as a questionable designation as a terrorist.
That means…well, a whole lotta shit, to be honest. If we deport him, we run afoul of the legal process. If we don’t deport him, he will still be affiliated with MS-13 which could put us in mortal danger.
Congratulations. We’re now in Kobayashi Maru territory.
The only way forward is being transparent, follow the law, and, oh yeah, stem the flow of illegal immigration to give the system time to catch up. And guess what the Trump Administration is doing? They’re cracking down, and that’s resulted in reduced encounters at the US/Mexico border. It’s a start, but there’s still a lot more to do.
First of all, let’s stop treating gang members like terrorists. Not only does it set a bad precedent for future Presidents, but it gives Leftists ammunition to call the deportation process into question. And, let’s face it, it’s not exactly the swiftest nor the clearest process in government. Plus, it elevates gang members, which only feeds their egos and gives them enough bravado to commit bigger, more audacious crimes. That, in turn, may cause other gangs to try to play catch-up, making the gang problem even worse.
Second, as much as the Trump Administration wants to rush through the deportation process to get results, we have to play it by the book. It won’t stop Leftists from lying or making gang-bangers look sympathetic figures, but it cuts the due process complaint they have off at the knees. And at the very least, it will make Leftists look like Cotton Hill, which will never fail to make me laugh.
Lastly, it’s long past time we overhaul our immigration and deportation policies. And that requires taking a hard look at our border policies. We can’t keep letting anyone with a sob story (and without paperwork) walk in unexamined while others jump through bureaucratic flaming hoops to gain legal entry. As draconian as Leftists think Trump’s border enforcement may be, it’s working. That gives us time to get our house in order.
If you really think about it (and I have because I’m as boring as an Amish rave), the deportation issues we’re seeing now are an outgrowth from the immigration issue. The more illegal immigrants come into the country, the more deportation orders have to be made once they’re caught. Of course, Leftists will continue to push for sanctuary cities and sanctuary states because, well, they don’t have to deal with the aftermath since they live more in the suburbs than where the illegal immigrants are.
So, let me float this idea, one that I’ve modified from Governors Ron Desantis and Greg Abbott. While they flew illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities and states, I want to send them to the residences of those who insist on being sanctuary cities and states. Preferably, to the houses of those politicians who made those things possible. Maybe that will drive home the point that illegal immigration isn’t something we should encourage.
Or, at the very least, we can point and laugh as we give Leftists exactly what they said they wanted.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Election integrity has been a pretty hot topic in recent years. (Candidate integrity, on the other hand, not so much.) To address this, the House of Representatives voted on the SAVE Act, or as the kids like to call it the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act. The short version is it updates existing legislation and includes ways for people to prove their citizenship so they can vote.
Which means Leftists are upset over it. Of course, it’s a day ending in “day” so they’re already upset about something. But this time, they’re pulling out all of their favorite shits…I mean hits. It’s sexist, racist, anti-trans, and, this is a new one, a poll tax because people might have to pay to get documentation.
So, is the SAVE Act the second coming of racist voting laws or a step towards more secure elections? And is this another lame segue into a Lexicon entry? The answers are coming up!
the SAVE Act
What the Left thinks it means – a Republican bill that disenfranchises voters by making it more difficult for people to vote
What it really means – a Republican bill that requires voting adults to be, well, adults
According to the bill itself, there are a number of methods of identification that will work to prove citizenship for the purposes of voting, ranging from a drivers’ license with REAL ID to a birth certificate to a marriage certificate and so many others. And even if you don’t have that documentation handy (which, realistically, you should, kids), the bill provides for a way to attest to your citizenship so you can vote. Should be a slam dunk, right?
Not quite.
The Left have been able to convince some of our fellow talking meatbags that requiring identification to vote is a bridge too far. It’s just way too complicated, expensive, and inconvenient to get identification, let alone use it to vote. And as Leftists love to tell us, voter fraud isn’t a thing. Until it is. Then, it’s not that big of a deal because it’s so rare.
That’s what we call “moving the goalposts,” kids.
The fact there’s voter fraud at all concerns me, regardless of who does it. One of the bedrock principles America has is we get to vote for our leaders. Granted, the last few Presidents don’t really speak highly of our ability to find good leaders, but the point remains. Voter fraud erodes that bedrock to the point we don’t even know if the candidate with the most votes will be the winner after the dust settles.
And no, Mrs. Clinton, you don’t fall into this category. No matter how hard you protest, you lost the Presidency because the popular vote isn’t what decides who gets to be President. Now, put on your Make America Great Again hat and shut the fuck up.
