Tag: maxine waters

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

To say the Left took the recent election results badly is an understatement of proportions so immense it makes Rosie O’Donnell look like Kate Moss on a meth binge. One of the more stunning results came from New Jersey, where Republican Edward Durr unseated Democrat state Senate President Steve Sweeney after running a primary campaign that cost around $150 and a total expenditure of around $2200. Talk about bang for the buck!

Well, the Left has decided Durr is unfit to serve in the public sector because of an answer he gave during an interview recently. When asked what he would do as Senate leader, he said he didn’t know. That got Leftist and self-professed expert Tom Nichols to lament about how the lack of experience in politics is a bad thing.

But what does the Left mean by experience? Good question, since I got nothing else for a Lexicon entry.

experience

What the Left thinks it means – the basic information necessary to speak intelligently on a topic

What it really means – the Left’s excuse for dumb people making poor decisions and to discredit smart people making astute observations

I know I’ve talked about appeals to authority before, but for the new people reading this, an appeal to authority is the rhetorical equivalent of “because an expert said so.” Although this does work with some subjects (i.e. talking to a cardiologist about heart issues), it doesn’t always bear good fruit (i.e. talking to a YouTube creator about, well, just about anything). Even people we think would have the credentials to give good advice can be wrong or deceiving. I’m looking right at you, Dr. Fauci. So, it’s important we show a reasonable amount of skepticism when we see someone appealing to authority.

Especially when that authority is derived from whether an expert has a college degree. The Left loves to deflect criticism of the Socialist Socialite’s dumb ideas about economics because she has an economics degree. I ran into this recently on Facebook when a Leftist posting on a thread by The Atlas Society mocked the Socialist Socialite’s lack of knowledge of economics. The meme they posted was of a tiny handbag with the caption “AOC carrying around everything she knows about economics.” Funny, yet accurate!

Ah, but a Leftist took exception to it by suggesting the Socialist Socialite was smarter than Ayn Rand on economics because the former had a degree in the subject and Rand didn’t. Never mind the fact Rand lived through what the Socialist Socialite thinks would make America great and realized it absolutely sucks, it was the degree that tipped the scale in the Leftist’s mind.

That’s when I dropped the metaphorical hammer and pointed out Ronald Reagan also had an economics degree.

The Left seem to be impressed with college degrees, mainly because they’re often the result of Leftist indoctrina…I mean teaching. But the degree itself is just a piece of paper signifying that the recipient has completed the necessary coursework to graduate and, thus, can start paying back the student loans they’ve amassed. Yes, nothing says you’re an adult like crippling debt! Between grade inflation and meaningless majors, the value of a college degree is quickly becoming as valuable as an expired K-Mart coupon without imparting the most important reason to go to college.

Partying.

Seriously, the most important reason to go to college is to develop the ability to process and apply knowledge. And that’s where the Left and to some extent the Right fail. If I have to sit through another video of clueless Congresscritters trying to get a representative from a social media executive to explain how Twitter works, I’m liable to send a tersely-worded email that some low level intern is going to have to respond to with a stock answer ensuring me my elected official “cares about your opinion.” And we don’t want that, do we?

Although there is some merit to the notion public officials should have experience in politics to hold office, sometimes it’s the experts who are the problem in the first place. But the Left never thinks Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, or Maxine Waters (who have all been in office for at least half of my life, by the way) are the problem. Instead, it’s people like Chuck Grassley, who has been in office for, well, most of my life, who are the real troublemakers. You see, the Left loves experience via age when it’s coming from a fellow Leftist. If it’s anyone else, it’s “Get out of the way of progress!” Yet, in my experience with the aforementioned politicians, I would take Grassley over Schumer, Pelosi, and Waters not because he’s one of my Senators. It’s because he knows what he’s doing most of the time, and he knows when he’s out of his depth.

That’s what real experience does for a person. It’s knowing what you know and what you don’t know. For all of the talk of Grassley being a “dumb farmer” (as a former Democrat Senate candidate said and later regretted after being stomped like a narc at a drug deal), he has a deeper understanding of issues that matter to people, not because he has a fancy degree on his resume, but because he actually does the legwork to talk to people. I swear he’s in Iowa more often than I am, and I live here!

However, a lack of experience isn’t a deal-breaker when it comes to politics. After working in Corporate America for a number of decades, sometimes the best ideas come from people who are just starting a job because their minds haven’t been infected with “the way we’ve always done it.” Either that or their souls haven’t been crushed…

Anyway, a new perspective may be what is needed to solve problems. By definition, a desire for change is liberal, but liberals aren’t the same as Leftists. Leftists call for change without actually meaning it. Remember Flint’s water problem? Still there, but Leftists aren’t. You’re more likely to find Bigfoot working on a screenplay at a Starbucks than find any of the Leftists who trumpeted how Flint’s water problems are because of Republicans (if you discount all the Democrats who were and are in charge, of course.) Here’s an idea, Flintites. Next time there’s an election, why not…you know…vote for someone other than the Leftists who screwed up the city in the first place? It’s not like Republicans are going to make the water any worse, right?

To Nichols’ point (aside from the one on his head), dismissing someone because of a lack of experience only serves to maintain the status quo, which by definition is what a conservative wants. He does have a good point that the Right doesn’t tend to support new left-leaning officials, but he botched the reasons why. First off, Leftists do the same thing with new right-leaning officials like Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene, albeit with more claims they’re insane. (In the spirit of bipartisanship, I’m willing to concede the point about MTG.) Second, it’s not a lack of experience the Right objects to with the Socialist Socialite; it’s the fact she’s an empty pant-suit, as demonstrated throughout her tenure as a Representative. I wouldn’t trust her to run my car though a car wash, let alone run any significant office in America. And if you’ve tried to run an office through a car wash, you know what I mean.

