Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Back when I was growing up, things were a lot simpler. Men were men, women were men, and everybody was really confused. We understood the difference between truth and lies and learned honesty. Today, thanks to our friends on the Left, we no longer have a sense of truth…and it may even have a gender!

One of the favorite lines Leftists used to defend Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is that she told “her truth.” First off, how do we know the truth is female? And what if the truth self-identifies as male? Beyond the simple absurdity I’ve outlined, there is a more complex absurdity at work, one that will shake the foundation of the concept of truth.

her truth

What the Left thinks it means – when a woman includes her personal experiences and perceptions when recounting facts

What it really means – the Left’s attempt to make the truth subject to personal opinion

Imagine going through life knowing you could shape reality just by believing in a certain set of variables that you alone control and no one can ever question. Wouldn’t that be cool? Thanks to the Left, you can have that ability! All you have to do is…be a Leftist!

Yeah, still too high a price for that power.

The Left isn’t on speaking terms with the truth, as can be seen by reviewing their economic policies. But when it comes to matters like allegations of sexual assault, this disdain for the truth is no joking matter. When you bring in the concept of “her truth” in lieu of the truth, you’re creating an environment where men are guilty until proven guilty. I know Lady Justice is blindfolded, but damn!

But this, like many other Leftist schemes, is by design. By establishing the idea men and women have different concepts of truth, it creates a duality that coincides with…the Left’s belief there are two different types of justice: one for the powerful (in this case men) and one for the weak (in this case women). Which comes in direct conflict with the Left’s idea women are as strong and capable as men, but hey…

Where this duality becomes truly dangerous is in situations where young men are still developing and, thus, vulnerable to pressure. I’m looking at you, high schools and college campuses. While the former is not immune to sexual assault allegations, the latter has become Ground Zero in the gender wars, due in part to President Barack Obama’s interpretation of Title IX. If you thought the Star Chamber was unfair, college inquiries into sexual assault and rape allegations have more kangaroos than Australia. Imagine being 20 years old and having the prospect of your academic and occupational futures stripped from you without a chance to defend yourself, with or without an attorney. Compounding that is an institution that has no interest in what you have to say and believes every word your accuser says, regardless of whether is resembles the truth, and has pretty much convicted you before you can respond. Only the brave or the foolish would fight back.

And that’s what the Left is counting on.

For the Left to win, they need their opponents to put themselves into a no-win situation. With “her truth,” it combines the emotional appeal of wanting to protect women and the insistence not to judge others. If you doubt a woman’s account of a sexual assault, you are automatically assumed to hate women and/or pass judgment, which in turn makes you defensive most likely. So, either you accept “her truth” as the truth or you stay silent, which to the Left is no different than consent.

That’s why it’s important we don’t succumb to the concept of her truth. Last time I checked, women were human, too. And that comes with all of the baggage men have, including the ability and motivation to lie under certain circumstances. In other words, there is always a possibility her truth may be a lie.

That brings us back to the concept of the truth. No matter how we try to justify ourselves and our actions, the truth isn’t subject to our fee-fees. It is always grounded in facts and reality, as painful or uncomfortable as it may be. Pretending reality isn’t so doesn’t change it, and giving it a gender component doesn’t make it any less deceitful.

If it’s all the same, I’ll stick with the truth. Not her truth, not his truth, not his/her truth, not my truth. The truth.

 

An Unpopular Opinion

Now that the drama from the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett “the Hitman” Kavanaugh has died down (except on the Left), it’s time for me to finally weigh in.

I didn’t believe him completely. And I didn’t believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford completely.

Instead of following the circus…I mean hearing on television, I listened to it online, and it was an enlightening experience. For one, Senate egos translate quite well with just sound. And for another, you catch more. Little turns of a phrase, white lies, and other verbal cues you might not notice if you’re paying attention to the visual elements. What I found was Kavanaugh and Ford both avoided questions that were central to the other side’s case. To me, that signals they both had something to hide, which raised more red flags than the most violent soccer match ever.

When faced with a situation where there is no clear truth, I like to focus on other factors. What do the parties have to gain by being dishonest? Who seems to be hiding more? What kind of tree would they be if they had a choice? You know, the hard-hitting stuff! In the Kavanaugh-Ford situation, I saw a clear motivation from both sides to be dishonest. For Kavanaugh, it was the possibility of being a Supreme Court Justice. For Ford, it was what I call the “Anita Hill Package.” To date, Ford received over $1 million on a GoFundMe, the adoration of modern feminists, a rejuvenation of the failing #MeToo movement, and the most important thing: an automatic pass on any lies she told because she did it for the right cause. Both sides had something to gain and a lot to lose, so they hid or distorted details as needed.

