The Definition of Insanity

Stop me if you’ve heard this one…

A President (let’s call him…Zimmy Barter) decides to expand home ownership to more Americans. Another President (let’s call him…Dill Plimpton) decided Barter’s idea was so good that it needed to be expanded to the point where mortgage banks would have to approve more loans to people who may not have the ability to pay or else the government would have to get involved. Then, just for the sake of argument, let’s say there was a monumental global economic collapse due in part to the Barter/Plimpton mentality. It would be utter insanity to repeat the steps that lead to the collapse, right?

Wellll…not according to the Obama Administration. Recently, President Obama proposed banks lend money to people with bad credit so they could buy houses. But don’t worry. The government will provide additional insurance to protect lenders in the case of default because we’re totally flush with money and completely recovered from the financial meltdown of 2007.

Yeah, and if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

As someone with 15 years of experience in the mortgage industry, I can tell you returning to the lending standards from before the mortgage crisis is a worse idea than getting driving lessons from Caitlyn Jenner. Lending money to people with bad credit comes with an amazing amount of risk. That’s why the interest rates on “payday loans” are higher than Snoop Dogg in Colorado on 4/20. Even with government insurance, it’s too great of a risk. Let me put it this way. We have a federal government who can’t seem to live within its means backing up people who have a similar problem on a smaller level.

Yeah, doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence, does it?

While President Obama’s intentions may be noble, the reality of the situation is not everybody is capable of owning a home. It takes a lot of work, commitment, and yes, money to ensure the house you get from the bank doesn’t wind up getting lost in a foreclosure sale. If Obama gets his wish, I guarantee we will see more and more people lose their homes on the promise of a President whose current political capital makes a crack house in Detroit look good.

It’s said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result every time. For Democrats, it seems to be standard operating procedure.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Did you hear about the white student at San Francisco State University who was verbally and physically assaulted by a black student? If you didn’t, well, now you have.

Now, what could have caused the black student to attack the white student? Did the white student say something racially insensitive? Was the white student protesting against Black Lives Matter? Was the white student nonchalant about Colin Kapernick getting traded? Nope! It was because that evil racist scum of the earth white guy dared, I repeat dared…to wear dreadlocks.

For most people, a white man in dreadlocks is no big deal, but to the black student it was cultural appropriation. Which brings us to the Leftist Lexicon Word(s) of the Week…

cultural appropriation

What the Left says it means: taking concepts and artifacts from other cultures without permission

What it really means: promoting diversity though segregation

America used to be a melting pot where people from around the world could come and celebrate their cultures and appreciate our freedom simultaneously. Today…well, the only thing melting is the collective brain power of America as we try to make our way through the minefield of modern political correctness while wearing clown shoes. Step the wrong way and you don’t get blown up, although your Twitter feed might with people telling you how horrible you are. (This is one reason I don’t use Twitter. If I wanted people telling me how horrible I am, I’d go back to college and tell the students to stop being wussies.)

Granted, there is some legitimate grounds for people to get upset about cultural appropriation. White frat boys having a Cinco de Mayo party complete with caricatures of Mexican men with sombreros taking a nap is a jerk move, to put it mildly. But celebrating Cinco de Mayo in and of itself would not be a legitimate form of cultural appropriation because a) it’s not trying to take anything from the Mexican/Hispanic culture as much as it is trying to get really drunk, and b) Cinco de Mayo isn’t even celebrated in Mexico.

Now, here’s the fun part. The people who are the most upset about cultural appropriation are just as “guilty” as the ones they accuse. Wearing Nikes? Appropriation of Greek culture. Need a Starbucks to get your day started? Another appropriation of Greek culture, and an expensive one at that! Driving a Prius? It’s a Honda, so it’s appropriation of Japanese culture! Even going to college is a cultural appropriation, and no matter how many gay albino midget amputee art cultural studies classes you take will square that circle. If anything, it might make it worse and it will guarantee you will be working at a Starbucks right out of college.

As with most things in the world, we should use our heads and hearts when it comes to celebrating the diversity we have in America. If it doesn’t feel right or if you have to make a ton of excuses and/or justifications to try to get out of trouble, it probably isn’t a good idea. It’s completely possible to be respectful and have a good time. Just put yourselves in the shoes of your guests. Not literally, of course…unless they have some really cool shoes in your size and it’s your house, then go nuts.