While Edward Durr may not have any real experience in governing, he’s admitted he’s willing to learn the ropes. That bit of refreshing honesty makes me a fan of his and I look forward to seeing what he’s able to do.

That, and the fact the only reason he ran for office is because of government bureaucracy and duplicity around New Jersey’s concealed carry permits. Thanks Leftists!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The eyes of the world were on Minnesota earlier this year, and not because the Twins and the Vikings have been mathematically eliminated from the post-season on the same day. Former police officer Derek Chauvin was convicted on three counts related to the death of George Floyd, and the Left cried tears of joy because justice was served (according to them). Yet, there are some, including your humble correspondent, who don’t quite agree with the sentiment, thanks to people like Maxine Waters voicing opinions prior to the jury being sequestered to deliberate.

We’re going to be dealing with some lofty concepts here, kids, so grab a cold beverage and strap in.

justice

What the Left thinks it means – an outcome that reinforces our collective societal will and punishes those who try to subvert it

What it really means – an outcome where the process and the verdict support a fair result

To make things perfectly clear, I happen to agree with the verdict. What Derek Chauvin did on camera crossed the line between securing a suspect and police brutality. It’s hard to argue that (although I’m sure there are plenty of people willing to try). If the case were tried purely on the evidence, the result would be the same.

Ah, but there’s the rub. This case wasn’t tried purely on the evidence. The Court of Public Opinion, which has a track record that makes the 9th Circuit Court look like Solomon, has been trying and retrying this case pretty much on the daily. Whether it’s elevating George Floyd to heroic/deity levels or using the case as a means to promote everything from defunding/abolishing the police to rooting out white supremacists en masse, the Left has been milking this situation for all it’s worth. Judging from the recent home purchase of a Black Lives Matter founder, it’s worth quite a bit.

Even with the video evidence, there is still an important step to consider: ensuring both sides get a fair hearing. The Court of Public Opinion typically isn’t the venue for such discourse, so it falls to the actual court system. And that’s where the Chauvin verdict goes off the rails like Gary Busey driving an Amtrak route. Thanks to Leftists like Maxine Waters, Ilhan Omar, and President Joe Biden, the environment surrounding the trial made a fair hearing impossible. There is some question of whether the jury was sequestered to the point they wouldn’t have heard the aforementioned Leftists’ comments, so we can’t be sure one way or the other.

And that, ladies and gentleman, is how you plant the seeds for an appeal.

Leftists were so hellbent to get a conviction that they didn’t take into consideration what they were doing to deny justice, the very thing they claim they wanted out of the Chauvin trial. Although lack of self-awareness isn’t a bug in the Left so much as a feature, it took an amazing amount of blockheadedness to agree to the idea to let some of the most divisive politicians in modern history and Joe Biden weigh in on what the jury “should” do.

Speaking of which, Speaker Pelosi? Call your office, provided you’ve extracted your feet from your mouth after thanking George Floyd of “taking one for the team.”

Anyway, the Left’s approach to justice, real or whatever make-believe version they want to promote today, is based on their general approach: the ends justify the means. In the Chauvin case, the Left wanted a guilty verdict so they can continue to perpetuate the notion police officers are killing innocent black victims constantly. (Of course, actual data shows that’s not happening, but Party of Science, kids!) As long as this perception is considered to be reality, the Left can keep bringing it up as a means to get money and power without actually doing anything about it.

Think about that last part for a moment. The Left needs these problems to continue for their own purposes. And if it takes people dying to make that happen, so be it! Who would have thought the party that supports abortion on demand would have such disregard for human life?

Meanwhile, the Left keeps slapping “justice” on everything to the point the word loses its meaning. You know, just like they did with racism! Environmental justice, social justice, economic justice, racial justice, about the only thing they haven’t touched on is actual justice, and let’s be glad they haven’t or it would get screwed up worse than it already is. And if the Derek Chauvin verdict is any indication, they may have their sights set on it.

The issues they face, however, are a bit deeper than they are. For all the times they’ve taken up for convicted cop killer Mumia Abu Jamal and the number of lawyers in their midst, you’d think they’d have figured out the American criminal justice process. Just because you hold your breath and stomp your feet doesn’t mean you get the verdict you want. There is still a matter of evidence and procedure that have to be followed or else you get a conviction that gets overturned faster than a pancake at IHOP. And that’s by design, my Leftist friends. Actual justice doesn’t begin and end with the judge’s gavel; it begins with following the steps to ensure all parties involved have a chance to be heard and present a case. I know that kinda puts a crimp in your “execute first and ask questions…well, never, really” approach, but it does make things a lot handier when it comes to, you know, actually getting a legal ruling that won’t get overturned due to a lack of procedural integrity?

In other words, if you follow the rules and don’t let Maxine Waters say something incredibly stupid about an ongoing trial, you don’t have to worry about the verdict you want getting thrown out. Granted, that may be a hell of an ask from the Left, but we can hope.

Regardless of how you feel about the Derek Chauvin verdict, it’s hard to say whether justice was actually served. On the one hand, he has been convicted of contributing to George Floyd’s death. On the other, the environment surrounding the trial made the conviction all but certain, but not in a good way. When that happens, it’s a good thing Lady Justice is wearing a blindfold or we’d be due for a series of rampant scale-whippings.