What ultimately turned the tide for me wasn’t who benefited more, but what both sides were willing to let slide to win. For the Right, they risked losing the female vote for decades by throwing in their lot with Kavanaugh. This was a political risk, and one that had to be executed without much room for error. Secondary to this was the risk of appearing to be anti-woman (even moreso than the Left makes Republicans look like now) right before the midterm elections. A disheartened base would spell disaster for the GOP at a time when President Donald Trump needs as much support as he can get congressionally.

On the other hand, the Left was (and still is) willing to overlook the presumption of innocence, the rules of evidence, privacy, and even basic decency to win. Yes, yes, I know it wasn’t a trial but a “job interview”, but presumption of innocence extends beyond the court of law, and it needed to be considered here given the severity of the charges and the implications of the decision of who to believe. The Left (and the Right, to a lesser extent) hasn’t shown a desire to ensure both parties in this matter were held to the same standard. For people like me, that’s inexcusable.

So, let me apply that consistent standard here. Kavanaugh and Ford both distorted the truth and hid key details more times than I like, meaning there were no white hats yet again. I’m not willing to overlook this for the sake of a Supreme Court Justice, nor am I willing to overlook the implications. Regardless of where you come down, Brett Kavanaugh will have the stench of corruption, valid or otherwise, all over him for the rest of his life because the Left can’t let it go. To them, he will always be in the same category as Brock Turner. Meanwhile, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is getting out of this matter relatively unscathed (and a great deal richer), but her reputation has been sullied by everyone not in the Leftist bubble, and the potential damage to rape and sexual assault victims and to women in general has yet to be determined

This remains a no-win situation with only potential short term gains considered. We deserve better.

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

One of the most intriguing (and admittedly frustrating) elements of the confirmation hearings of Brett “the Hitman” Kavanaugh is the use of names for people who question the testimony of Dr. Christine “Not Cool Enough for a Nickname” Blasey Ford. After all, we’re supposed to believe women, even when their stories are more bogus than a CNN fact check. People who take the “believe all women” stance have a particularly offensive term for those of us doubters: rape apologists.

And it’s a term that keeps getting thrown about whenever a woman comes forward with claims of sexual assault and/or rape. If you don’t believe a woman, you obviously condone rape according to the Left. If you defend a man against sexual assault and/or rape charges, you condone rape. In fact, I’m pretty sure being a man who insists upon breathing in a woman’s presence is grounds for being a rape apologist.

So, let’s put on our hip waders and take a walk on the slimy side.

rape apologist

What the Left thinks it means – a group of people, predominantly male, who will excuse sexual assault and rape under any and all circumstances

What it really means – a term that is used to try to protect women who have questionable allegations in an attempt to legitimize all questionable allegations against men

Even though I’ve been out of the dating pool for a few years, I understand the pressures of being a single man in today’s society. The manbun alone has been a pox on the houses (or at least the condos or apartments) of single men everywhere. But add the possibility of being accused of rape, and it makes the manbun look like…well, a manbun.

Accusations of rape and sexual assault are serious business because they have significant emotional and legal import. Just ask Brock Turner and his dad. That’s why it’s important we treat every allegation seriously and commit to finding out the truth. It’s also important we call out those who make false allegations.

To the Left, that makes me a rape apologist. To everyone else, that makes me a sensible human being. Guess which side I’m taking.

Leftists are quick to point out women really don’t have a reason to lie about rape and sexual assault, and they point to statistics (that they’ve invented) to point out how rampant rape is in our society. This is done to justify the idea of women as being helpless victims subject to the whims of evil men. And this turns into campaign contributions and votes for Leftists, who claim to be the champions of women and front line fighters against the rape culture. And these are the same people who throw out the rape apologist label whenever they think they shame people into bending the knee to their ideology.

Consider my knee unbent. Oh, and you Leftists can get bent.

It’s not that I don’t believe Dr. Ford so much as it is we’ve been down this road before with other accusations that haven’t panned out and have been whitewashed by Leftists. Remember Emma “Mattress Girl” Sulkowicz? She was the darling of the Left when she alleged she was a rape victim. Senator Kirsten “Hillary 2.0” Gillibrand invited her to one of President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Addresses, where she was featured prominently. She was praised for her lame stunt…I mean “art project” and was believed without so much as a thought.