At the core of the Left’s assertion regarding voter identification is a belief some people are incapable of fulfilling the task of obtaining the necessary documentation for a myriad of reasons: age, inconvenience, cost, and so on. And, yes, these can be barriers, but they aren’t insurmountable if you’re willing to put in the work.
Cue Maynard G. Krebs.
And I’m only half-joking about that. Leftists are always down for making it easier to vote, mainly because that’s how they can game the system. When you set expectations higher than “must be solid matter,” it irks the Left because it makes them have to do actual stuff to overcome it. You know, like farming out voter fraud efforts to a Leftist organization with ties to our good friend Uncle George Soros.
But I’m sure that would never happen, amirite?
Although they’d be hard pressed to admit it, underneath the Left’s efforts to beat back anything even remotely related to election security is a very bigoted assumption: the less fortunate can’t advocate for themselves. To the the Left, these folks are incapable of much, so they need champions to speak for them. Enter the Leftists! Only they can defend the rights of those poor souls to do nothing constructive for themselves!
That’s mighty white of them! Often, quite literally!
However, by doing this, the Left treats the less fortunate as lessers in every aspect. This reduces these adults to children, incapable of doing anything without Leftists. And what confuses me more is there are people willing to be treated like children because it’s easier than being a ward of the state than a participant of it. I guess I’m just wired differently, what with me being a fan of Atlas Shrugged, “The Prisoner,” and personal freedom.
And, oddly enough, freedom is one of the ways the Left tries to convince people the SAVE Act will curtail theirs. That’s by design. By pumping up the fear, the Left whips up a frenzy, albeit an incredibly uninformed one. There’s a good possibility those who think they’re going to be negatively impacted already have all they need already. If they don’t, there are options that may or may not involve money and aren’t that inconvenient.
But the Left doesn’t want you to know that. They want you to be afraid.
And what’s more, the SAVE Act has only just passed in the House. The Senate still has to take it up, so if you’re affected by it or think you are, you have time to get that documentation or help someone else get it.
But the Left doesn’t want you to know that. They want you to be angry.
Is it just me, or does anyone else see a pattern forming here? It’s almost as if the Left want people not to learn about the SAVE Act and would rather gas up a mob because…well, that’s a good question. Purposely misleading people typically doesn’t end well once the people find out. And with the favorability ratings of the Democrat Party hovering just above that of STDs, they’d better hope people don’t find out anytime soon.
That’s not to say I’m completely happy with the SAVE Act. There are some unintended (or possibly intended) consequences that will affect women, trans people, and anyone else who has had to deal with name changes. It’s already a hassle to get even basic information and documentation updated (thank you, bureaucracy), but to add that hurdle to a Constitutionally protected right? That’s a Bridge to Nowhere too far.
The solution is somewhere in the middle. To balance out the need for election integrity and the need to protect the rights of eligible voters, there should be a way to identify eligible voters that can be cross-referenced with a database that can be updated regularly. Maybe a card of some kind, one that confirms a voter is registered…
Nah, nobody would be dumb enough to invent that. Forget I said it.
All that said, the SAVE Act has good intentions and is attempting to solidify trust in our elections. Maybe the Senate can make some adjustments to address the concerns I raised. Only time will tell if the SAVE Act will be an asset or a liability.
Oh, and before I forget, the answer to my second question is yes.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Since Donald Trump was reelected, people have kept an eye on the economy since that was one of the areas he ran on. After all, President Brick Tamland’s economy was one of the world’s biggest dumpster fires (in spite of Leftists saying everything was fine like Kevin Bacon in “Animal House”). So, naturally, we were curious what Trump could to to put out the fire.
And apparently, he’s big on tariffs.
Tariffs are a touchy subject because there are so many people talking about them, but very few who understand them. So, just like social media on any day ending with “day.” Since there are so many armchair economists spouting off, I might as well give it a go.
tariffs
What the Left thinks it means – an indirect tax on goods and services that will hurt everyone
What it really means – an economic bargaining chip if things are done right
Since I’m only an armchair economist, the good folks at Investopedia have a pretty good explanation of what tariffs are and how they can impact us. For the purposes of this sketch, tariffs are additional taxes levied on imports designed to get the exporting countries to cut us a deal. This is what I mean when I say they’re an economic bargaining chip.
The problem comes when the country whose goods are getting slapped with tariffs doesn’t want to play ball. That can lead to economic and diplomatic strife if both sides continue to jack up tariffs like they’re a tub of popcorn and a small pop at a movie theater. Anything larger than a small pop requires a credit check.