Anything we say or do has the potential to offend, but we should all try to be adults instead of the self-absorbed preschoolers in grown up bodies that get offended by a hairstyle someone else is wearing. For all we know, the person wearing dreadlocks might not be trying to appropriate someone’s culture, but rather appropriate some pot or munchies because he smoked pot. Don’t judge a book by its cover.

Unless, of course, it’s anything by Stephenie Meyer.

No Deal or No Deal

Remember the Iran Deal, that great initiative from the State Department designed to get Iran to curb its nuclear ambitions? Well, it turns out Iran may not be following the spirit of the deal, in spite of following the letter of the deal.

Now, who could have seen that coming? I mean, aside from anyone not in the Obama Administration.

Not that I’m questioning the brilliance of the same Administration who came up with the brilliant concept of “hashtag diplomacy” and gave Samantha Power, Marie Harf, and John Kerry jobs. Far from it! I’m questioning the sanity of said individuals because no matter how you slice it, the Iran Deal makes the Minnesota Vikings giving up draft picks to get Hershel Walker seem brilliant. Come to think of it, that may be one of the conditions of the Iran Deal.

In the art of the deal, it takes two parties willing to negotiate in good faith for anything to happen. (Say…The Art of the Deal would be a great title for a book! Now, who would we get to write it?) If there are any misgivings or dishonesty, the deal will go south fast.

At the risk of metaphysical levels of understatement, Iran is not going to deal with us honestly, no matter what John Kerry says. How do I know this? Do I have a secret Bat Phone that connects me to Iran? Do I have more eyes and ears on the ground than a crash between trucks hauling potatoes and corn? Nope.

I understand Iran wants to kill us.

And I’m not sure John Kerry got the memo on that. It’s not like Iran is hiding its disdain for us, either. Their political and religious leaders out and out say it. Maybe we should chip in to get Rosetta Stone for the State Department so they can get up to speed quickly, or as quickly as the sloth-like government gets.

In the meantime, we’re having to deal with the consequences. Honestly, I believe Iran already has nuclear weapons (thanks in part to other countries who want us to go the way of “Hot Tub Time Machine 3”), and have a vested interest in playing a game with us. Think it won’t happen? Google “Hans Blix” and “Iraq WMDs” and get back to me.

Hopefully, the next President will be smart enough to tell Iran to take their deal and shove it. Until then, we should be prepared to watch Iran take more liberties, and watch President Obama and his State Department look like Joe Biden at a MENSA meeting.

Or on any given day.

Where Do We Go From Here?

To say the 2016 election has been contentious wouldn’t be an understatement; it would be the Mother of All Understatements. Republicans going against Republicans, Democrats going after Democrats, Independents going out for pizza. This whole political season is insane!

But once both major parties decide on their candidates, everyone will be holding hands and singing campfire songs, right? Oooooooh, sor-ray. That’s going to be easier said than done for both the Elephant and the Donkey because they’ve decided the primary process is more of a bloodsport than a debate of ideas. And this is just the prelims, kids. Once Democrats and Republicans choose their respective candidates, it’s going to make the Hatfields and McCoys look like the Bradys and the Cleavers.

As someone on the outside looking in, I don’t see how the two major parties can reconcile completely. Both are struggling with a simple binary issue: winning vs. staying true to their core ideologies. The leadership (if you can call it that) from both sides is trying to make people believe it’s either-or when it’s not. You can win and stay true to the party’s core, but you need to have a candidate that is willing to do both instead of siding for one at the expense of the other.

We’ve been told it’s better to have someone who agrees with us 75% of the time win than to have someone who agrees with us 0% of the time win. In theory, it’s not a bad argument. In practice, however, sometimes the 75% with us candidates prove to be with us far less frequently. Remember when Republicans jumped for joy at John Boehner becoming Speaker of the House, wresting the gavel from Nancy “Botox Is Bad, Mkay?” Pelosi? Yeah, how’d that turn out again…oh yeah, Boehner rolled over like a submissive dog in a centrifuge. In fact, even the most seemingly conservative politicians occasionally get a case of Washingtonitis, a malady that makes principled people turn into jellyfish, but with less backbone.