Guess what? She lied. Her “rape” was actually consensual sex. But that’s just one example, right? There can’t be more! Well, you might want to ask Rolling Stone about that.

This is not to say Dr. Ford is a liar. It’s to introduce a concept that isn’t often considered when discussing rape and sexual assault allegations: due process. Betsy DeVos caught a lot of flak for trying to update Title IX to bring college campuses closer to the due process standard, but it was the right thing to do because prior to her intervention, those accused of rape were guilty even after being proven innocent. For that, DeVos was called a rape apologist (among other things).

If you’ve been paying attention, you see a couple of patterns. One, Leftists are really unhinged. Two, the people being called rape apologists are calling for men and women to be on equal footing legally when it comes to rape allegations. And three, not one of the people accused of being rape apologists…have literally apologized or tried to delegitimize rape.

That’s because throwing out the “rape apologist” label isn’t about rape so much as it is about maintaining the status quo where women have the power to ruin men’s lives with none of the consequences that come from false allegations. The problem with this approach, however, is that it runs in direct conflict with their claims of a “rape culture.” If there really is a culture that condones and promotes rape (spoiler alert: it doesn’t exist), why would the Left want to make it harder for actual rape victims to come forward and be believed?

Let’s just say the Left doesn’t have a problem with actual rape when it suits their needs. See Bill Clinton. And as long as they can get enough people to believe they care about women while making it easier for people to disregard actual rape and sexual assault, they will continue to use women, just like…well, Bill Clinton.

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

During this past week’s drama…I mean circus…I mean confirmation hearing for Brett “the Hitman” Kavanaugh, Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee made it a point to underscore how brave Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was for appearing before the committee and telling her side of the story. And I literally mean “story.” I haven’t been so unconvinced at what I saw since I watched the actors in “The Blair Witch Project” trying to convince me the movie was scary.

The standard for bravery is different for everyone. For some, it’s the soldier who lays down his or her life for her country. For others, it’s police officers and firefighters running towards danger. For Leftists, it’s…a privileged white female professor who flies across country. Granted, if she flew on United, they might have a point.

And because of this disparity, we have a point to discuss in the Leftist Lexicon.

bravery

What the Left thinks it means – courage in facing adversity, often imposed upon people by conservatives

What it really means – a term the Left has really watered down

One of the hardest parts of defining bravery is in nailing down what constitutes it. Everybody’s going to have a different perspective due to their individual experiences. Having said that, I would like to think there is common ground on the definition.

Then, the Left get involved and any common ground turns into the Dust Belt.

As with public education, school lunch menus under Michelle Obama, and personal ethics, the Left sets the standard for bravery lower than Congress’ approval ratings. That’s not to say they don’t have standards, mind you. It’s just their standards are more ideological than anything else. (Surprise, surprise.) Anyone who could conceivably or actually represent Leftists get the fast track to hero status. That’s why AIDS victims are lionized while police officers are cursed (and cursed at, for that matter). It’s also why soldiers get called baby-killers while women who had or support abortion get positive press.

But it misses the point. You aren’t brave if you stick with the prevailing idea, no matter how many Leftists call you brave. If anything, conformity is the opposite of bravery because all you’re doing is following what the crowd tells you is good and right. And that’s how “Two and a Half Men” got into syndication.

The truly brave people are ones who ignore the majority and seek a better solution on their own. Our country might still be English colonies if the Founding Fathers listened to majority opinion at the time, which clearly sided with continuing to be colonists. Maybe they were afraid to change or maybe they had a thing for guys in white powdered wigs, but the point is the Founding Fathers took on great risk and the possibility of failure to take a chance at something great.

And it’s not just here and in the past, kids. People like Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Harvey Milk, Susan B. Anthony, and countless others (including more than a few idols on the Left, I might add) bucked the existing system and brought about the societal change they wanted to make. I may not agree with them or what they stood for, but I cannot deny they were brave.

At this point, you may be asking yourself, “What does Thomas wear around the house?” Or “What does Thomas consider brave?” You know, whichever.

To answer the latter question, bravery is when you swallow today’s fears so others won’t have to be afraid tomorrow. That means a lot of people the Left call heroes don’t make the cut, including Dr. Ford. She wasn’t courageous for coming forward; she merely did what was expected she’d do and was treated like a Faberge egg in a pillow factory. Had she come forward in the 80s and faced down a hostile legal team who cared nothing about her or her feelings, that would have made her brave. As it stands, Dr. Ford’s bravery was more watered down than Michael Phelps’ Speedo.

As for the former question, I’m saving that answer for another blog post.

Bravery in any form comes with an element of risk. The higher the risk, the greater the reward for success or penalty for failure. And with Leftists wanting to take the risk out of everything so everyone can be equally mediocre, that means being brave gets a lot easier if you subscribe to the Left’s mindset. The problem is if everyone can be called brave, then no one gets to be brave. Bravery becomes the norm.

Let me put it another way. Being an outspoken Leftist at UC Berkeley requires little bravery. Being an outspoken conservative at UC Berkeley requires much more bravery because a) you will always be outnumbered, and b) the outspoken Leftists at UC Berkeley may physically hurt you for being an outspoken conservative.

Former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart used a now-famous test for obscenity: “I know it when I see it.” Bravery works a little bit differently. You’ll know it when you don’t see it.

 

A Tale of Two Catastrophies

When you really think about it (and I do because I really have no life), the confirmation hearings for potential Supreme Court Justice Brett “the Hitman” Kavanaugh are shaping up to be much bigger than whether Kavanaugh gets fitted for a robe before Christmas and whether he’ll carpool with Ruth Bader Ginsburg. There are high stakes here for both sides, and eventually there will be winners and losers. Oddly enough, the Left seems to be full of losers, both in the confirmation hearings and in general, but there’s one loss they haven’t considered yet, and given how much time they’ve spent on it, I’m surprised (well, not really) they have overlooked it.

Over the past several months, Leftists have loudly defended the FBI against attacks from President Donald Trump. According to them, it is traitorous to question the loyalty and competency of the men and women who work for the FBI (Lisa Page, Peter Strzok and James Comey, notwithstanding). You couldn’t swing a dead cat and not hit a Leftist voicing support for the FBI or without getting in trouble with PETA.

For some reason, though, the loud Leftist voices have gone silent. Is it because the issue is dead? Not really. President Trump still has concerns, at least some of them valid, at how the FBI conducts itself. Although the frequency of his Tweets on the matter have decreased somewhat, the animosity is still there. But something else is going on that has to do with the FBI: Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing and the controversy surrounding it.

To put it mildly, Leftists have jumped on the allegations against Kavanaugh like Rosie O’Donnell on an all-you-can-eat buffet line. Now, here’s where the plot thickens like the aforementioned O’Donnell’s blood after said buffet. Kavanaugh has had six, count ‘em, six background checks done up to and including the Supreme Court. Who conducted these checks?

If you guessed the FBI, you would be correct. If you guessed anything else, you don’t get to move on to the lightning round, you don’t get a year’s supply of Rice A Roni or Turtle Wax, and you don’t even get a lousy edition of the home game. However, you do get a trip around the world as Regis Philbin’s travel buddy.

Six FBI background checks, and not a single shred of evidence linking Kavanaugh to the sexual assaults he’s been accused of. This leads to two possible conclusions. One, there is nothing there that would support the allegations, and two, the FBI missed the same signs six times. Both have the potential to rock the Left to its core, but the latter makes it harder to operate in my opinion because of the remedy they’ve suggested to address the allegations against Kavanaugh: have the FBI open an investigation on whether he sexually assaulted women.

To put it another way, the Left wants the same people who conceivably overlooked the same issues multiple times to look into a situation they conceivably overlooked multiple times. That’s like trusting Hans Blix to find WMDs in Iraq…oh, wait.

The Left is forced into a Kobiashi Maru of their own making. Either they trust the FBI to investigate Kavanaugh while ignoring the six previous times they did just that, or they have to admit the FBI was right all along, thus negating the need for another investigation.

But let’s not tell them just yet. I want to see the looks on their faces when they watch their pro-FBI rhetoric explode in their faces.

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

It’s been a week and we are still no closer to confirming Brett “the Hitman” Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. This is mainly because Senate Democrats are insisting upon further investigation into accusations of sexual assault raised by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who alleges Kavanaugh did something at some time involving something else at someplace. Leftists state it’s only fair we delve into these accusations so we know whether Kavanaugh is a sexual predator.

Although there are a lot of subjects that can come from this situation, there is one word that the Left constantly uses whenever it wants to bend the will of the people to their causes: fair. Leftists want fair trade, fairness to address the wage gap between men and women, the rich to pay their fair share, to campaign at state fairs, and so on. (Okay, that last one was a reach, but you get the idea.) So, what does the Left consider fair?

