Net Neutrality


With any government regulation you run into the same problem. There is either too much regulation or there is too little regulation. And usually it’s too much regulation. Net Neutrality was to enable everyone’s data to be treated the same. No matter where it originated or what it’s destination.

Comcast, a major backbone provider of the internet, has been known to throttle data of its users in the past. They did so against Netflix and bittorrent. And only Net Neutrality and customers complaining made them loosen up. Now with Net Neutrality done away with by unelected bureaucrats, Comcast and other major providers are free again to throttle or shape any data crossing their networks. And they will do so. Not today, let everyone get used to the idea that no Net Neutrality is “good” and in a year or so when everyone has forgotten about the change is when it will begin to happen.

This already happens in Europe and Asia where there is no Net Neutrality, where ISP charge more and have different packages based on the type of data one is sending or receiving. And it will happen here. Never fall for the line of “it can’t happen here.” That is a myth and lie you are telling yourself.

And now without Net Neutrality, the bigger ISPs can force the smaller ISPs to pay them more money to transmit their data across the network. This already happens in the cable/satellite world for TV broadcasting. That is why bills for those always go up. It’s the rebroadcast rights are getting, well extorted. And those operation costs get passed to the consumer.

I know, I work in the cable industry. I see the things that non-technical and the average consumer or user does not see. The loss of Net Neutrality is terrible thing.

Share This:

Not Neutrality


I woke up this morning and something was wrong. I didn’t feel any different, but I knew something was wrong. I just couldn’t put my finger on it. Then, I tried logging onto the Internet…and it was just fine. No delays, no demands for money. Just an easy logon. Then, I figured out what was wrong.

The proponents of Net Neutrality had brought Y2K back.

Seriously, was there any doubt the pro-Net Neutrality side were going to wind up with a hatchery’s worth of eggs on their faces? Anyone with a lick of common sense could have figured out the “Net Neutrality will save the Internet” line was bogus from the get go. Then again, common sense in today’s society is like finding a unicorn in your Lucky Charms.

I have a series of immutable laws that have been developed over years of observation and repetition. One of these laws is the more one side has to rely on fear to make a point, the less likely that point is valid. And Net Neutrality is pretty much all fearmongering. As it plays out, the pro-NN side wants you to believe each ISP owner is only concerned about making money and doesn’t give a tenth of a damn about the little guy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Basic economics says if you price something out of people’s ability to pay it, you lose customers and, get this, revenue. For the Net Neutrality advocates to be right, ISPs would have to literally go against their best interests.

If that wasn’t insane enough, Net Neutrality doesn’t even address the problem it seeks to solve. Granted, one of the NN provisions is transparency, but if you’re dishonest, you can find ways to hide bad behavior in plain sight and no one will be the wiser. Case in point: Harvey Weinstein. It gets even harder to be transparent when the entity controlling the Internet is the federal government. You shouldn’t need a Freedom of Information Act filing to find out if you’re getting the fastest speed for your area, but with Net Neutrality, it’s only a step or two away from that bureaucratic nightmare.

You know who has solved the problem? Cell phone providers. Thanks to technological advances, we can now stay connected to the Internet almost anywhere around the world using our cell phones. And if we need Internet access, our phones can turn into WiFi hotspots or we can buy gadgets that can do the same thing. And you thought having the Internet at your fingertips was only good for winning bar bets!

Cell phone providers have rendered the problems Net Neutrality sought to address obsolete. And if you think it merely shifts the power from ISPs to Verizon, et al, remember cell phone providers also are bound by the laws of economics.

Above all else, Net Neutrality fails to take into account the concept of competition. Back in the day, I would take my laptop with me to visit my parents and I had to deal with the slow and spotty Internet of being in a small town in northeast Iowa. Although this might seem to be an example of how Net Neutrality could be good, it’s actually not. Satellite technology has made Internet access available to people in rural areas as well as urban areas, and it can be bundled with existing satellite TV providers like Dish and DirectTV for only a marginal monthly fee.

