There are times when both the Left and the Right get something so completely fucking wrong that I have to call it out. And this is one of those times.
Since the NFL season began, there has been a lot of talk about Taylor Swift, mainly because she’s currently dating potential future song inspiration Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs. This has garnered a lot of emotions on both sides of the political aisle and for a lot of different reasons.
And if there wasn’t, I wouldn’t have a topic for this week’s Lexicon.
Taylor Swift
What the Left thinks it means – a strong successful woman who scares conservative and Republican football fans
What the Right thinks it means – a nuisance who has ruined the NFL this year and may impact the 2024 election
What it really means – she’s a fucking performer
Sorry to bring the heat so early into this one, but it’s the central point that both sides continue to ignore.
A lot of the heat from the Right when it comes to Taylor Swift is based on how popular she is with both young women and wine moms. These are two demographics that the Right have pissed off in recent months with abortion “bans” (i.e. following the 10th Amendment instead of a fundamentally flawed and politically motivated Supreme Court decision) and…well, that’s pretty much it. Beyond that, there are a few traits both groups exhibit.
Namely, they’re dumbasses who are easily manipulated by Leftists.
Oh, and they hang on everything Taylor Swift does. That point isn’t lost on Leftists, mind you. In fact, they’re banking on it to get women to the polls since Puddin’ Head Joe and Kamala “I Make the President Look Articulate” Harris are about as popular as PETA at a steakhouse. For Leftists who want to keep Puddin’ Head Joe in office…oh, who am I kidding, they want to keep Donald Trump out of office more than they want Puddin’ Head Joe in office, they need to energize as many voters as possible.
Hence, their professed love of Taylor Swift and how she “scares” Republicans and conservatives. And like the Kansas City Chiefs on a short yardage scenario, they are fucking running with this narrative. Facebook, Twitter, and social media in general are filled with this idea that somehow a pretty blonde white woman frightens big bad MAGA folks.
And yet these same Leftists say MAGA is full of white supremacists…who would presumably be in favor of pretty blonde white women…
Fuck it, it doesn’t make sense.
That brings us to the other side of the equation. The Right has built up this outrage over Taylor Swift because she tends to lean to the Left. And given how Swifties follow her like hippies followed the Grateful Dead, the Right is scared of the political sway she has or may have if the Swifties all registered and voted. Plus, there are rumors Swift is going to endorse Puddin’ Head Joe at the Super Bowl, which will mean…not a lot, but it will piss off conservative and Republican football fans.
See, the problem the Right has in their hyperventilation over Taylor Swift is in whether Swifties will turn into voters. Although one Instagram post urging her followers to register to vote garnered over 35,000 new registrations, that is out of…272 million followers as of the date of that post. That’s a whopping 0.00012868% of her followers, kids! I don’t even have an Instagram, but if I did and got the one follower I would presumably have to register to vote, I would outperform Taylor Swift. Also, I bet I could beat her in a chicken wing eating contest, so there’s that.
The point is I like chicken wings, and I can do math. Republicans and conservatives worrying about Swifties rushing out to vote for Puddin’ Head Joe because she says something at the Super Bowl are overestimating the return on investment, for lack of a better term. Yes, she’s influential, but does she move the 2024 needle that much? Probably not, mainly because it would require a sustained effort on Swift’s part to turn her fans into Puddin’ Head Joe fans. And she has shit to do, like write another 14 songs about ex-boyfriends for her next album!
At the end of the day, Taylor Swift only has the power we give her. If we think she’s a potential ally, she’s an ally. If we think she’s a roadblock, she’s a roadblock. If we think she’s a turkey and Swiss on rye with a bit of spicy brown mustard…well, she wouldn’t be, but the point remains. Once we understand the give-and-take of this situation, we can decide how to react.
As for me? I just don’t fucking care.
Taylor Swift is an adult and, as such, she can date who she wants, believe what she wants, and vote for who she wants, as long as all of those actions are done within the confines of the law. If she votes 243 times for Puddin’ Head Joe, though, then she’s fair game for consequences and, quite possibly, a referral to a mental facility. Until then, we owe her the same basic respect we give to a complete stranger: not to stick our noses into his or her business.
Of course, this point will get lost on the extremes of the Taylor Swift kerfuffle because it’s more fun to be pissed off over insignificant bullshit. That’s become our national past time. Screw baseball and football! It’s outrage, baby! If outrage were an Olympic event, we would win the gold, silver, and bronze medals, although the silver and bronze medalists would ask to speak to the Olympics’ manager.
But here’s the thing. You control your outrage, and Taylor Swift doesn’t. Pick your battles better and don’t get swept up in the argle-bargle du jour. In the grand scheme of things, she doesn’t care you don’t like her, nor should you care that she doesn’t care. Fandoms come and go, and the Swifties, too, shall pass.
Just ask anyone from Dexys Midnight Runners.
Category: Guest Author
All Guests Authors use this Category in addition to others.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Unless you’ve been living under a rock (or in Amish country), you’ve heard the term “border crisis” tossed about like a frisbee at a stoner festival in Colorado on 4/20. While the Puddin’ Head Joe Administration has been busy handling the really important issues, like finding out who has been buying Bibles, the southern border has seen numerous illegal immigrants crossing practically at will. And it’s left officials in southern states looking for help.
Maybe they haven’t heard about the Bible buying epidemic.
It was only when Texas Governor Greg Abbott did something (and by something, I mean a few things) about the situation that the Left got upset. I mean, how else are they going to make illegal immigrants vote Democrat if they aren’t allowed to enter the country illegally?
Seriously, though, we need to dig deeper into the border crisis because…well, there’s a lot of shit behind it.
border crisis
What the Left thinks it means – an overblown non-issue that shows how Republicans hate immigrants
What it really means – a serious crisis caused by both major parties giving zero fucks about immigrants
The history of immigration laws in America is…well, a little on the confusing side. Put simply, a country that was founded at least in part on immigration from foreign lands decided to limit immigration in 1965 because…reasons, I guess? But that hasn’t stopped people from wanting to come to America, and it certainly hasn’t stopped people from taking shortcuts to come to the Land of the Free and the Home of Anchor Babies and Green Card Marriages.