The way the Left sees tariffs is correct, but only to a point. Yes, tariffs can cause prices to rise, but it’s not a guarantee. However, it does cause shitty memes.
If you’re not into clicking links, let me describe the meme. The title is “How Tariffs Work” and it pictures Donald Trump pissing into a fan and getting hit in the face with his own piss. Cute? Maybe. Funny? Possibly. Accurate? Wellllll…not so much.
The meme’s assumption (provided I don’t get smacked by Chris for stealing his “In the Meme Time” bit) is tariffs will always backfire, especially when it comes to Trump. But what happens if they don’t? The cartoon doesn’t even consider that possibility, which shows at best a surface understanding of basic economics.
Which means Leftists aren’t prepared to talk about the companies who have already decided not to test Trump on tariffs and made arrangements to avoid or lessen their impact. Their squawking points only go as far as “things are going to be more expensive.”
You know, like things under President Brick Tamland?
But there is one element the Left keeps overlooking when complaining about tariffs: Trump is pushing for reciprocal tariffs. Basically, it’s a tit-for-tat move. The higher the tariffs on us, the higher Trump will set the tariffs on them. And needless to say, we’ve been on the wrong end of the tariff game with a lot of countries. We will have to see what this will do because I’m not sure anyone knows what will happen.
Especially not the Left.
When it comes to economics, Leftists are as smart as Eric Swalwell among female Chinese spies. They know a few terms and can bullshit their way through a discussion (provided it’s shorter than a ferret’s attention span after a quadruple espresso laced with truck stop speed), but when it comes to actual knowledge, they are lacking. Want proof? One of the Left’s favorite economists is Paul Krugman, a man whose accuracy percentage looks like the ERA of a really good pitcher.
The reason for this is simple: Leftists don’t get economics. Remember, Leftists thrive on emotion, and you just can’t fee-fee your way to a good economy. There are hard and fast rules, concrete numbers, and historical data to contend with, which make it harder for Leftists to digest. That’s why they tend to make emotional appeals when they talk about economic issues. Once you accept them as valid, they take the high ground.
Which explains the Left’s approach to the tariff issue. They want people to believe only the worst of outcomes awaits us, just like they do with any Republican or conservative idea. DOGE is intrusive. Closing the Department of Education will make students dumber (to which I say how could you tell the difference). And tariffs are totally bad.
Which is why other countries have tariffs on our shit. Because tariffs are bad, m’kay?
I think the Left’s objection to Trump’s tariffs stems from a belief America deserves to have to pay more for foreign goods because we have it so good here. To them, America is wealthy, so we can afford to pay jacked up costs (except when it comes to shit like healthcare, student loans, the cost of living, etc.). Although we are still one of the prime movers of the global economy, we should be more frugal in what we buy and from where. As the song says, “You’d better shop around.”
Either that or, “Do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do.” I always get those two songs mixed up.
Anyway, I’m going to take a wait-and-see approach to Trump’s tariffs. It’s way too early to dismiss them as a failure or a success, but try telling either extreme that in their rush to be right. If Trump can make good on his promise, all the better. If not, he’s going to have to do some fast talking to get himself out of this mess, which will give Leftists plenty of fodder for the 2026 midterm elections. It’s a pretty big gamble, so let’s see if we hit the jackpot or don’t have a pot to piss in.
Oh, and Leftists? Can you learn how to meme, for the love of Pete?
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
As social media and other electronic forms of communication have evolved, there is still a fundamental truth that will always remain: someone is going to fuck it up. Whether it’s the idiots who hit “Reply All” on a mass email asking to be taken off the email or posting videos on Instagram that results in getting the poster fired, people can and will be boneheads.
Just like members of the Trump Administration, thanks to a little app called Signal and a reporter named Jeffery Goldberg. The short version of the story is government officials including Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth discussing an impending military strike. And Goldberg was somehow invited to be in the chat.
And just as predictably, Leftists want to turn this matter into a major scandal because it’s not like they have anything to do between firebombing Tesla dealerships and posting lame videos about an impending silent riot. (Yes, it’s just as stupid as it sounds.) But is it a nothingburger or a major scandal requiring figurative heads rolling? Let’s find out!
Signalgate
What the Left thinks it means – a major scandal that exposes the Trump Administration’s incompetence
What it really means – a boneheaded move that may or may not have legs
One of the hardest things to get a handle on when researching this situation is figuring out the severity of it. It’s definitely a bad look, but so is the “Choose Your Fighter” video put out by Democrats. (And for those of you who click on the link, I cannot be personally held responsible for any brain cells lost.)