Wow! It’s almost as if the free market has an answer for the problems Net Neutrality proponents find, because, well, it has! And it will continue to do so for long after we’ve gotten past the point where the Internet is the go-to for information, entertainment, directions, gaming, and great blog posts like this one. Okay, so that last one may be a bit sketchy, but you get the idea.

Now if only the Net Neutrality supporters would.

Share This:

Alabama Vote not a Victory for America


The Democratic victory in Alabama sends a dire message to the GOP. Lies and scandal will cost votes due to the Leftist hatred of the President and his party. And anyone on the Right is a target. Evidence is not required as one is always guilty without need of proof or verification of any allegations. And the low-information voters do exactly what the Democratic controlled media tells them to do and how to vote.

There is a big fight coming in 2018 and the Left will not hesitate to lie, cheat, or steal its way to a complete victory in Congress. And if you can see the opposition to the President’s agenda in Congress now that it is Republican controlled. It will be far worse with Democratic control. The President doesn’t even have a full staff yet due to Democratic and Republican feet dragging. And Republican control is the only thing that stands between 4 to 8 years of President Trump and a President Trump impeachment on false accusations and lies. If the Leftist control the Congress in 2018, they will impeach the President.

And I can see a day where they would be foaming at the mouth and impeach both President Trump and Vice President Pence. Thus giving the last 2 years of the Trump Administration to Nancy Pelosi. In a Democratic controlled House, she becomes Speaker of the House and next inline of Presidential succession in the event both President Trump and Vice President Pence are unable to serve. Being impeached and removed from office would make this reality.

This nightmare can happen. And We the People will let it happen with our apathy to the political process. And the Democratic leadership is counting on it.

Share This:

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


Last week, President Donald Trump announced America would recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel after decades and 3 previous Presidents promised and failed to deliver. To hear the Left’s reaction to the news, you’d think Trump set a puppy on fire on live television while doing unspeakable things to a picture of Rosie O’Donnell. Trump’s actions are going to start World War 23, cause the Middle East peace process to fall apart like Kathy Griffin’s career, and create mass death, destruction, and mayhem!

And that’s the opinion of the more sensible Leftists, all three of them.

If the Left had a Facebook relationship status with Israel, it would be “It’s Complicated.” Some would say America’s relationship to Israel is complicated, but is it? This week’s Leftist Lexicon takes us into the wonderful world of the only sane place in the Middle East.


What the Left thinks it means – a fundamentalist conservative country whose existence and actions cause strife for its neighbors and must change to stabilize the region

What it really means – a country resoundingly criticized by the Left for daring to think it deserves to exist

Without going into a long, drawn out explanation of the creation of Israel, let me try my hand at summarizing centuries of discord into an easy-to-understand manner. Once upon a time, there was a country called Israel that got broken up through various wars, invasions, and dating Yoko Ono. After being tossed from country to country, a group of Jews decided to reclaim the former country of Israel, and after some lengthy discussions and some arm-twisting from the US, they got their wish. This angered the neighbors, including a group of people claiming to be from Palestine, a country that doesn’t have any ties to the land where Israel sits today and refuses to stop being jerks to the Jews. The Left, being of big hearts and small minds, support the Palestinians because they’re the Cleveland Browns to Israel’s New England Patriots. Actually, I take that back. The Palestinians have a better running game.

Based upon this, you might think the Left hates Israel, and you’d be right to an extent. They do hate Israel, but they love the money coming from Jewish Leftists to pay lip service to Israel while at the same time working to support those who want to wipe Israel off the map. So, it’s a love/hate relationship in a way, only with more use of military force.

There is another possible reason the Left hates Israel; the Right loves Israel. Whether it’s for religious reasons or because they love the way Israel handles terrorism (Spoiler Alert: Israel makes Chuck Norris look like Lindsey Graham), the Right has Israel’s back. And when you really think about it, the Left hates people of faith (especially those of us who believe in God) and those who treat terrorists like terrorists instead of delicate flowers who were just misunderstood and need jobs. I wish I were kidding, but the Obama Administration actually advanced the idea there would be less terrorism if potential terrorists had jobs. Maybe, but I’m guessing there would be a lot of people calling in sick on a regular basis.