Since illegal immigrants tend not to fill out census forms, it’s estimated that there are over 11 million of them in America right now. That’s over 10 Rhode Islands and almost 20 Wyomings. And keep in mind this is just an estimate. The actual number could be higher or lower, but the fact it’s more than the populations of all but 7 states tells me there’s an issue.
Not that the Left agrees there is an issue, mind you. The Puddin’ Head Joe Administration has gone from claiming the southern border is secure to saying it would be secure if it weren’t for those pesky Republicans and their dog to saying it hasn’t been secure for a decade. Even Mitt “I Ain’t Shit” Romney tried to blame Donald Trump for the border crisis.
Good thing Kamala Harris the border czar or we’d be fucked! Oh, wait, we are, and it’s not just because Vice President Word Salad has zero ideas of what to do.
The fact is the past 3 years of the Puddin’ Head Joe Administration’s border policy has resulted in more, not less, illegal immigration. But now that the 2024 elections are coming up and voters see the President as less effective on the border than a bubble pipe in a gang war, they’re going to get serious and…adopt some of the same policies they decried as racist and xenophobic when Trump suggested them. Brilliant!
Even if Puddin’ Head Joe goes full MAGA, it’s not going to solve the border crisis. And the same will happen if Donald Trump wins the Presidency again, and it’s for the same reason: because the majority of politicians don’t want to solve the problem. Remember, one of my immutable truths of life is government is not in the problem-solving business. For the Left, there is too much money and power to be gained by letting people enter the country like hookers and blow at Hunter Biden’s place. For the Right, there is too much money and power to be gained by stoking the fear illegal immigrants are taking American jobs and taking money out of social programs. And any attempts to change the status quo is going to piss off one side or the other.
So, why not piss them off by doing something?
The fact so many Leftists are going after Governor Abbott for securing the southern border of his state and for sending illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities is a sign they know how bad the border crisis is and are freaking out that a Republican governor had the balls to hold the Left at their word. Throw in Ron Desantis, and you have two Republicans willing to do something about the problem.
And now that several other Republican governors are backing Abbott’s play? The Left is in full-blown freak out mode, or should be if they were aware of the implications of the policies they’ve been pimping for years.
And they aren’t. They’re too busy either trying to continue to spin Puddin’ Head Joe’s border failures as not his fault or looking for an alternate candidate to support, like…oh, I don’t know…Nikki Haley? Either way, the Left can’t bullshit their way out of this. Their hands are pretty dirty, which given how they don’t like to work, is ironic, don’t ya think?
However, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the Right’s failures on the border. Yes, Donald Trump promised a border wall, but there are ways to avoid the walls altogether, such as tunnels under the wall or into states where they give illegal immigrants a pass, like California. Throw in the growing fentanyl epidemic being funneled through these and other tunnels and human trafficking being done in conjunction with illegal immigration and you have a multi-front problem that neither major party has any idea of how to address. It’s one thing to show compassion to those who are seeking asylum due to political violence or civil unrest, but it’s another thing to let every Tomas, Ricardo, and Hernando across the border under the assumption they’re asylum seekers.
But that’s the Left’s plan. By lumping those attempting to go through proper channels to come to America with those just looking to get free shit, the Left paints a picture that doesn’t match what’s going on in an attempt to get you to let your emotions override your logic. As long as the border crisis continues, the Left will use this tactic to take your mind off the ever-rising numbers coming into America through dishonest means.
But that’s why we should counter the pulling of the heartstrings with hard numbers and logic. The border crisis is no longer about alleged asylum seekers, but encompasses more criminal activities the longer we sit around with our thumbs up our asses. First off, that’s very uncomfortable and may lead to carpel tunnel syndrome. Second, and more importantly, we’re playing with human lives here. Taking a stand against the Immigrat-a-palooza going on under Puddin’ Head Joe and the ineffective “solutions” that take no real action to secure our border is the only way I know to respect our national sovereignty and protect as many people as we can on both sides of the border.
Then, maybe American can return to the Land of the Free and the Home of the 99 Cent Menu at Taco Bell.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
In case you hadn’t marked it on your calendars, the World Economic Forum (think Nerd Prom for people even less hip than the White House Correspondents’ Dinner) met and gave its opinion on the biggest threat in 2024. Was it post-COVID economic instability? Was it the impact on oil production if the Middle East continues to fight like the Hatfields and McCoys with heavy artillery? Was it the impact Bitcoin and other e-currency will have on the free market?
Nope. It was misinformation and disinformation.
Oh, they also mentioned climate change and the polarization of society in the top 3, but out of all the other subjects, some of them even related to economics, these high-fallutin’ asshats chose misinformation/disinformation to worry about?
Well, that’s by design, kids, as we’ll soon find out.
misinformation/disinformation
What the Left thinks it means – information that erodes confidence in trusted institutions and sources of information
What it really means – information the Left can’t bullshit their way out of
Politics is dishonest because, let’s face it, modern politicians are lying assholes. So much of what they do revolves around releasing certain information and hiding other information that would damage The Party. And once the lie is no longer useful or needed, it’s memory-holed as though it never happened. Remember, Mitt Romney was the second coming of Hitler back in 2012, but then became a good Republican a few years later. Now, the Left would have us believe it was because the GOP and Donald Trump supporters in particular took the party to the far right, but the real reason is far easier and more believable.
Romney wasn’t the monster the Left made him out to be in 2012.
If that isn’t misinformation or disinformation, I don’t know what is. The thing is the Left doesn’t know what these terms mean either, or if they do they absolutely suck at recognizing it. While they’re quick to point out misinformation and disinformation when it comes to the Right (which is a valid point given some of the stupid shit Trump says on the regular), they have a blind spot when it comes to someone who says equally stupid shit, like MSNBC’s Joy Ann Reid.
Now, if Reid were an outlier, the Left would have an easy defense. Of course, she’s not. MSNBC is staffed with people less trustworthy than 3 day old gas station sushi. Or 3 minute old Chipotle. But, of course, when they engage in misinformation/disinformation, it’s perfectly fine because they’re doing it for the right reasons.