Fortunately for the Republicans, Democrats have their own Washingtonitis epidemic to worry about. The very fact Bernie Sanders can garner more than 3 votes total shows me the Left is fragmenting even worse than projected. Say what you will about Sanders, but one thing you cannot say about him is he’s afraid to speak his mind. (Granted, his mind is filled with ideas that have gone the way of David Duke’s potential rap career, but at least he’s sticking up for them!) Yet, thanks to the power of the Super Delegates, Hillary Clinton is beating Sanders in the delegate count. Put simply, a Super Delegate is someone the Democrats pick to have additional voting power over the average person. And when you consider an absolute slug like Alan Grayson is a Super Delegate, you know it’s a stupid system.

At this rate, we may be seeing the end of the two-party stranglehold on the Presidency and moving towards a political system that is more confusing and segmented than the gender pronouns on Tumblr. If that happens, you will find me on a beach somewhere reenacting the final scenes from the original “Planet of the Apes” when Charlton Heston finds out he landed back on Earth.

And while we’re here, if there are any damn dirty apes reading this, keep your stinking paws off of me!

Who Watches the iWatch-men?

It was a battle of two heavyweights. In the blue corner, the United States government. In the, well, equally blue corner, Apple. And the tech world couldn’t microwave popcorn fast enough to keep up with the exciting twists and turns.

For those of you who haven’t heard, the FBI wanted Apple to break into an iPhone previously owned by one of the San Bernardino shooters, stating they wanted the information from the phone in case there was news about impending terrorist attacks. Geez, everyone knows that sort of thing gets sent into the Cloud these days…

Anyway, Apple refused, citing their belief the government would use whatever they created to hack into one iPhone as a “skeleton key” for other iPhones. As a result, the government sued Apple. Then, miracle of miracles, the government figured out a way to get into the iPhone (i.e. they got a 4 year old to do it) and suddenly dropped the suit against Apple. So, win-win, right?

Not so much. On the one hand, Apple still has the proprietary technology used in iPhones, but now they know the government has figured out a way to circumvent that technology. And, surprise surprise, the government isn’t going to let Apple have information on the security flaws with the iPhone.

On the other hand, the federal government attempted to force a major company to help them with a terrorism investigation. At first, it was a request, but once the government lawyered up, it turned into an attempt at forced compliance. But as long as it was for national security, it makes it okay, right?

Wellllll…that’s where the problem lies for me. After 9/11, government found a new excuse to take more tax dollars to fund pet projects by slapping a “national security issue” sticker on proposed spending. Want your local First Responders to have a Sherman Tank for weekends? It’s national security! Want to bail out the airline industry, which was already failing before 9/11? It’s national security! Heck, I’m surprised the National Endowment for the Arts didn’t try to get more funding for itself by claiming bad art is linked to national security.

Regardless, the Apple standoff showed us there is a fine line between freedom and security. I’m not a big fan of getting attacked by terrorists, but I’m also not a big fan of government using the threat of a terrorist attack to justify further overreach into our freedoms. Especially when it’s clear the government may not have needed Apple’s cooperation in the first place. So, why did the government go through the motions of this Kabuki theater?

Control.

Once you give the government a little bit of control, they aren’t too keen on giving it back. That’s why it’s important to use some critical thinking when a situation like what happened to Apple arises. What happens from here is dependent upon the morals and ethics of the government.

In other words, we’re screwed.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Greetings one and all, and welcome to the inaugural edition of the Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week!

If you’re like me (and if you are, I’m sorry), you go big or you go home. Or you go big and go home. Or maybe you go to Big’s home…oh, you get the idea! This week’s dip into the Leftist Lexicon is one of the Big Kahunas of the Leftist world.

The f-word. (No, not that f-word, you naughty little monkeys!) This f-word:

Feminism

What the Left says it means: economic, social, and political equality between men and women (Essentially, a definition so vanilla it is poisonous to humans in its pure form.)

What it really means: a movement that believes men suck, but should still have to pay for everything

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, current feminist dogma believes all men (including the men who support current feminist dogma) are scum. In fact, SCUM (the Society for Cutting Up Men) happens to be a real group that some feminists agree with! Wow. We’ve gone from burning bras to burning men over an open spit within a few decades.

But surely not all feminists are that extreme, right? Nah. The ones who want to cut up men are few and far between. Of course, there are feminists who want to kill, enslave, or put men in camps away from women. Whew! And I was afraid we wouldn’t find any reasonable feminists!