In spite of our history with Israel, we have a vested interest in being on their good side, and not just because of their badassery. They give us a strategic foothold in the Middle East, so our relationship needs to be as good as it can be as a means of protecting us from Muslim extremists. By the same token, Israel needs to be on our good side because we provide them with the technology and firepower needed to fend off those who want them to go the way of Pauly Shore’s Oscar hopes. This viewpoint makes our relationship with Israel feel more like a big brother-little brother dynamic. Sure, our little brothers may annoy us and get in trouble, but when push come to shove we have their backs.

While there are a lot more Leftist Jews than conservative Jews, the latter group is finding its voice and defending Israel while the former group keeps electing people like Chuck Schumer, who is as two-faced as they come when it comes to Israel. Which side ultimately prevails is still up in the air, but for the sake of both of our countries, we should be rooting for the side that supports Israel, not as a potential source of campaign cash or voters, but as a homeland worth protecting.

Share This:

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


As someone who has been online since 1996, I can tell you the Internet is a weird place, and it keeps getting weirder. Whether that’s because of me, I can’t say…

Online political discussions have their own lexicon, much of which involves disparaging the other side. Thanks to the allegation of Russian interference with the 2016 election and how it’s alleged they did it, we have two new terms to consider: bot, and Russian bot. I’ll give you three guesses as to who uses these terms most frequently, and the first two guesses are “Leftists still butthurt at Donald Trump beating Hillary Clinton.”

So, let’s put on our digital wetsuits and go all Jacques Cousteau on these terms.

bot/Russian bot

What the Left thinks it means – virtual people spouting pro-Trump sentiments while giving away telltale signs they aren’t real, such as a low number of Twitter followers

What it really means – people the Left can’t defeat, so they defame

Let’s make one thing perfectly clear. There are people out there who have Twitter and Facebook accounts that are fake and should not be taken seriously. Nothing is gained by pretending to be someone you’re not online. I would go further into detail, but my court-appointed attorney has advised me not to go into specifics due to the pending litigation.

Now, this begs the question of whether there is a significant number of fake accounts for the allegations of a poster being a bot or a Russian bot to be true. If you believe the Left, there are so many bots that we might as well be under SkyNet’s digital thumbs. If you believe the Right, bots are as rare as believable Al Franken apologies. If you believe me, don’t because I really don’t have an answer. What I do have, though, is common sense.

Whenever there’s a situation that needs a thorough analysis, I start with a simple question: who benefits? This helps me focus on the matter at hand and strip away the non-essential details. So, who benefits from accusations of people being Russian bots?

Donald Trump? Not really. He’s already won the Presidency and has his own bully pulpit on Twitter, so he doesn’t need outside help to make his presence felt.

Trump supporters? Another swing and a miss. Trump supporters are usually pretty vocal in their defense of the President, and having their viewpoint potentially amplified by alleged Russian agents or bots makes no sense. Just like the President, they’re pretty good at speaking their minds.

The GOP? Possibly, but not likely. For the most part, Republicans are behind the curb when it comes to social media. Some of them have Twitter accounts, but they’re usually managed by interns or people far younger than they are because they’re more adept at the subtle nuances of social media. I’ve heard John McCain doesn’t text because he can’t figure out how to make the letters using the rotary dial.

The Left? DING DING DING! We have a winner! Considering the Left has a cottage industry in making Donald Trump look as bad as Freddy Kruger dipped in sulfuric acid, any even semi-reasonable points made by people outside of their bubble must be discredited. And while the Russian story can be milked, the Left will be yanking on those udders like a milkmaid working straight commission.

And how does the Left determine who is a bot? It depends on the situation. If you have few Twitter followers, it’s proof they’re a bot. If you say anything supportive of President Trump, it’s proof you’re a bot. If you question the Left’s narrative regarding Trump, it’s proof you’re a bot. If you’re breathing, it’s proof you’re a bot. In other words, not being a Leftist makes you a bot, and most likely a Russian bot.