Like getting underinformed people to believe their bullshit!
That’s the target of any misinformation or disinformation campaign: getting people who are just aware enough to know the key facts and figures of a situation, but not aware enough to know where they have knowledge gaps. In today’s society, that’s more common than a bad Michael Bay movie. Most of us have access to a wealth of information at our fingertips, but we still fall for obvious half-truths and impossible notions because a) we hate to admit we’re dumber than we actually are, or b) we want to believe the lie.
From there, the impact of misinformation and disinformation gets a lot bigger. Whether it’s ego or a desire to believe the implausible because it fits our personal narratives, the more we get intellectually mired into believing something that isn’t true, the harder it is to reverse our thinking. This is a little thing the kids like to call the Dunning-Kruger effect, which encapsulates both the ego and the desire I just mentioned. To put it simply, it’s literally your ego writing checks your brain can’t cash.
Even though the World Economic Forum isn’t exactly the best vehicle to deliver this lesson, the lesson is worth learning as we go into the election this year. After all, the Left is fully behind the WEF’s report, so that means it’s less credible than Eric Swalwell talking about how to avoid Chinese spies. And, it gets funnier. Frequent Leftist misinformers Brian “Potato” Stelter and Philip “I Don’t Have a Vegetable-Themed Nickname” Bump have raised the alarm about misinformation/disinformation, with the latter going so far as to say doing your own research actually helps people be uninformed.
And people wonder why my opinion of the media is lower than the tip of a male snake’s condom.
What Stelter, Bump, and the Left actually want is for you to not do your homework and just believe what you’re told. Of course, when they get shit wrong, they also want you to overlook the facts and still believe them because they have all the really truthful people on their side. Just look at all the doctors, scientists, and experts who agree! You know, like Dr. Fauci!
This, kids, is a logical fallacy called an appeal to authority. Just because an expert says something doesn’t make it factual because of his or her station. They could be just as fucking stupid as your next door neighbor who thinks Elvis is alive and living in a trailer park in Missouri. This is precisely why you need to verify the information you’re getting, especially if the information is too good to be true.
I’m looking at you, Rachel Maddow.
Although I’ve ragged on the Left primarily for misinformation and disinformation (mainly because they’re the ones claiming to be fighting against it while actively engaging in it), the Right doesn’t have clean hands. In a campaign ad prior to the Iowa Caucuses, Republican Presidential candidate Nikki Haley’s PAC ran an ad bragging how how handily she would beat Joe Biden in a head-to-head election match-up, and noted how Donald Trump couldn’t. The problem? Trump’s “loss” was within the margin of error for the poll, meaning it was still possible for him to beat Puddin’ Head Joe. But that didn’t mean she stopped running it or that Haley supporters stopped believing it. Given her third place finish in Iowa, I’d say the only thing that the ad accomplished was turning off voters like me who can do math.
Which goes back to my earlier point about modern politicians being fucking liars. And as long as they’re allowed to get away with it, they’ll keep doing it.
That’s where you all come in. Hold every source of information to the same standard: tell the truth or go the way of Hunter Biden ever getting a job as the Drug Czar. That includes me. If I ever lead you astray, call me out on it. I welcome the scrutiny and it makes me a better correspondent.
The Left, on the other hand, don’t want you asking inconvenient questions like “Are you sure you’re being honest with me?” or “Just how full of shit do you think my head is?” They need you to believe, nothing more. Yet, if you look at their track record over the past, oh, year or so, you’ll find there’s not much of a reason to trust them. So, question them. Back up your thoughts with facts from multiple sources. Look for logical fallacies. Trace back the information using the “who benefits” model. And above all else, don’t continue to believe something that’s been disproven by reputable sources. The Left and the Right need you to be unthinking drones, and being one step ahead of them freaks them the fuck out.
So, good on the World Economic Forum for raising this issue. After all, if they hadn’t, I wouldn’t have much of a Lexicon entry this week!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With Election 2024 coming up faster than a salmonella and ipecac shake, the political landscape is going to get contentious in a hurry. And nowhere is it getting more contentious than on…MSNBC.
Yes, our good friends at the cable news equivalent of Vox are already sounding the warning bells on the possibility of Donald Trump becoming President again, and their crack talking heads (or talking heads on crack, I can never tell) have figured out what the Left has to overcome: rural America. From a recent “Morning Joe” appearance by Chris Matthews:
I think voters have got to take their hand in this election and don’t wait for the government to do it. Because, you know this election is going to be close. And it’s going to be very close in places like Pennsylvania, and you’re gonna have rural people out there voting their craziness about the cult.
In case you were wondering, the “cult” Mr. Matthews was referring to was…Trump voters. Yeah, I was shocked when I found out, too. And by shocked, I mean shocked someone took Chris Matthews out of cryogenic storage to appear on MSNBC.
Regardless of whether you think Trump voters are in a cult, this little snippet exposes how the Left feels about people who don’t live on the coasts. And it means I have another topic for the Lexicon.
rural America
What the Left thinks it means – a bunch of uneducated rubes who need smart people with the right politics to run their lives
What it really means – people whose voices the Left love to silence or ridicule
For purposes of transparency, I have lived in Iowa my whole life, so I would identify as a rural American. Granted, I don’t have Puddin’ Head Joe’s phone number on speed dial or access to all the most elite dinner parties on either coast, but I do know the people who have the attitude Mr. Matthews expressed usually haven’t been to a rural area for more than the time it takes to get a Starbucks.
Which means most Leftists. But speaking out of abject ignorance is on brand, so they see nothing wrong with it.
The problem is…there’s a lot wrong with it. Painting rural America as a swath of rabid Trump supporters misses the mark. It also misses the Matthew, the Luke, and the John, it’s so off base. The thing about rural America is how diverse it is ideologically, philosophically, and yes, even racially. We’re not all white people here, and we’re definitely not all conservative Republicans.
Take Iowa, for example. As of November 2023, the Hawkeye State is pretty evenly split, with Republicans and that powerhouse of politics Unaffiliated taking the top two spots, and Democrats in a close third place. That doesn’t exactly scream “Trump Republican stronghold” to me. And it certainly doesn’t sound like a cult, unless it’s the world’s lamest cult.