Let’s find out!

fair

What the Left thinks it means – equal consideration to all possible points of view

What it really means – a concept the Left loves to use, but only when it favors them

Four little letters causing a lot of confusion, mostly self-induced by the Left. Americans have a strong attachment to fairness in part because our country was build on the idea. When the Pilgrims got a raw deal from the English monarchy, they left and landed on Plymouth Rock where they proceeded to die off due to the failures of socialism. (Read up on the Mayflower Compact if you doubt this.) When the colonists got another raw deal from the English monarchy, they fought back and started a revolution, if you’ll pardon the pun. Granted, we haven’t always been motivated by fairness (just ask Native Americans), but it is still one of the cornerstone ideals we’ve maintained throughout our history.

Which means the Left just has to manipulate it for its own ends.

Leftists play in the world of emotions, and fairness is a concept that invokes a lot of them. We want a level playing field for all and get angry when that doesn’t happen. What better way to whip the public into a lather than to claim something isn’t fair? And what better way to get people to vote for you than to tell them you’re all about fairness? It’s almost too good to be true!

Well, that’s because it is. When the Left brings up fairness, it’s always when they feel they have the most to gain. That’s why Senate Democrats want there to be an investigation. Not only do they look like defenders of sexual assault victims (unless the assaulter is a Leftist, of course), but they do so by claiming the fairness high ground, which can lead to votes, which Democrats desperately need in the midterm elections. To put it mildly, a room full of monkeys with a room full of typewriters could come up with a better campaign strategy than the DNC has so far.

Meanwhile, the Left doesn’t give one tenth of one damn about fairness when they hold the power. Try getting Ben Shapiro booked at UC Berkeley if you doubt me. You’ll find it’s easier to land a 747 on the first floor of a parking garage than getting any conservative speaker on a campus run by Leftists. Then, there’s the flat tax, also called the fair tax, where taxpayers would pay the same percentage. Leftists hate that because their idea of fairness in taxes is the rich paying a higher percentage since they make more.

So, let me get this straight. Instead of paying the same amount, which by definition is fair to everyone, the Left believes the rich should pay more taxes to make things fair. Brilliant!

Bringing everything back to the Kavanaugh hearing, the Left wants us to believe similar logic applies. A fair hearing to them means Kavanaugh testifies first while Dr. Ford gets a chance to present her testimony after the fact. Also, the Left believes a fair investigation requires the FBI to get involved as ordered by President Donald Trump and Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court would have to be delayed until the FBI did its job. Oh, and Dr. Ford would have to travel from California to Washington by car because she doesn’t want to fly, so to be fair we have to allow her time to get there. And even if the Senate Judiciary Committee was to go to her, Dr. Ford might make other demands in the name of fairness.

Meanwhile, the one person who isn’t getting a fair shake in all of this is Brett Kavanaugh. Like him or hate him, the circumstances behind his nomination process have opened his family and him up to death threats, all sorts of vicious rumors about him and his past, aggressive attacks by Senate Democrats looking to grandstand and jockey for position to be the party’s 2020 Presidential candidate, and, worst of all, having to endure questions from people who wouldn’t know habeas corpus from a hole in the ground. And after all of that, he has to deal with Dr. Ford’s allegations, which are thinner than the plot of a mystery novel written by kindergarteners…or Democrat members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for that matter.

And who is it who tells us justice delayed is justice denied? Why, it’s the Left, who feel it’s perfectly fine to delay confirmation of an actual Justice under the guise of a fair hearing.

I’ll take Concepts Too Complex for Leftists for $200, Alex.

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

During the recent confirmation hearings for Brett “the Hitman” Kavanaugh, reporters became fixated on a particular gesture, not by Kavanaugh himself, but by a woman sitting behind him. She was caught on camera making what appeared to be the “OK” sign with her hand. Which means, according to Leftists, she was a white supremacist because the “OK” sign has been co-opted by white supremacists. Therefore, according to Leftists, Kavanaugh cannot be confirmed because…white supremacists.

Is it just me, or does it seem like the Left is seeing white supremacists under every rock, bed, and bedsheet? (Well, in some cases, they can be found under bedsheets, but not that often.) Even though the woman in the video, Zina Bash, is Mexican, Jewish, and had grandparents who were Holocaust survivors, she has to be a white supremacist. I mean, who else would work in the Trump White House, right?

This week’s Leftist Lexicon will delve into white supremacists and see whether the Left may be onto something. Or if they’re just on something.

white supremacists

What the Left thinks it means – racist alt-right conservatives who have been emboldened by Donald Trump’s Presidency to come out and cause trouble

What it really means – a small group with bullhorns convincing people they’re bigger than they actually are

One of the great Leftist narratives against President Donald Trump is that he is a white supremacist because he hired Steven Miller and Steve Bannon, both of whom either identify as or hold views similar to white supremacists. Of course, his years of being lauded as a friend to blacks gets, pun unintended, white-washed with this approach, but when you have a narrative to push, facts just get in the way. Hence, guilt by association.

Funny how that doesn’t go in a different way, say…oh, I don’t know…with a religion that has members who are violent and want to kill people who are different than them. Oh, well, #NotAllMuslims and such.

Depending on who you ask, white supremacists are either popping up in greater numbers or are inspiring other white supremacists to become emboldened and embrace their hatred. The Southern Poverty Law Center has been keeping track of white supremacist activity for decades and they’ve been some of the ones who have lead the charge to let people (read: Leftists) know about the wave of white supremacy across the country. Granted, this is the same Southern Poverty Law Center who labeled the TEA Party a hate group, but had to be shamed into including black, Muslim, and other racist groups in their hate watches, but hey. Credit where credit is due.

While the SPLC tends to have a hair trigger when it comes to white supremacists, it is safe to say there are such people out there in America right now. Whether they’re as prevalent and as pervasive as some on the Left suggest is subject to debate. Personally, I don’t see white supremacists as frequently as Leftists do because, well, I’m just not that bat-crap cray-cray. The Left has taken themselves so seriously that they can’t recognize when they’re being trolled.

And that’s the case with the “OK” hand sign. Contrary to Leftist belief, it didn’t originate with white supremacists nor was it coopted by them. As with many things these days, this idea started with the Internet and a group called 4chan. They created an operation titled “Operation OKKK” where they tried to convince people the hand sign was a symbol for white power. And, buddy, it caught on like wildfire! No matter how many times it’s debunked, the Left (and certain members of the white supremacist movement) treat it as gospel.

Remember, kids, the Left are the smart ones who only want facts and say reality has a liberal bias.

In spite of their relative small portion of the population as a whole, let alone the white portion of it, white supremacists are getting more attention. But it’s not because they’re getting bolder and don’t have to hide anymore in the era of Trump. It’s because Leftists give them the attention in the first place! By looking for white supremacists everywhere under the sun, the Left has given them the opportunity to perform for them (or at least give the appearance of performing). And given how the Left doesn’t let facts get in the way of a good crisis narrative, I wouldn’t be surprised if real white supremacists felt they had to come out and correct the record, if you’ll pardon the expression.

But being more prominent doesn’t mean actual numbers. That’s where I think the Left gets it completely wrong by design. They need white supremacists to be numerous to justify their “Trump is a white supremacist” narrative, and they have the tools (read: the media and political figures) to make it seem real. Frankly, though, I think it goes deeper than that.

Think about it for a moment. What ideology promotes the idea that “The Man” is keeping minorities down while never actually investing in the futures of those minorities? What ideology promises to empower people of color while never really giving them positions of power? What ideology has white people claiming to be “woke” without them giving up anything of value to the people they believe are being oppressed?

Can you say “Leftist”? I knew you could.

Maybe the country’s biggest white supremacy group is the DNC and its Leftist allies.

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

We’re entering into the home stretch of the 2018 midterm elections, and it couldn’t come soon enough. I was tired of this year’s midterm elections in, oh, 2016. And with the Left, this could be the most important election in our history because, as they put it, “Trump is a doodyhead.” (Actually, it’s not that reason in so many words, but it boils down to that.)

To help the cause to elect more Democrats, the Left has once again jumped to social media to start a new hashtag, #VoteThemOut, referencing a desire to vote out Republicans. Because, as we all know from the previous Administration, hashtags make people DO something.

Well, in this case, it’s inspiring me to do something: write this week’s Leftist Lexicon!

#VoteThemOut

What the Left thinks it means – an online movement to vote out Republicans and replace them with progressive Democrats

What it really means – a hashtag that will accomplish nothing

Every couple of years, we go through the same tired dance. One party wants to keep power, and the other party wants to strip power away from the other party because the other party is evil incarnate. The only way for the latter party to fix the problems caused by the evil party is to elect more good people. And every couple of years, nothing changes in a significant manner, no matter who wins the election.

Blather. Rinse. Repeat.

Although the Left has a ton of motivation to vote for Democrats and progressives this year, their use of a hashtag to promote it doesn’t exactly scream “Vote for us because we have ideas.” It’s closer to “Vote for us because the other side sucks.” Enter the hashtag #VoteThemOut. It sends the same message as “Vote for us because the other side sucks,” but does it in a way that is short, memorable, and catchy. It’s the social media equivalent of a bumper sticker, but without the need to find space on a vehicle to stick it.