Of course, most of these conditions have nothing to do with one’s botitude, but hey, the Left isn’t exactly known for being deep thinkers.

The funny thing about the Left’s bot obsession is how they ignore their own bot-like tendencies. Let’s review. They say the same things. They think the same way. They don’t deviate from their stock answers. Either the Left is not aware of what it does, or they’ve been taken over by SkyNet. And I haven’t completely ruled out the second one yet. Anyway, the Left must spend a lot of money on Windex to make sure their glass houses are kept up.

I’ve been called a number of things over the years online, and while most of them have been unflattering, they usually came from a position of inferiority or self-consciousness. Being called a bot or a Russian bot is no different. You can choose to either fight back or laugh it off. I personally prefer laughing it off because a) you’ll never get a Leftist to admit they’re wrong, and b) the Left can’t stand when their ideas are mocked. Laughing at their absurd claims is a good way to throw them off their game and give them the respect they’ve so richly earned.

Which is to say less respect than Rodney Dangerfield.

Share This:

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


Recently, a gunman shot and killed 26 parishioners at a Texas church. Shortly afterwards, the Left swung into action and started making calls for gun control because…reasons. And with these calls came a familiar refrain: ban assault weapons because…reasons. Hey, nobody said the Left were deep thinkers.

Although the call to ban assault weapons has been repeated more often than allegations of Russians hacking the 2016 election, few attempts have been made to actually ban them, and when they have been banned, it has been with mixed results. But there is one question the Left hasn’t really answered to anyone’s satisfaction but their own: what is an assault weapon? I’m glad you asked…or I asked…since the Leftist Lexicon entry for this week revolves around that very question.

assault weapon

What the Left thinks it means – any automatic weapon that shoots bullets at a high rate of speed, thus being able to kill as many innocent people as possible

What it really means – any gun that makes Leftists crap their pants

During the 1990s, Leftists were all about banning assault weapons and with good reason. It hit all the right notes: high emotional appeal with little intellectual investment, and it made them look like they cared about saving children. From there, their fascination and reach expanded to the point they found assault weapons that were scary-looking and could easily be demonized. Now, if you think I’m exaggerating about this, I assure you I’m not. These are the sentiments of those behind the scenes of the assault weapons ban crowd. Their entire campaign was based around not how lethal a gun was, but how frightening it looked. That would be like determining whether a car was involved in an accident not by its proximity to the accident site, but by how cool it looked.

Like I said, Leftists aren’t known for deep thinking.

Since the 1990s, not much has changed in Leftist strategy on assault weapons. They still rely on the emotional appeal to make gains while focusing on the scariest guns they can find. Lately, their focus has been on the AR-15. To the Left, the AR-15 is the Ferrari of firepower, the Maserati of mayhem, the Porsche of…some gun-related word beginning with P. But what does the Left actually know about the AR-15?

As much as Michael Moore knows about weight loss.

For all of the Left’s talk of how dangerous the AR-15 is, the fact they overlook is it is merely a tool. As with any tool, it’s all about how it’s used to determine whether the results are good or evil. A hammer can be used to build a house or bash in someone’s skull. And an AR-15 can be used to shoot up a church or prevent a mass shooting from getting worse.

You know, like what happened in Sutherland Springs?

Oh, wait. We’re not supposed to know that. Nevermind!

And therein lies the key to the Left’s approach to assault weapons: keeping things murky. By playing fast and loose with the facts, the Left can demonize AR-15s and other weapons and the public can be behind those efforts without fear of anyone listening figuring out they’re being played. But once you start asking a few questions, you can see through their lies and get to the bottom of their tactics.

With the most recent mass shooting in Texas, Leftists came out and started making all sorts of suggestions on what laws we needed to curtail the next shooting (because we all know laws always make things better). Yet, a Google search of, oh, a few minutes reveals many of the suggestions the Left made…are already on the books in one form or another. So…that’s a little awkward, but at least they mean well, right?