Things get even more murky when you consider the Midwest as a whole. Although it’s mostly a sea of red, there are states like Illinois, Michigan, and Minnesota that buck the trend, and they are certainly rural, or would be considered rural by the MSNBC morons. Yet, in their haste to whip up hysteria about Trump 2.0, they ignore the reality on the ground in those states.
Unfortunately, there are enough people unaware of the reality ready to believe rural America is like the bumpkins on “Hee Haw” only dumber. Including a former Senator from Missouri, Claire McCaskill. On the same show Matthews made the “rural cult” comment, she agreed with him, saying:
…if you are not on Donald Trump’s bandwagon, if you’re not a member of the cult, then you just stay quiet.
And people wonder why she’s no longer a Senator. Oh, wait, it’s because she’s a moron!
Anyway, both Matthews and McCaskill mirror the Left’s attitude about rural America, which has been pretty much a constant since I’ve been an adult. (Biologically, not emotionally.) The Left believe if it doesn’t happen on either coast, it’s dumb and needs to be converted to the “correct” way of thinking. And they’ve been pretty successful, converting states like New Mexico and Colorado from red or purple states into blue ones. They accomplish it like people who get STDs get them: they fuck people. And not unlike the aforementioned STDs, once one person/state gets it, pretty soon another one gets it.
But look at the bright side, kids! Pretty soon all states will need shit maps like San Francisco! Then we’ll all be equal! Won’t that be awesome?
The thing is rural America might not be the intellectual and ideological pushovers the Left thinks it is. People from the backwoods and gravel roads have a lot more life experience than Leftists do, and that shapes who they are more than any college curricula can. They worship God, they hunt and fish, they drive beat-up pickup trucks, and they know the value of a hard day’s work. And, yes, they have different political beliefs. You’re just as likely to find a farmer who votes straight-ticket Democrat as you are a farmer who votes straight-ticket Republican.
And the best part? These two farmers can be friends and/or neighbors without it descending into “Summer of Peace” style anarchy. That shit’s on you coastal Leftist motherfuckers. We may not walk in your circles, but we may not want to in the first place. Rural America is a simpler existence, but not an empty one because we don’t have what Leftist cities have. In fact, I think we might be better off that way.
Should Donald Trump become President again, Leftists won’t change their opinions of rural America. They’ll only quadruple down, saying Trump won because rural America is stupid as they point out the number of “smart” people who voted for Puddin’ Head Joe and Kamala “Word Salad” Harris. Just remember, some of those “smart” people came from rural America and found their way into your ideological bubble in spite of it. To have know-nothings like Chris Matthews, Claire McCaskill, and the entire MSNBC network from top to bottom paint rural America as some right wing feeding ground is not only insulting to me, but should be insulting to every Leftist in rural America who is fighting to bring a little more East and West Coast into the Midwest.
So, to the Leftists who think rural America is a vast intellectual wasteland, I offer two invitations. The first is to come to one of our rural communities and spend six months to a year here. Then, you can see what goes on here and be better informed. Maybe you’ll even like it enough to stay.
Should you reject the first invitation, I formerly invite you all to shut the fuck up about rural America. Thank you. Fuck you. Bye!
Extremist Makeover – Harvard Edition
To say Harvard’s reputation as an elite academic institution has taken a hit is like saying “The View” is a TV show where ignorant harpies spew Leftist talking points and generally make asses of themselves: technically accurate, but wholly insufficient. Whether it’s the university’s tone-deaf response to anti-Israel threats and violence on campus to Claudine “Xerox” Gay’s ever-mounting plagiarism scandal or just having David “I Dohn’t Uze Spel Chek” Hogg as a graduate, Harvard is in need of some serious rehabilitation.
And I, being the solutions-oriented guy I am, am here to help.
With any type of rehabilitation, actual or metaphorical, the first step is setting challenging, yet attainable goals that keep any current shortcomings in mind. If you’re three days out of having knee replacement surgery, you’re not ready to compete in a decathlon. And to be fair and honest, Harvard isn’t ready to be respected institution of higher learning just yet. We have to start with baby steps.
And the first baby step I suggest for Harvard is to scale back its reputation as a premiere university. In fact, I think we should scale it back significantly until such time as Harvard’s reputation has gotten strong enough to reenter the pantheon of Ivy League schools.
That’s right. I’m talking Harvard becoming a community college.
But not just any community college, mind you. The only model that Harvard can possibly excel in right now is that of Greendale Community College from the TV show “Community.” For those of you unfamiliar with the show, Greendale is quite possibly one of the most poorly-run community colleges ever, with classes that even David Hogg could pass (albeit barely). Only the dregs of the dregs of academia attend Greendale.
Which means it’s perfect for Harvard.
And don’t worry. Harvard’s extension college will translate well into our Greendale-ized Harvard University. In fact, I’m thinking maybe the extension should be considered the real Harvard until such time as the Greendale-ized Harvard can be whipped into shape!
There are many other steps towards rehabilitating Harvard’s image, but this is as good a start as they deserve. Plus, you get to have an annual campus-wide paint ball game at the end of the spring semester to look forward to! Now, the Harvard Crimson won’t just be the color of the faces of those who go to school there!
Oh, and by the way…#sixseasonsandamovie
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
By the time you read this, the Left will still be coping with the resignation of former Harvard President and known copycat Claudine Gay and trying to rewrite the narrative to make her into the victim of a vast right wing conspiracy. By the way, Hillary Clinton, please call your office. That part was predictable.
What wasn’t so predictable was the Left falling all over itself to redefine plagiarism to make it more acceptable. Granted, the Left loves to redefine words with the regularity of a guy who eats a lot of fiber and prunes, so it’s not surprising they would do it here. It’s the sheer fucking stupidity behind it that has me dumbfounded, but not speechless (which is a good thing because if I couldn’t put my thoughts into words, this would be a very short blog).
plagiarism
What the Left thinks it means – a not-so-serious offense where someone wittingly or unwittingly copies the work of another
What it really means – intellectual theft
When I was growing up…errr…going from childhood into adulthood, I was taught copying someone else’s work without attribution was a grave error. I’m talking worse than wearing leisure suits unironically here, kids. I will admit to having done it back when I was young and stupid, but now that I’m old and stupid, I know the error of my ways. By copying someone else’s work and claiming it as your own, you are at best depriving the owner of the original work of recognition.