Granted, these are extreme examples. Most current feminists, especially those who believe in what is called “Third Wave Feminism”, don’t go as far as SCUM does. They do, however, find men to be as useful as Cliff’s Notes for a drug test. Oh, sure, they’ll use men to get ahead, but they don’t actually consider them to be equals or anything! That would be sexist because it would give in to the patriarchy!

Let that sink in for a moment. Considering men to be equals is sexist because it gives men power, which according to current feminist dogma they already have all of to start with. That’s like…oh, I don’t know…saying Black Lives Matter isn’t racist, but saying All Lives Matter is. Good thing we don’t have anybody who believes that, right?

(Don’t worry. I plan to tackle patriarchy in a future edition of the Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week.)

A facet of modern feminism is a desire to control everything so the truth doesn’t get out about just how screwed up feminism has become. Not to mention, if they control everything, they get to dictate how others should live their lives. Of course, they would need to get a handle on what they actually believe outside of “We want to control everything.”

Two great examples of just how screwed up current feminist dogma is can be found in two seemingly unrelated subjects: Slut Walks and video games. The former is a movement supported by feminists to take back “slut” and make it empowering instead of insulting. The latter has many of the same feminists who support Slut Walks howling in disgust at how women are portrayed in video games. Often this disgust is boiled down to video game women being scantily-dressed or without any real defining characteristics to make them seem real.

In other words, feminists love sluts marching in public, but not scrolling across television screens in video games (which, by the way, I’m sure they don’t really play that much). And nobody within the feminist movement today sees the contradiction. But that’s what feminism has become: one mass of man-disdaining contradictions.

Kinda reminds me of a couple of old girlfriends I had…

A New Feature!

For those of you who enjoy my musings (and even for those of you who think I’m the worst hack since Lizzie Borden), I am happy to announce a new (hopefully) weekly feature.

Have you been confused by some of the new words coming from the Left? Do you wish there was a way to learn about these new words without having to delve into the world of microaggressions, white privilege, and gender fluidity? Well, now you can, thanks to your humble correspondent. Starting soon, you will see the Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week. Not only will you get the definition of the word, but you will also get what it really means as well as a brief commentary about the word.

Be watching this site, and as always, keep your feet on the ground and your head on top of your neck!

Mr. Obama Goes to Cuba

As I write this, President Obama is in Cuba as a part of his Administration’s attempts to normalize relations with the island country. And with this Administration’s track record in dealing with foreign countries with a history of hating America, what could go wrong?

Well, plenty, actually.

Let’s not kid ourselves here. Our relationship with Cuba is Ike and Tina Turner level bad, and no amount of good will on our part will change that. Why? Because Cuba hasn’t changed yet. It’s still being ruled by a Castro, Raul to be precise. And Raul is just as reluctant to give up communism as his brother Fidel was. That means there is a natural tension between the US and Cuba. After all, we took down communism in the form of the USSR in the 80s, and some things don’t just fade away. There are still plenty of leaders willing to try to fill in the gaps left by the absence of the Soviet Union, including the current dictator…I’m sorry, leader of Russia, Vladimir Putin. You know, the guy who still thinks the Soviet Union was a good idea and refuses to be swayed by pesky things like facts and history?

And that’s not counting China, North Korea, and much of the Middle East, all of whom have not just a beef with us, but an entire cattle ranch.

On the other side of the equation, we have America, a country that has fallen pretty far down the world rankings in the past couple of decades. Our leader is a man who isn’t geopolitically savvy by any stretch of the imagination making the third worst foreign policy decision in his Presidency. (The first and second being making Hillary Clinton and John Kerry Secretary of State, although they flip-flop positions like…well, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.) The Iran Deal was bad. The Cuba trip has all the makings of Bay of Pigs II: Electric Boogaloo because there really is no logic behind it, just President Obama’s decision to make it so.

To put it another way, our enemies get a foothold 90 miles off our mainland, and we get…photo ops with Obama standing in front of a giant Che Guevara mural. With Photoshop and Twitter, we could have accomplished the same thing under Obama’s “hashtag diplomacy” strategy and without having to add to Obama’s carbon footprint. Then again, maybe he’s getting some cigars out of the deal and didn’t want the hassle of trying to go through Customs with illegal contraband.

Either way, normalizing relations with Cuba just doesn’t sit well with me because we’re not getting much out of the deal. Just like our attempts to normalize relations with China under George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton by ignoring their human rights violations and giving them Most Favored Nation status, I see Obama’s efforts with Cuba winding up as a big blunder that is quickly forgotten by both sides.

The President We Deserve

If current events are any indication of future outcomes, we are looking at Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton as the Presidential nominees for the Republican and Democrat Parties respectively. People on both sides of the aisle are salivating at this possibility of these two titans locking horns in November.

On the one hand, we have a man who isn’t known for his tact being the head of the diplomatic corps of the most powerful country in the world. On the other hand, we have a woman who isn’t known for her integrity having the ability to sic the power of the federal government on anyone who dares oppose her. And when these two forces clash, we could be seeing a bloody political war that will make Thunderdome look like a church picnic.

There was a time when Trump and Clinton wouldn’t even be elected assistant to the assistant to the dog catcher, let alone to the most powerful position in the country. But here we are on the verge of electing either one of them.

Is anyone else really scared right now? As we prepare for the first post-Obama Presidency, we have to be careful not to give in to our worst instincts and elect someone unprepared for the gravity of the position. With both Trump and Clinton, I’m not sure either one is ready to be President. After nearly 8 years of an unprepared and unwilling student as President, we can’t make a mistake this time.

Trump could turn out to be a Republican Obama, and Hillary could be Obama’s third term. Neither one appeals to me all that much. But unless something major happens to one or both campaigns, we’re looking at the possibility one or the other happening.

And then we’ll get the President we deserve.

An Open Letter to President Obama

President Barack Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC

Mr. President,
Hey! How are the wife and kids? How’s the short game treating ya?

If I may be serious for a moment, I know you’re in the process of picking a replacement for late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and you’ve run into some opposition from the Senate Judiciary Committee (who is using the same argument you, Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Charles Schumer, and Senate Democrats in 1960 used, but, hey, who’s paying attention right?). You and I are not on the same page politically, but it’s time we put that aside for the betterment of the country.

That’s why I’m offering to be your nominee to replace Justice Scalia.

Now, before you start sending the authorities to my house to determine my sanity and whether I’m a threat to myself and others, let me explain. I have given this a lot of thought and I think I would be the perfect candidate for many reasons, the most compelling of which are as follows:

  1. I wouldn’t consent to a Senate confirmation hearing. The Constitution states the role of the Senate is to give “advice and consent” to any nominations the President makes. As a Constitutional scholar yourself (or as your followers…I mean supporters keep reminding us you are), you can see there is no requirement to hold any hearings on my nomination, just to give advice and consent. Instead of a stuffy Senate meeting room, we could have the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee come over to either my house or yours and just hang out with a few beers. And from what I’ve heard, you guys do make a pretty good brew in the White House!2. I wouldn’t allow my feelings to get in the way of doing my job. This country is fractured on many levels, so clear thinking from the highest court in the land is essential. Unfortunately, the High Court has allowed emotions and political leanings get in the way of making just decisions with respects to the Constitution. I may not like some of the things you’ve proposed, but I would give them a fair hearing before I rendered my decision. If your ideas are great, they should be able to stand on their own merits in the marketplace of ideas.

    3. I’m not a lawyer or a judge. Yeah, at first that sounds like a knock against me, but hear me out. I have been studying the Constitution since 1987 and feel I have a pretty good grasp and respect for it. That cannot be said of some of the people on your short list. Instead of relying on the simple language of the Constitution, too many lawyers and judges attempt to use legal reasoning so tortured it’s against the Geneva Convention just to get what they want codified into law. I don’t care about being famous; I just want to make something complex simple, and I bring that to the table.

    4. I would make both major parties mad at me at some point. Again, this seems like a negative, but it’s actually a positive. Democrats and Republicans (and their lawyer buddies) love to push for their agendas to be reflected in judicial rulings. I eschew that kind of thinking in favor of original intent. That’s bound to put people’s panties in a bunch!n I mean, how DARE a Supreme Court Justice do his or her job the way the Constitution says!

    5) I would be a LOT of fun! Ask anyone who has worked with me in a cubicle farm about how I would decorate my desk. Imagine that kind of spirit in a black robe and, BINGO!

    The ball’s in your court…er, green. I will await your call, email, Secret Service detail, cease and desist order, whichever you feel is appropriate to address my offer.