Not so much. When you really think about it, the people pushing assault weapon bans need there to be more mass shootings to keep their narrative going, keep the money flowing into their coffers, and keep people whipped up in a frenzy to have them give up their Constitutional rights (and the rights of everyone else, for that matter) for the illusion on safety. Benjamin Franklin had a famous quotation about this. It was “Screw that. Freedom rules because ‘Murca.” Wait, that was me. Either way, I’m not willing to toss aside my right to own a weapon because Leftists are scared of an object, especially an object they can’t even define what makes that object dangerous. Your fee-fees aren’t a good enough reason to ban assault weapons, nor should they be. We need to have cool heads when dealing with a subject like assault weapons because the implications for gun rights, and other rights for that matter, are too important to leave to a whim.

Share This:

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week SPECIAL EDITION!


Your eyes are not deceiving you. You are getting an extra Leftist Lexicon this week because, darn it, I like you.

Thanksgiving is a time for families to come together and be thankful for what we have. Oh, and to eat food, watch football, and try not to bring up politics. Oh, but the Left just has to ruin that, too. To them, Thanksgiving is a time to talk about politics (mainly, why theirs is superior) and how much white people suck. Oh, and how we should be concerned about the hungry and how dangerous and barbaric football is. You know, being total killjoys.

Well, I won’t stand for it. In fact, I’m sitting as I write this just to show you how committed I am to fighting back against the Leftist assault on Thanksgiving.


What the Left believes it means – a holiday that celebrates religious bigotry, violence against Native Americans, and patriarchy

What it really means – a holiday to remind us to be thankful for the bounty we have

The Thanksgiving story has gone through more changes than Madonna’s image, but the gist of it is the Pilgrims went through a harsh winter before meeting up with some Native Americans who helped them. To celebrate, the Pilgrims had a feast where they could count their blessings at having survived the year before. Now, to most people, this is a fine enough story, but to the Left, it’s not good enough because it didn’t have enough tofu, white guilt, and acknowledgement of the rights of the native people to live without being subjected to cultural appropriation and any number of other Leftist bugaboos they’re offended by this week.

Why, it’s almost as if the Left hates for people to be happy. Maybe it’s because…they hate for people to be happy!

As a recovering Leftist, one of the things I still can’t get my head around is why Leftists get so bothered by other people being happy. Whether they have a permanent case of schadenfreude or they are just big jerkheads, it’s not like there is a finite amount of joy in the world. It is possible for more than one person to be happy at a time, and Thanksgiving is the perfect time for people to be happy by recognizing what we have in our lives to be happy about. Family, friends, health, not being Al Franken right now…or ever, and many, many more sources of gratefulness.

I do think a big part of the Left’s problem with Thanksgiving is how steeped it is in tradition. To them, anything related to tradition is automatically conservative and, therefore, EVIL! Traditions in and of themselves aren’t necessarily evil. Getting together with family to share a meal and good times is a good tradition to have. Getting together with family to sacrifice a virgin to the Aztec gods? Not so much. As with all things, you have to put things into perspective. Just because you have a wishbone up your backside because you think Thanksgiving represents white genocide of Native Americans doesn’t mean it’s a good thing to bring up around turkey and mashed potatoes. Then again, the Left isn’t exactly known for thinking things through.

Which brings us to another relatively recent phenomenon: talking politics at Thanksgiving. Within the past few years, the Left has come up with the great idea of creating talking points to try to win over family members to the Leftist point of view. Remember Pajama Boy, the guy used to promote discussion of Obamacare over the holidays? Not only did he ruin red checkered pajamas for a generation of hipsters, but he made Leonard Hofstadler look like Chuck Norris. And what happened? Obamacare further tanked in the polls. Of course, that might be chalked up to Obamacare sucking harder than Chelsea Handler trying to get another series, but the point remains the Left thought Pajama Boy would be the poster boy for getting people to sign up for one of the worst health insurance scams since I got that policy from Uncle Shifty’s Fly-By-Night Insurance Company and Collection Agency. But at least I got to keep the pen, so win-win.