So, why in the Wide World of Fuck is the Left suddenly okay with plagiarism?
To be fair, they’re not completely okay with it. Just if the wrong people use their stuff. See how Twisted Sister lead singer Dee Snyder reacts to Donald Trump supporters using “We’re Not Gonna Take It” as a theme song. Of course, he’s okay with it being used as a theme song for anti-gun activists and Ukrainians, so…yeah.
This isn’t to say he’s not within his rights to dictate who can use his song. Even though I don’t agree with the political reasoning behind his decisions, I can’t object to what he’s doing because it’s his intellectual property, and I’m sure Leftists would agree without question.
Just not for the intellectually consistent reason.
Let’s say someone were to copy an article by Taylor Lorenz and try to pass it off as his or her own. The Left would have a shit fit. Of course, this would never happen because a) you’d have to be dumber than a bag of hammers to do it, and b) Lorenz has the intellectual vigor and rhetorical skill of moldy bread. Copying one of her pieces is grounds for being declared mentally incompetent in 16 states.
That was before Ms. Gay, of course. As of this writing, there have been 40 instances where she has plagiarized someone else’s academic work while writing hers. Most of the academics she’s plagiarized and other academics have defended her, going so far as to say they don’t feel it was plagiarism. Now, this is where shit gets weird. Instead of calling it what it is, Leftists came up with new excuses, ranging from “sloppy attribution” and “sort of more like copying other peoples writings without attribution” to suggesting it’s more commonplace and, thus, not as big of deal as it’s being made out to be. Some went so far as to say the charges were “mostly bogus.“
And if you had “anti-plagiarism is racist” on your 2024 Stupid Shit Leftists Say Bingo card, you have a winner! Because Leftists have to bring race into everything from plagiarism to getting the wrong kind of cage free organic free range cruelty free bananas from Whole Foods, it was only a matter of time before Ms. Gay’s race was brought into it. And it wasn’t just one or two outlets, either. There were a litany of “muh racism” takes from all the predictable sources. Why, it’s almost like they…plagiarized their responses!
Or they share the same brain cell. You know, whichever.
More to the point, though, should the Left’s indifference to plagiarism spread outside the halls of academia, it would have a detrimental effect to any intellectual property. Patent law, copyright law, and even laws surrounding parody would definitely take a hit. As much as I’d like to see 50 porn “parodies” of Barbieheimer (all shot, produced, and released within at a pace that would make Roger Corman look like an overmedicated sloth), I’m not sure this is the direction we should want to go.
And think of the impact to social media sharing sites like YouTube, whose copyright system is more fucked up than Keith Richards as an AA sponsor. Or Keith Richards in general. Any video posted could get taken, renamed, and rebroadcast, including any previously copyrighted material. That in and of itself would impact a certain bay of pirates sailing on the interwebs.
Now, who would be hurt most by this attitude? Maybe…oh, I don’t know…the Leftists in the performing arts community? After all, if plagiarism is fine and should be excused with the lightest of wrist slaps, there’s nothing preventing someone like me from copying a Tyler Perry movie or a Cardi B song and calling it my own.
I mean, aside from me having taste, that is.
This is a situation where the Left’s adherence to social justice comes back to biting them in the collectivist ass. They can’t hold Ms. Gay accountable for what she clearly did because it would look racist and sexist. But in doing so, they’re going to be hurting their financial bottom line sometime in the future because they are undercutting intellectual property rights, which is how many of their prominent donors make their money. Hope it’s worth it.
Meanwhile, Ms. Gay is no longer President of Harvard, but is still employed as…a political science professor. Granted, plagiarism isn’t necessarily a criminal matter, but the fact she only got a demotion speaks volumes about how Harvard and the Left have put not being called racist and sexist above not enabling plagiarizers, in direct defiance of the rules Harvard has for its students. That’s right, kids. College students are now held to a higher intellectual and ethical standards than one of its professors.
At least for now. It’s only a matter of time before Harvard will have to deal with a student who uses the precedent it set with Ms. Gay to argue (and I daresay successfully) there is a double standard between students and faculty and demand plagiarism be allowed across the board with little to no penalty to the offender. And we thought Harvard fucked up its response to anti-Israeli protests on campus!
The Left’s response to Claudine Gay’s frequent plagiarism reveals fundamental flaws that benefit no one. Unless there is protection of intellectual property, we might as well start emulating China. Oh, wait…
Either way, Ms. Gay doesn’t have much to worry about. After all, she may not be President of Harvard anymore, but she’s already built up quite a resume to run for President of the United States.
Extremist Makeover: Caucuses/Primaries Edition
As we enter 2024, this is like Christmas all over again for political geeks like me because we start having caucuses and primaries where the two major parties try to convince us they will do a better job at ignoring our interests than the other side. And for a few weeks, different states are the most important places for candidates to be. Then, before the confetti and balloons can be cleaned up, the candidates are off to a different state that will become the most important place to be.
This kind of political vagrancy isn’t without controversy, however. States like California have complained about how states like Iowa and New Hampshire get first crack at potential candidates while they have to wait for closer to the end of the selection cycle to pick who’s left. Iowa and New Hampshire, on the other hand, take pride in being the first in the nation to select candidates.
And then there is the barrage of political ads where PACs and candidates play fast and loose with the truth in an attempt to one-up the rest of the pack. Between the mailers, radio ads, TV ads, internet ads, and personal appearances, it’s getting to the point voters are tired of the process on Election Day…which is when the next campaigns seem to begin.
So, how do we fix this? Thankfully, I’m a solutions-oriented guy and I think I have some solutions.