And you might be able to guess what else I feel can stick it.

Hashtags may be what the cool kids do, but it makes for poor political strategy because it doesn’t necessarily create action. Remember #BringBackOurGirls? It was a valid sentiment that hoped to garner positive results, but it worked as well as CNN’s fact checking department. It brought attention to the situation and did…absolutely nothing.

Just like the ribbons worn on the red carpets in Hollywood, hashtags are a great way to show you care about an issue and they seem to absolve the person using them of the responsibility of actually doing something about it. After all, they did the hard part by telling people know about an issue. It’s up to others to do the easy stuff and make things happen!

And, yes, I’m being sarcastic here.

In order for hashtags to become more than just words in the cyber-ether, someone has to act on them. But the problem with the midterm elections is only a limited number of people can act on them since we’re dealing with state-level elections, albeit with national implications. A Leftist in California tweeting #VoteThemOut can have it go global, but the impact it has is limited to the voters or potential voters where Democrats want to take Republican seats. Further diluting the impact is the fact #VoteThemOut will only garner support from people already leaning towards that idea.

Can you say “echo chamber,” kids? I knew you could.

Let’s say for the sake of argument the hashtag catches on and results in the “Blue Wave” the Left keeps saying is going to happen. What then? Given the fact most Leftists see it as a chance to impeach President Donald Trump, not much will get accomplished. Oh, there may be some other progressive ideas that may get proposed and maybe even voted on by the House and Senate, but unless impeachment is on the table, the Left won’t be happy. (Mainly because they think they can remove Trump and everyone else in the line of succession, force the country to hold a new election, add more Justices to the Supreme Court, and other wild conclusions devoid of Constitutional grounding. But, hey, why let a little thing like the Constitution get in the way of getting what the Left wants, right?)

Surely this time will be different, the Left will say. And they will be wrong. When there is a seismic shift in political power, rarely is it followed by a flurry of positive results that benefit the country. Why, it’s almost as if…politicians promise the moon, but only deliver green cheese!

That’s because government isn’t in the problem-solving business. I’ve noted it before, but the short version is current government needs there to be constant problems to retain power, money, and control. If Democrats sweep into power in 2018, all the problems they say are caused by Republicans will either be “forgotten” or found not to be as big of a problem as they claimed they were. And if the “Blue Wave” happens, a “Red Wave” will come after that and then Republicans will be the ones to “forget” problems or go along to get along.

The fact we still have a Department of Education in spite of Ronald Reagan’s promise to eliminate it back in the 1980s is proof of that.

If you want to vote out Democrats and/or Republicans because you feel things will be better without them, go for it. Just try to act surprised when nothing comes of it.

 

Can We Cool It With the “Hot Takes”?

We live in amazing times from a technological standpoint. A little over 20 years ago, people were just starting to navigate the Internet like a nervous driver’s ed student. Now, our phones have more computing power than the PCs we had back in the 90s. But no matter what era of technology we are in, there are two constants. One is porn. The other is people being stupid on the platform, which sometimes goes hand in hand with the first.

Today’s technology in the area of social media has given rise to on-the-spot reactions to events both important and mundane. But it has also given rise to users thinking their words are somehow vital to the culture and must be heard. That leads to what is mockingly called “hot takes,” which are comments and ideas that are so unnecessary and/or stupid (again, hand in hand) that you have to wonder if the people making them have any self-awareness whatsoever.

Within the past couple of days, we have seen takes so hot you need get firefighting gear just to experience them live. The death of Senator John McCain, the shooting at a video game tournament in Jacksonville, the Brett Cavanaugh nomination for the US Supreme Court, and untold other stories bring out the worst of those who could have left well enough unheard.

Of course, there will be some who say it’s their freedom of speech and they have a right to say what they want. For the most part, they’re right. But the freedom of speech comes with a responsibility to use it wisely. Yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater isn’t protected because there is actual physical harm that can come from it. Granted, calling the late Senator McCain a douchebag won’t usually cause physical damage (unless you say it to the face of a McCain supporter who is a former Marine and is now an MMA fighter), but it isn’t advisable unless you want to be seen as the douchebag you called the late Senator.

Of course, there are people out there who love to stir up drama because it gets them noticed. Which is what they want. Even negative attention is attention to them, which feeds their egos and sustains them like a parasite. These people can be hard to ignore because they play on your emotions to garner a passionate/vitriolic response. This cycle continues until one party of this parasitic relationship gives up. These folks are annoying, but ultimately harmless.