There seems to be two lines of thought behind bringing up politics during the holiday season. First, in accordance with Leftist thinking documented above, it’s to make everyone miserable. Second, and this one is just as likely, Leftists want to weed out people from their Christmas card/gift lists before Black Friday or Cyber Monday. After all, if you get most of your family miffed at you for spouting ideological drivel, you can save money or buy the family members who agree with you better presents. Well, at least better by Leftist standard. Imagine getting along with Cousin Moonbeam and getting a certificate stating a tree was planted in the Amazon rainforest in your honor. That makes Grandma’s wool socks look like a black American Express card.

But that second point has an ulterior motive: it helps break down families, which is a central tenet of communism and, surprise surprise, Leftist ideology. Between Thanksgiving and Christmas, this time of year brings people together in significant ways. And when there’s togetherness, there’s booze…I mean connecting. (Although you could also connect through booze…) When people get together in the spirit of harmony, it creates strong bonds, bonds that can exist outside of political, racial, spiritual, and sexual boundaries. Now, consider the fact the Left has based its entire existence today on emphasizing our differences. Yeah, it’s a good bet the Left has a vested interest in keeping people at each other’s throats.

This is why it’s important not to lose focus of what makes Thanksgiving so special. Not only will it make the Left into angry little trolls…scratch that, it will remind them there is something stronger than their ideology that will trump them at every turn: love.

Either that or booze.

Share This:

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


If you’ve been living under a rock over the past week, you might have run into Minnesota Senator Al Franken, who found himself in the midst of a sexual misconduct scandal. During a USO tour, Franken was photographed apparently attempting to grope the breasts of former Playboy, Maxim, and FHM model Leeann Tweeden while she appeared to be asleep.

Yeah, not a good look.

As news of this photo went public, people started discussing the situation, usually through a partisan lens. Some Leftists went so far as to suggest (or outright say) Tweeden was to blame for the situation because of her past, her present connections to Roger Stone and Sean Hannity, and other unrelated factors. There is a term for this, one the Left has used multiple times before: victim shaming. Of course, the Leftists attempting to undermine Tweeden deny they’re doing it, so you know they’re not…exactly credible.

So, let’s delve into the weird world of victim shaming.

victim shaming

What the Left believes it means – bringing up a victim’s past as a means to discredit him or her

What it really means – scumbags looking for a way out of taking responsibility for being scumbags

Sexual assault is a touchy enough subject when it comes to the victims. Anything at call could trigger memories of the assault, which can lead to psychological issues. Now, imagine remembering those events and having people not believe you because others have started throwing more mud at you than if you were standing behind a monster truck during a rally.

That’s victim shaming in a nutshell.

Normally, the Left is against victim shaming, mainly because it runs counter to their ideological beliefs. After all, the Left claims to be pro-woman, and any attempts to question a woman who is claiming to be a victim of sexual assault or sexual harassment are considered to be sexist. Even if the accusations themselves are flimsier than a balsa wood couch at Michael Moore’s house. Normally, that’s enough to turn back anybody who questions the word of the victim.

Then, there are the victims that don’t fit the Left’s ideological box. To them, the Left has zero sympathy. They might as well be nymphomaniacs wearing clothes from the Nikki Minaj Collection. These are the people who must be shamed by the Left as a means to protect the ideology and/or those who subscribe to it.

Like Leeann Tweeden.

As horrible as her victim shaming is, she’s not the only one. Juanita Broderick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley, Gennifer Flowers, and many, many more women have been on the receiving end of Leftist victim shaming, and no one within Leftist ranks dared to stand up for them for 20 or more years. Now, some are starting to reconsider their previous positions (at least in Broderick’s case) and voicing their displeasure at Bill Clinton for his sexual assaults.

But Tweeden? Not so much.