1. Reduce the length of the caucuses/primaries to 4 weeks. With the interwebs, people are connected 25/8 (because Common Core math), so there really isn’t much of a need for candidates to travel from state to state to shake hands and kiss babies. Just don’t get the two mixed up, kids. Anyway, if we create a tighter window where candidates can meet with potential voters, there won’t be as much pre-election burnout and, at least theoretically, it will force candidates to make their best arguments first. Of course, some candidates don’t have good arguments to vote for them in the first place, so having their embarrassment limited to a month at most will help them realize their folly or retool for the next run.
2. Enforce truth in advertising laws for political ads. Every politician lies, and their campaigns only enforce the lies they want told. Compare that to, say, drug ads, where every possible side effect has to be named in case someone has an adverse reaction. Although electing a politician may not cause physical maladies, you can still have an adverse reaction. Instead of hiring a lawyer and filing suit against candidates, let’s take another tack and treat political ads the same way we treat drug ads with the same demand of honesty and transparency. That alone might prevent some political types from running in the first place, which makes the process better by subtraction! Win-win, baby!
3. Split up the caucuses/primaries so they can be done in a month. There are 56 caucuses and primaries among the states and American territories. By my math, that means we could have 14 caucuses and primaries for each of the 4 weeks. And, yes, California, it can be alphabetical, so you can be first in the nation for something other than bad ideas and worse politicians.
There are other options that are tangentially related to the process, but I think these will be a good start to making caucuses and primaries better for everyone.
Failing that, there’s always cage fighting.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
I know Christmas is over, but I wanted to take a moment to talk about holiday traditions. For some, it’s caroling and eggnog. For others, it’s decorating the tree and driving around to see all the houses lit up and decorated.
For Leftists, it’s telling conservative Christians they’re not following Jesus.
This year, though, the Left put a little twist on their annual airing of grievances not directly connected to Festivus. They outdid themselves by making so many bizarre and illogical statements about one third of the best power trio that isn’t named Rush.
So, grab yourself your cousin’s killer eggnog made with lighter fluid and prepare for a trip from the ridiculous to the sublime…ly ridiculous.
Jesus
What the Left thinks it means – a possibly fictional figure worshiped by rubes who can’t even follow his teachings
What it really means – a religious, possibly historical, figure who Leftists still can’t figure out
Leftists are of two minds (or would that be brain cells) when it comes to Jesus. Many don’t believe He existed. Others think He was a progressive. Others think He was a socialist. He was black. He was an immigrant. He was gay.
And just when you thought they couldn’t add more, the Left found a few more. This year’s additions are Jesus was Asian, a Palestinian refugee, technically Palestinian, had a “trans body,” and even had a CNN religion reporter claim He would have been buried under rubble if He were born today.
Give them a year and they might say Jesus was a gender fluid wheelchair bound crossdressing furry who believed sex with minors was okey-dokey.
And people wonder why I laugh when Leftists say they’re smarter than us?
I will admit I’m not a theologian (although I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night), but you really don’t have to be to understand who Jesus was. For those who believe, He is the son of God who died for our sins. For those who don’t (and not a flaming Leftist), He was a man whose influence is undeniable and provided a decent guide to living a good life. For those who pretend to believe, He’s a good source of cash.
I’m looking at you, Joel Olsteen.
So, how do Leftists get it so wrong when it comes to a simple Jewish carpenter? A part of it is how they view Jesus, not as a religious figure, but as a tool to bash believers. Some of this is easy to understand, as the Left’s main religion is bureaucracy. When you put your faith in the size and scope of government, you don’t want competition, especially not from the Son of God.
But the Left doesn’t need to believe in Jesus for Him to be useful for their needs. That brings us back to an old friend, Saul Alinsky and his “Rules for Radicals.” In particular, let’s look at Rule 4:
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
When Leftists bring up how they believe Jesus would have acted, they’re using Rule 4 with the expected outcome being the conservative Christian either shutting up completely or giving a defensive answer the Left can then use against him/her. (Spoiler Alert: still 2 genders.) That’s why they keep making up stories about who Jesus was: they need Him to be their religious tofu and take on the traits the Left want Him to espouse.
The problem with this tactic is two fold. First, these are interpretations by people who may or may not have studied the Bible closely enough to be knowledgeable (which, surprise surprise, goes against Uncle Saul’s second rule “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”) As such, saying Jesus was gay because he hung out with 12 disciples, for example (all the while ignoring the women who also followed Him), shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the source material. Therefore, why give credence to a group keeps getting facts wrong in an attempt to shame you into becoming a Leftist?
This second one relies more on logic, namely we can read what Jesus said. Granted, there are language translation and theological/political issues that make a straight one-to-one interpretation harder than figuring out why people care Taylor Swift is dating Travis Kelce. Having said that, you can compare translations and get the gist of what He was saying. Even if you aren’t a Christian and/or conservative, you can still read the Bible and compare it to what the Leftists are saying to figure out they’re full of…well, since this Lexicon entry is about Jesus, I’d better not swear.
The way the Left keeps reinventing Jesus reminds me of the Buddy Christ from Kevin Smith’s “Dogma.” In the film, the Catholic Church “retires” the Christ figure they used for centuries and replaced Him with a friendlier version. This winds up backfiring, causing two fallen angels to bring back God’s vengeance on humanity. I won’t spoil the movie in case you want to see it, but I encourage you to watch it with a careful eye and ear because Smith brings up some valid criticisms of how modern Christianity is practiced.
Still looking at you, Olsteen!
In the interest of fairness, I admit the Right uses Jesus in a similar way, suggesting he’s fair skinned and closer to Edgar Winter in hue than Bishop Desmond Tutu. Where the Left and Right diverge is in sheer volume of attempts to use Him as a political cudgel. Where some members of the Right will smack you with the Son of God once in a while, the Left uses Him as a cat-o-nine-tails. And if you remember the Crucifixion, you know why that analogy is fitting and quite possibly will get me a one way ticket to Hell.
Speaking for myself, I’ve always seen Jesus as apolitical. He wasn’t concerned with who won elections or how the government should use the power the people gave it. His eyes were always on something more substantial: being a sacrifice for all of our sins. Any politician who tries to tell you he or she can make you a better deal is a liar, but I repeat myself
The greatest irony in all of this is the Left wants Christian conservatives to live up to rules they either don’t believe in or have no concept of how to follow. And that’s the one lesson they always get wrong: we can never be like Christ completely because we are flawed. We mess up all the time, unlike Jesus who was perfect from conception. The best we can hope for is not to mess things up too badly, and even then we are forgiven. It’s the simplest of truths to believers, and the simplest of things to disregard if you’re not down with the divine elements of that concept. Just don’t use Jesus as a theological Louisville Slugger, okay?
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
If you heard a loud squee recently, it came from the collective orgasm the Left had after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled former President Donald Trump could be removed from the 2024 ballot. The reason cited (and gobbled up by every Leftist like a crack whore looking for a fix) was the “insurrection clause” of the 14th Amendment due to what the court found was Trump supporting an insurrection on January 6, 2021.
Even though there’s a lot of debate over whether January 6th constituted an insurrection (short version: it wasn’t), there was no surprise the Left would try this tactic, and it would be a matter of time and/or court shopping to find a bunch of black robed dupes willing to do what Hillary Clinton couldn’t: visit Wisconsin more than once. Oh, and beat Donald Trump.
This gives us a chance to take a closer look at the “insurrection clause” to see what all the hubbub is.
“insurrection clause”
What the Left thinks it means – a provision in the 14th Amendment that disqualifies Donald Trump from running in 2024
What it really means – more proof the Left can’t read the Constitution very well
The 14th Amendment covers a lot of ground, but the part the Left has focused on is Section 3:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
And when you consider the Left believes Trump supported the January 6th “insurrection”, it’s not hard to come to the conclusion they did. Too bad that conclusion makes zero sense when the facts are examined.
I’ve discussed the “insurrection” previously, but the TL;DR (Too Long; Didn’t Reblog) version is January 6th wasn’t an insurrection because it doesn’t fit the legal definition of one. Furthermore, there’s an extreme leap of logic that has to be made to make the argument, namely the “insurrectionists” who were there to support Donald Trump would have needed to be in favor of overthrowing him for it to be an actual insurrection. After all, Trump was still President that day.
But leaps of logic alone aren’t enough to totally mock the Left’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Nah, we also need to mock their inability to read the damn thing from top to bottom. For this, we need to look alllllllll the way down to Article 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The case that originated this clusterfuck of a legal decision is Anderson v. Griswold, which brought up the question of whether Trump could be disqualified from the ballot under Colorado law. Although each state has the power to determine its own election laws, the application of law in this case runs afoul of the very Amendment being used to deny Trump his name on the ballot.
Remember that pesky thing called due process, kids? Yeah, it wasn’t used here. Trump wasn’t a direct party to the lawsuit, but his right to due process was violated in that he was essentially convicted of insurrection without every being charged or convicted of it. The special counsel’s indictment doesn’t even charge him with it! Also, he has yet to be formally charged with it!
So, what did the court do? Determined he was guilty because…fuck if I know.
The reason they gave was a “preponderance of the evidence,” would could mean anything from a hand-written letter on White House stationary signed by Trump saying “I’m going to incite an insurrection today, and it will be the best insurrection ever,” to the court not wanting mean tweets anymore. As of yet, I don’t think we’ve seen the evidence the court referred to, and I’m tempted to say we’re not gonna because that might expose the entire ruling for the farce it most certainly is.
Back to the point about due process. Insurrection is a federal crime, which means only the government can bring the charges. Since that hasn’t happened, the Colorado Supreme Court wouldn’t have the standing to bring the charges, and without there being an actual charge or conviction, there can be no application of the 14th Amendment. And without there being an actual trial (sorry, Ted Lieu), Trump was denied due process. Not even a fucking stupid statement from Colorado’s Secretary of State declaring Trump guilty of inciting an insurrection will overcome that.
How fucked up is this situation? A former Trump lawyer not known for sucking up to him after being let go says the US Supreme Court could rule 9-0 to overturn the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling. And this is a guy who has said Trump was “toast” in his criminal indictments.
If this wasn’t bad enough, there’s even some debate over whether the “insurrection clause” would even apply to the Presidency. Given how loosely the law has been interpreted to disqualify Trump, I’m sure the Left would be willing to stretch the logic so much Reed Richards would need a chiropractor. In my non-legalese reading of it, I can see where it could be, but it’s not nearly as much of a slam-dunk as the Left thinks it is. There’s just enough wiggle room for Trump to argue it doesn’t apply (even though the arguments I’ve put forward above about the lack of due process would be stronger, but I’m not advising him).
Then, there’s Section 5:
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
What the Colorado Supreme Court did completely ignores this part of the Amendment used to remove Trump in the first place. Congress didn’t disqualify Trump via legislation (and, to the Leftists reading this, this is not an endorsement of such action being taken). It was done by a majority of judges who are clearly incapable of ruling within the confines of the law. Leftists may be okay with it, but wait until it gets turned around on them.
If this decision is upheld by the USSC, it sets precedent, which can be used to disqualify politicians from both sides based solely on a politically-convenient interpretation of “insurrection” and a process where a favorable court decision is more certain than if you asked Hunter Biden if he wants crack for Christmas. Let’s take our good friends from the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest from that bastion of progressive living, Seattle. What the group did and advocated could be considered an insurrection (personally, I don’t, but for the purposes of this sketch let’s say I do). Using the Left’s argument here, no one who participated in CHOP would be eligible to run for public office.
And neither would any of the politicians who supported CHOP.
Then, all it would take would be a Republican with more balls than sense to find a court in Texas that would rule so and before you can say jurisprudence, a good chunk of Democrats would be out of a job. And it would be thanks to the Left’s “Orange Man Bad” rhetoric.
Okay, I’ll admit this sounds too good to be true because, well, Leftists have more double standards than they have genders (this just in…still 2), but it would be detrimental to the country as a whole. It would be weaponizing the legal system to get what an ideologically-driven segment wants. Or, as the Left calls it, Tuesday.