The real scary ones are those who aren’t posting to rile someone up, but actually think their poorly-thought-out ideas are intellectual gold. Everyone from New York Times reporters to the teenage girl down the street have had moments where they posted something and then wondered why people didn’t like them. These are the types of social media users who have made me think humanity is doomed.

And there are many more of them than there are of the posters looking to get a rise out of people. Here’s how bad it’s gotten. People literally have to take time out of their days to try to figure out if someone’s being serious. When you can’t tell the difference between a joke and reality, it’s time to admit we have an issue. And the issue is we have people with egos hopped up on steroids and the self-awareness of damp wash cloth.

This is going to come as a shock, but I believe not everything I think needs to have a platform because I have had some really dumb ideas. Wanting to date a semi-attractive drug addict? That was me. Thinking a woman with severe mental issues might be a good fit for me? Yep, that was me. Thinking the whole Mighty Morphin Power Rangers thing was just a fad? You got it!

As a result, I’ve learned when to express myself and when to just think what I want to say. It’s kept me safe and employed for a number of years, so I say it’s working out pretty well. We need to take the same approach to social media and communications technology because there is always an audience somewhere who might stumble upon our musings and take offense. (Granted, that happens these days with the frequency of a Starbucks customer getting overcharged, but the point stands.) Behind every Twitter handle, Facebook status, or Instagram account there is a human being with feelings, ideas, and desires that may differ from yours, so it’s important to weigh your words carefully before sending them out to the world. Once you hit Send, it’s eternal.

In the world of social media, it’s better to be smart than quick.

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The annuls of human history is rife with stories of people competing for different titles and accolades. Olympic athletes train to win a gold medal. Scientifically minded students strive to win a blue ribbon at a science fair. Farm kids work year-round to have their livestock named best in show.

And in Leftist circles, they compete to see how “woke” they are.

Although no one has figured out a way to measure how woke someone is (or how to commercialize it or turn it into an annual award ceremony for that matter), it’s fun watching people who make Edgar Winter look like George Hamilton using the term.

Plus, it’s going to be fun exploring it further here!

woke

What the Left thinks it means – being aware of world events, especially concerning people of color

What it really means – a dick measuring contest for people wearing pussy hats

Urban Dictionary has a number of definitions for “woke” (some of which are entertaining in and of themselves), but from watching Leftists use the term, I’ve come to two conclusions. One, they will do anything to sound hip, even when it’s borderline racist. And two, it’s a buzzword that should have had the lifespan of a Tamagotchi. (Both the fad and the virtual monsters themselves.)

When I was growing up, there was another term that woke has replaced: “down with the struggle.” And oddly enough, it was the same group of people who used that term who are using woke today: white Leftists. And usually it was done to try to fit in with blacks who were protesting against racial mistreatment. The only way it would have been worse would have been if the white Leftists started dressing like Black Panthers, not from the news, but from TV shows and movies. Nothing says “I oppose your oppression” like looking like you just stepped out of a paramilitary J. Crew catalog.

By adopting the hip language, the Left is attempting to co-opt the concept behind it for political purposes. As I’ve noted previously, when you control the language, you control the narrative. By using “woke” to appear to be on the right side of an issue, the Left tries to give people the impression they understand and empathize with those who feel they’re oppressed. That way, they can insert the impression the Left can address that oppression and alleviate it.

Of course, that impression is falser than Stormy Daniels’…lawyer. (Get your minds out of the gutter!)

It’s one thing to be aware of a person’s problem and feel for him or her. It’s another thing to do something about it. And that’s where the Left always fails. Once they express how much they care about an issue, to them, it’s enough. It’s up to others to do the heavy lifting because doing something about the problem is so hard, guys! And if you wouldn’t mind, could you pick up the tab because they totally left their wallets at home?

And where does that leave the people with the problem? Waiting for help.

Instead of trying to figure out how woke you are, it would be a better idea to figure out what to do. The Left has an answer (vote for their candidates and advance their agenda), but in looking at their track record, it isn’t working, much like the Leftists trying to be woke. Has being woke helped get clean water to Flint, Michigan? Nope. And it never will. Problems need solutions, not catchphrases.

So, what’s the point to being woke?

From where I sit, there isn’t one. It’s just a way to create an arbitrary measurement of how much someone cares about an issue without investing any time, money, or sweat to resolving it. In other words, it’s the “Seinfeld” approach to resolving issues.

I know that doesn’t make me woke, but having seen some of the people who profess to be woke, I’m happy being asleep.