There are a couple of lines of thought that might explain it, but the simplest is because Bill Clinton is old news and Al Franken still has some use left to the Left. In that case, Tweeden and any other woman who comes forward to accuse Franken of sexual assault or harassment will be put under the microscope for anything that could sully their reputations and make them non-believable.

Now, some of you may be asking where the feminists are in this situation. After all, aren’t they the ones who scream the loudest whenever a woman is victim shamed? Well, their defense is as spotty as Wifi in Amish country because it is also based on ideology over consistency. As we saw with Bill Clinton, feminists place “women’s rights” (i.e. abortion) above anything else, so anyone who threatens it, male or female, gets heaped with scorn.

Of course, this lead to feminists being distrusted by women because they saw the blatant hypocrisy, but hey. Let’s just say Tweeden et al shouldn’t be waiting by the phone for modern feminists to call them because…reasons.

With friends like these, women don’t need enemies.

The whole concept of victim shaming revolves around intent. If someone is being questioned because a story doesn’t add up, that’s not victim shaming. If it’s being done for anything other reason, it most likely is. Guess what, Leftists? You are victim shaming Leeann Tweeden, either directly with your words, or indirectly with your silence. And all to protect Al Franken.

If that doesn’t prove the Left is dumber than a bag of hammers, nothing does.

Share This:

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


The news out of Hollywood these days reads like an Anthony Weiner fanfic. Celebrities, producers, and directors are being slapped with accusations of sexual misconduct at a rate that boggles the mind, but keeps tabloids and their online contemporaries very happy.

Now, what does any of this have to do with politics, you might ask. The answer can be found in three little words: listen and believe. The judges would have also accepted “bat shit crazy.” To give a bit of context, modern feminists developed the concept of listen and believe as a means to help women come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct against men. With the current situation in Hollywood, however, it may not be a good time for feminists to mention it.

Which means it’s the perfect time for us to talk about it.

listen and believe

What the Left believes it means – taking a woman’s allegations of rape, sexual assault, and sexual misconduct seriously by paying attention and accepting what she says as true

What it really means – Screw due process! The allegation is more important than the facts!

As serious as allegations of sexual assault/misconduct and rape are, it should be common sense to take our time and sift through the evidence to verify the validity of the allegations. Unfortunately, the Left isn’t on speaking terms with common sense these days. Hence, listen and believe.

On the surface, it’s easy to grasp the need to listen to sexual assault victims. These men and women are fragile and may be frightened out of their minds at the prospect of having to open up to anyone about what amounts to the worst possible violation of one’s self. It’s important we do listen. But believing them without a second thought? That’s a little dangerous in today’s society where lying is acceptable to more and more people and narcissism is at an all time high.

And there is no better way to get positive attention for yourself than to be a victim, or pretend to be one.

That’s where listen and believe comes into play. It feeds into a person’s ego to not just be heard, but to automatically be seen as credible without having to go through the efforts to build credibility. After all, there’s Tweeting about celebrities to do, and that’s soooooo much more important than the truth!

That brings us back around to Hollyweird. The Left has it on lockdown, and it is safe to say they would agree with the concept of listen and believe as a means to fight the patriarchy or some such. Ah, but now…well, let’s just say there might be a few more Leftists who are rethinking whether it’s a good idea to be believed merely by making an allegation. It might lead to the need for a SuperMax prison in Beverly Hills otherwise.

Wait. If accusations would be enough to get someone thrown in jail, I could prevent Michael Bay from ever making another movie! And wouldn’t that be a win-win for everyone?

Seriously, the current situation in Hollywood reveals the main problem with listen and believe: it seems to be ideologically driven. The end goal of modern feminists isn’t equality, as they claim ad nauseum. Their end goal is the marginalization of men, even men who support modern feminism, and listen and believe helps bring about that end goal. If all you need to do to make men look like Bill Clinton on Spanish Fly and Viagra is to get enough people to believe it by playing on their emotions, modern feminists will jump at that chance every single time.