Regardless, the “insurrection clause” being used in Anderson v. Griswold shows a level of desperation on the Left because they know Puddin’ Head Joe is slightly more popular than an anal cavity search done by Willie “Giant Hands” McStuffins, and his accomplishments on issues that really matter to the people are sparse at best. He can’t run on the economy (but he can run from it), foreign policy, or any of the kitchen table issues that Joe Six Pack and his family worry about on the daily. But at least he can run on being the first Administration to hire incompetent and dishonest trans people, amirite????
To try to curtail a possible Trump 2024 victory, the Left counted on the courts to eliminate him from the running before the caucuses and primaries could begin. If the High Court (as opposed to the court in Colorado who appeared to be high when they rendered this dumbfuck decision) rules according to the law, there should be no doubt it will get overturned. If they rule according to political ideology, it will get overturned most likely, but it will have the stink of partisanship all over it and the Left will redouble their efforts to expand the court.
And, yes, my irony meter overloaded after typing that.
In the end, it should be noted there’s a reason the “insurrection clause” is rarely used and/or prosecuted: because there’s a fine line between legitimate protest and insurrection. Redressing grievances with the government is protected by the First Amendment. Acting out in a way that threatens the very fabric of our government isn’t. To conflate the two for the purposes of electoral victory is dishonest, detrimental, and a dick move.
If you read this before Christmas, I wish you the happiest of holiday seasons.
And if you read this after Christmas, I wish you the happiest of post-holiday sales.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
It wasn’t that long ago that Harvard was seen as one of the upper echelons of intellectual pursuit. Only the smartest, most well-off students could even breathe the air on campus, and only the best of the best of the best could graduate. Then something happened.
Harvard got stupid.
Nothing drove this point home more than a recent Congressional hearing involving Harvard President Claudine Gay and her inability to articulate the simple concept that wishing death on anybody is bad. Oh, but it gets a lot worse, as we’ll explore later, but it’s worth reviewing the fall from grace and bringing a whole new meaning to the Harvard Crimson.
Harvard
What the Left thinks it means – an excellent university where free speech and activism are embraced
What it really means – a diploma mill for well-heeled Leftists
Although Harvard is in the spotlight for being absolute dipshits, it’s not lost on me the fact higher education in general has gone to hell, and I may not mean figuratively here. Not only has the Left set up camp on campuses (or would that be campusi?), but their influence on academia has created a self-perpetuating hug box/bubble where only the “right” opinions can be heard.
Since the start of the Israel/Gaza conflict, campuses/campusi like Harvard saw tensions rise, as well as the number of anti-Jewish incidents. On the one hand, you have Jewish students and their supporters, and on the other, Leftist freaks who see Israel as the aggressor and as an apartheid state. On a side note, “The Apartheid State: not a good state slogan.
Anyway, this created a razor thin line for school administrators to tread. If they showed even the slightest bit of support for Israel, the Leftists would cause as much chaos as possible at the bare minimum, and given the fiery but mostly peaceful Summer of Love 2020 edition that chaos could be (and probably would be) destructive. If they sided with Gaza, they would run the risk of losing donations from Jewish supporters.
Which means the administration did the stupidest fucking thing they could and caved to the Leftist mob.
If that wasn’t bad enough, President Gay’s response to questions about whether wishing death to Jews was against their policies caused Harvard to lose $1 billion and inspired calls for Gay to resign. More on this debacle later.
I’m not a Harvard graduate, but I think I could have crafted a better response than Gay gave. Let’s see…
Harvard University respects both the importance of free speech and the delicacy of the current situation in Gaza. As President, I cannot in good conscience allow calls for violence against any group on campus, as it is inconsistent with not only the spirit of the freedom of speech, but also the culture of intellectual vigor I strive to foster at Harvard. What happened on my campus is abhorrent and I denounce it fully.
Seriously, was that so fucking hard????
Granted, this would have pissed off campus Leftists, but it would have struck the right tone and avoided a lot of backtracking and “clarifications” from Gay. Besides, if you wanted to disperse a crowd of Leftist protesters, you could always carpet bomb the protest with job applications. Or carpets, if you’re so inclined.
After that shitshow of a Congressional hearing, Gay faced new scrutiny, namely that of her academic accomplishments. Seems she may have plagiarized parts of her 1997 dissertation and other papers she copied…I mean wrote. Of course, Harvard downplayed the severity of the matter, calling it “a few instances of inadequate citation…” which is fancy talk for “yeah, she fucked up, but we can’t really punish her for what she did because it would make Leftists fuck up the campus.” Even some of the people she copied tried to downplay it while acknowledging it was plagiarism.
Even so, the Left went into damage control mode by supporting Gay in her time of self-imposed need, but claiming…get this…rules against plagiarism are racist. And I’m sure it has nothing to do with the fact Gay is a black woman and, thus, would be covered by the Left’s new rules on plagiarism. It’s just a coincidence…
On the plus side, Gay is qualified to go from substandard President of Harvard to substandard President of the United States, thanks to the Puddin’ Head Joe standard.
So far, Gay still has her job, which speaks volumes to how far Harvard has fallen as an institution of higher learning. At this rate, they might be at best an institution of middling learning, but that reputation is going down faster than a hooker going for a world blow job record working straight commission. Is a diversity hire worth this much trouble? Not only is Gay inept, inconsistent, and a plagiarizer, but her continued presence as anything other than a former Harvard President negatively affects the Harvard brand.
Consider if you will the fact Harvard has a website that not only defines plagiarism and outlines a clear policy, but openly discusses why plagiarism is a bad thing. The fact the President of this university is allowed to violate these standards and gets Leftist support for it would be humorous if it weren’t so disgusting. Throw in Harvard’s tone-deaf response to the anti-Jewish sentiment on campus and we’re looking at the point of no return to turn things around. Harvard, if it weren’t already FUBAR, would be sending Change of Address cards announcing their new address in downtown FUBAR.
Although the financial hit Harvard has taken so far is a start, it’s going to take a lot more to remove the stench from the burning dungheap Claudine Gay and the Left created. To start the healing process, Gay should be fired and replaced with someone who would run the campus competently and apply the rules consistently across the board. I would volunteer for the job, but I don’t want it. Although it would be fun to make Leftist heads explode when I apply the rules to them, I have more important shit to do.
You know, like making a bag of microwave popcorn without it burning.