Where things get muddy is what security level the information in this chat was. I will be the first one to admit I don’t know shit about fuck when it comes to security levels. The best parallel I can make is the various internal security settings on company emails. The main difference? An email from Steve from Accounting about cover sheets on TPS reports probably won’t start a nuclear war.
I say probably because there’s always a chance. Fucking Steve from Accounting!
If you’re really interested in classified information designations, Wikipedia has a breakdown and the history behind it.
Anyway, we have two different camps. One side thinks Signalgate is a nothingburger with a side of nonion rings and a Coke Zero. The other side thinks it’s a major security breach that puts us in danger. Meanwhile, I’m somewhere in the middle based on the sheer dishonesty from both extremes.
Let’s face it, the MAGA Right has a vested interest in playing defense, mainly because they don’t want to give the Left any Ws. In an environment where politics is divided into teams, neither side wants to admit defeat, even when it would be the best thing to do in order to get past a scandal. And when your entire political existence is wrapped up in a single political figure, you’re going to do whatever it takes to keep your guy clean.
Meanwhile, the Left has a vested interest in attacking, mainly because they have nothing going for them. Their approval rating is further in the tank than Michael Dukakis circa 1988. Their attempts to get younger voters? Swear a lot more. And on top of that, there’s party infighting with younger party members openly questioning the old guard. (And I’m talking reaaaaalllllly old here.) They need a unifying issue to at least pretend like they’re on speaking terms.
Clowns to the Left of me, Jokers to the Right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you. I’m sorry.
As of this writing, the chat screenshots are still coming out in dribs and drabs, due in part to the journalist who shouldn’t have been there in the first place, Jeffery Goldberg. Whomever let a known Trump basher in on this chat needs to be fired. Preferably out of a cannon.
And if the fucknuts who said “Hey, let’s make Signal a thing in the federal government” is still employed by the Trump Administration, he or she should be fired. Out of a catapult. You know, just to switch things up.
Let me make this perfectly clear to the Trump Administration members reading this: whenever you use any social media app, it’s only a matter of time before shit gets leaked. Provided you’re not dumb enough to post that shit willingly, mind you. (I’m looking at you, Anthony “I Have a Small” Weiner.) If you have Signal on your phones, delete it, destroy your phone, and get a brand new one. And for God’s sake, don’t download it or any other social media apps ever again! Let’s the public find out about information leaks the old fashioned way: in the Weekly World News.
Where the Left has a point is Signalgate has some legs to it. Not only is it a black eye to the credibility of the Trump Administration, but it shows a level of judgment that doesn’t bode well for the next 3+ years. Trump needs to get his shit together and fast before his second term gets sidetracked by unnecessary bullshit.
Or you can sit back and watch the proverbial circular firing squad going on in Leftist circles, knowing they’re too inept to do anything.
Personally, I prefer option 1. Being President isn’t an entry level position. It takes at least some level of competency to be effective. Granted, we’re coming off a low point after President Brick Tamland, but that’s no excuse to coast. Fix this shit!
And for the Left, as long as you have Hillary Clinton on your side, you can take all the seats regarding the handling of sensitive information.
As for the rest of us, we’ll have to see how Signalgate shakes out. Hopefully, there isn’t any military or foreign relations fallout from it. If not, Lucy won’t be the only one with some ‘splainin’ to do.
And with that reference, I am officially old.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
When Donald Trump won a second stint as President, his supporters saw opportunities to start remaking the government in his image. And for a while, things went swimmingly. Trump’s Cabinet nominees were confirmed, Leftists made asses out of themselves in the process, and some bold ideas got advanced. Everything seemed to be going great.
And then judges got involved.
Time after time, judges ruled and temporarily locked some initiatives or struck down others. While the MAGA Right got upset that who they see as activist judges obstructed Trump’s plans, Leftists cheered, citing checks and balances as justification.
Time to go back to your civics classes, kids, because this one’s gonna be a thinker!
checks and balances
What the Left thinks it means – a Constitutional protection that is rightly obstructing President Trump’s agenda
What the Right thinks it means – a Constitutional protection that is wrongly obstructing President Trump’s agenda
What it really means – a Constitutional protection that is being bastardized due to politics
As you may know or at least gleaned from old “Schoolhouse Rock” episodes, we have three co-equal branches of government: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. In terms of the law, the Legislative branch passes the law, the Executive branch enforces the law, and the Judicial branch interprets the law. And, for the most part, this system works pretty well.
That is until we get into the wonderful world of Executive Orders. Basically, Executive Orders are when the President says “This is the way shit’s gonna be because fuck you I’m the President, bitches!” Granted, this power is limited in one of three ways.
1. Congress can pass legislation to negate or circumvent the Executive Order.
2. The judicial branch can rule the Executive Order breaks federal law or the Constitution.
3. A future President can revise or negate the Executive Order by issuing a new Executive Order.
The heart of the current conflict involves the second one. Since the President is trying to get things done via Executive Orders, the courts can get involved and tell the President to pound sand, as they’ve done repeatedly since the Trumpster resumed the Presidency.
In other words, it’s checks and balances in action. Or is it?
Where things get a bit muddy is in the Judicial branch’s power to interpret the law. If each judge were committed to the rule of law and the Constitution, this wouldn’t be an issue. But since we live in the real world, it is. And we have politics to thank for it.
Much like an STD, politics can turn an important job like interpreting the law into a position where a judge can put his or her thumb on the scales of Justice to rule as he/she fits…or how his/her backer(s) want him/her to rule. But unlike an STD, the only fucking going on is being done in the courts, and it’s going to take a lot more than the right meds to fix things.
In recent years, politics has wormed its way into the judicial branch, whether it be from the Left or the Right. And when you really think about it, having political backers support you in any number of ways makes it easier for judges to say “fuck it” and rule the way the backers want them to, which makes the checks and balances part of the equation a lot less just.
The Right, especially the MAGA Right, think the solution to the problem is impeaching judges, which has gotten predictable pushback. Although this is a strategy, it’s not a good one because it sets a bad precedent, one that Leftists will definitely use. Judges can be impeached, but there has to be something to it besides “this asshole is blocking what we want to do.” In most cases, actually, that’s not a crime so much as it is a service to the country. Even so, impeaching a judge because you don’t like his or her ruling sets the table for when the opposing party gets into power and you find some of your favorite judges getting shit-canned for obstructing the President’s agenda.
And outside of “American Idol” or “America’s Got Talent” you really shouldn’t have a favorite judge. The judicial system is not a place for idolatry or fandoms.
Now that I’ve pretty much confused/bored/enraged/amused you, let me get back to the main subject of this Lexicon entry.
The Left is using the checks and balances card as both a shield and a sword (which would be pretty cool now that I think about it). On the one hand, it’s used as a shield to absolve the judges of any criticism of their rulings, no matter how fucked up they are. They can throw up their arms and say “well, the judge is only acting as a check on President Trump’s power, so it’s okay.” But just wait until the US Supreme Court makes a ruling they don’t like and their love of checks and balances.
The way they use the check and balances like a sword is to annoy MAGA supporters. All it takes is a “ha ha Trump lost in the courts again” and the MAGA Right goes ballistic. Which is exactly what the Left wants the MAGA Right to do because it plays into their narrative about Trump supporters being unhinged and incapable of accepting any negative outcomes.
And, to be fair, some of the MAGA Republicans are playing a little too closely to the typecasting.
Of course when the roles are reversed, both sides flip like an IHOP cook working straight commission per flapjack, but that’s not important.
What is important is recognizing the checks and balances as they’re being used today don’t work as intended. The Founding Fathers set up the checks and balances system to ensure all three branches of government could keep each other honest without one branch getting too much power. Nowadays Congress has electile dysfunction, so even the simplest of tasks become an exercise in futility or gets loaded down by more riders than a Hell’s Angels convention clashing with a rodeo convention. We’ve already touched on the problems with the Judicial branch, and that leads us to the Executive branch.
And the less said about that, the better.
So, how do we fix it? Unfortunately, we can’t. Even if we elect good people (which are rarer in politics than the way Count Dracula likes his steak), they will get ground up by the political machine, run by people who have long since thrown away any concept of following the rules as written. The only way to get things back on track is a bit on the drastic side.
We have to nuke the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.
A bonus 500 Leftist Lexicon points if you got that reference.
Seriously, we’re at a point where the checks and balances are imbalanced either through bureaucracy, lust for power, or just general dumbfuckery, and neither major party wants to do anything about it. They would prefer to be outraged when the checks and balances don’t go their way than to actually make sure the checks and balances are still there in the first place. (Spoiler Alert: they ain’t.)
So, the only solution I can see is to hit the reset button and start over. I’m guessing it’s somewhere under the Washington Monument because why wouldn’t it be there. Good luck getting to it, though.
Under advice from my lawyer, I’m not allowed to say anything more on the subject. Good luck on finding that button!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week – Special Edition
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!
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.