Except when it comes to powerful allies like…oh, I don’t know…Hollywood big wigs. Modern feminists beat the drum of an epidemic of campus rape more than Neil Peart during a solo, but not many have come forward to denounce the Hollywood Left when there’s more actual evidence of sexual misconduct there than there is on college campuses today.

Waiting for modern feminists to be vocal and consistent on a matter like this is like waiting for Hillary Clinton to blame herself for her 2016 Presidential loss. It may happen, but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for it to happen.

In the meantime, we can put our time to good use by insisting on following the rule of law instead of the rule of an emotional mob. Once anyone is accused of sexual assault/misconduct, there is often irreparable damage to that person’s reputation, so it’s vital we get the facts right the first time. When we deviate from that standard, it doesn’t end well.

Just ask Rolling Stone.

Share This:

A Star Trek Discovery Review


I have been watching the latest Star Trek series. Star Trek: Discovery. The storytelling and plot are fantastic thus far. But like the reboot movies it has a lot of continuity issues.

The Discovery takes place some 10 years before Captain James T. Kirk conducts his famous 5 year mission on the Enterprise. So I watch for things that should not be in that time period of known Star Trek history.

First off there is the use of the arrow head emblem for all of Star Fleet. This is incorrect. The arrow head emblem did not become the symbol of Star Fleet until after Captain Kirk returned from his historic 5 year mission. Prior to that event every ship in Star Fleet had it’s own symbol. The arrow head was the symbol of the U.S.S. Enterprise only.

The technology seems to improve by going back in time of Star Trek’s history. They have holographic displays and consoles. This tech is even better that the tech of the Enterprise in The Next Generation under the command of Captain Jean-Luc Picard.

The Discovery even has a small holodeck for combat training. Something that wasn’t invented until the 24th century in The Next Generation, and then it was rather new and a questionable technology. It is flawless on the Discovery.

Everyone seems to use holographic communications as well. The Federation aboard Star Fleet vessels and even the Klingons themselves. No more putting the incoming communication “on screen”. There is a 3 dimensional person to walk around and interact with while communicating, although not a physical interaction like a holodeck. This is a technology never before demonstrated in the history of Star Trek. However it is a direct rip-off (or flattery) of the HoloNet communications from Star Wars used by the Republic, the Empire, and Rebels alike for 1,000’s of years.

I do like the new look of the Imperial Kingons. However in proper Star Trek canon the very existence of these Klingons from deep within the Klingon Empire were not known to the Federation until the V’ger incident. The Klingons were well versed in the science of genetic engineering, something that the Federation banned, and they created the Klingon/Human fusions that we saw in the original series.

We also have the Discovery’s spore drive. This is basically a kind of hyperdrive or jumpdrive. Ripped-off (or more flattery) from Star Wars and/or the reimaged Battlestar Galactica. Apparently this technology was either lost in the war against the Klingons or banned afterwards due to the biological component needed to make it work properly.

At the time of this writing we have yet to see the Romulans in this incarnation of Star Trek. But we shouldn’t see them either. Star Trek history tells us that Earth and the Romulans had a war about 90 to 100 years prior to the Discovery time period. As it had been 100 years since the Romulan war when Kirk and crew encounter them in the “Balance of Terror” episode of the original series. And at that point no one knew what a Romulan looked like either. Time will tell if this canon of Star Trek gets violated by the Discovery as it was already violated by the movie reboot.

It does seem to me that there is a continuity between the Star Trek Enterprise series, the movie reboots, and the Discovery series. However this continuity breaks down greatly when compared to the original series, the Next Generation, DS9, and Voyager series.

Within the Star Trek universe this can be explained easily as an alternate timestream or a parallel universe. If it is an alternative timestream, we have yet to see the Federation Time Fleet of the future come in and correct the errors that have been made. If is just a parallel universe then there is nothing to correct and it can be accepted as such.

But overall Star Trek Discovery is a good show and worth watching despite the multiple continuity errors as seen from the eyes of an old generation Trekker. Looking forward to the season finale and next season.

Share This: