First Look – Kamala Harris

Kamala Harris had a staged Town Hall at Drake University in Des Moines Iowa last night. Since she announced her candidacy for President the other day she is at least smart enough to come to Iowa first.

But as stated in the opening line this Town Hall meeting was staged. The audience was carefully screened. The questions were prewritten and just read aloud by those participating in the charade.

So these were just your typical progressive socialist and Trump-hating questions and answers. Nothing new here at all. Nothing with real solutions to real problems. Just the talking points.

At this point she doesn’t stand a chance of getting the Democratic nomination, let alone defeating President Trump for a 2nd term in the 2020 November election.

Forget Where’s Mitch? Where Are the Senate Democrats?

Recently a friend of mine asked me where the Democrat Senators interested in running for President in 2020 were during the current government shutdown. When you think about it, that is a really good question. There are a number of prominent Democrats in the Senate right now who are looking to get promoted from Kamala Harris to Bernie Sanders, and a whole slew of others wanting to crowd into the Democrat nominee clown car. Yet, where are they when leadership is needed?

A good question deserves a good answer, and I think I have one. The Democrat Senators interested in running for President have one thing in common: they’re used to demanding what they want done instead of persuading people to follow them. This isn’t unusual, as this is the Leftists’ MO for anything they want to accomplish. By virtue of being Leftists, they think what they say goes because they’re the smartest people in the room (just ask them). The problem is their egos write checks their intellects can’t cash because more often than not their intellects aren’t up to snuff.

Not that being smart is a requirement to be in politics. If anything, it’s a resume enhancer if you’re dumber than a bag of hammers because it means you can be lead more easily. However, there is a difference between dictating and leading, one that many figures in the public and private sector fail to recognize. Power is more than a title, the size of your office, and a name placard. It can be constructive or destructive, depending on how it’s used, and right now the Left is using it destructively to further an agenda that does more harm than good to the country.

This is where a Senate Democrat looking to beat Donald Trump in 2020 can make a difference. Instead of telling people what you want and expecting them to comply, make the argument that your way is better, especially with the shutdown. Ideologically, I know you don’t want to give Trump a W, but to be a leader you have to think beyond the current day. Being instrumental in getting the government back up and running would be a boon for any Presidential candidate at this point.

Unfortunately for Democrats, none of the Senators are stepping up and leading. They’re too busy Tweeting about what should be done to actually do something.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

At the recent Netroots Nation event (basically, it’s Nerd Prom for Leftists who are actually nerds), California Senator Kamala Harris called out people critical of identity politics, saying it’s a term that “is used to divide, and it is used to distract. Its purpose is to minimize and marginalize issues that impact all of us. It is used to try to shut us up.”

For the first time in my life, I agree with Senator Harris. I’m guessing, though, not for the same reasons.

Identity politics has taken on a whole new meaning within Leftist circles, which isn’t all that surprising. The Left is comprised of a loose network of like-minded individuals working together to achieve their goals while at the same time jockeying for position like roller derby competitors so their goals are the ones that get the most attention. In other words, it’s like Jim Acosta, Jesse Jackson, and Chuck Schumer fighting over a live microphone.

And with that, we delve into this week’s Leftist Lexicon entry!

identity politics

What the Left thinks it means – issues that affect all Americans in one way or another because they affect the least powerful among us

What it really means – the politics of labels and division

To most people, I’m an average (albeit devilishly handsome) guy. To those who practice identity politics, I’m a litany of adjectives that would choke most bad writers. Since I’m heterosexual male, I’m cis-gendered who identifies as male. I’m lower middle class, so I’m a member of the working class or the underprivileged. I lean libertarian on most items, so I’m alt-right/fascist/Trumplican/white supremacist/mouth-breathing moron/the God of Hellfire and I bring you…

You get the picture. For every personal aspect, identity politics has a label for you, even if you don’t want or need it. But that’s the thing: the Left needs it to simplify its thinking. If they can figure out what you are (or what they think you are), they can identify what boxes you can check off in their Great Victimhood Lottery. Then, they can appeal to you on a personal level. You know, just like a cult leader.

And if you happen to be a contrarian like your humble reporter, those labels can be used to dismiss your opinions as wrong-think. If you support the Second Amendment, you’re a “gun nut” or an “ammosexual.” Listen to Rush Limbaugh? You’re a “right wing nut job” or a “mindless sheep.” And so on. Once Leftists identify you as a non-preferable identity based on your labels, they can and will dismiss you on any and all subjects. You could be a highly-accredited peer-reviewed published climate scientist who read a little Ayn Rand in college, but to the Left you’re scum.

Isn’t that lovely? The party of tolerance, ladies and gentlemen.

Although identity politics makes things easier to understand, it leaves out a lot of what the Left loves to call nuance. Everybody is unique, which makes it hard to put them in boxes without creating a big mess. Just because someone fits a certain arbitrary category doesn’t mean he or she is a perfect candidate for it, nor does it mean he or she will voluntarily conform to the expectations of said category. Why, it’s almost as if people are…diverse! If only there were an ideology that proclaims to be all about diversity…oh, wait, there is!

Unfortunately, the diversity the Left practices is of the superficial variety. The color of your skin, your sexual orientation, your religious background (save for Christians), and other factors are what they look for instead of ideological, intellectual, or even socio-economic factors.

And that’s where identity politics falls apart. Once you boil someone down to what he or she looks like, you miss out on the true beauty he/she brings to the table. Assuming an albino pan-sexual lesbian crossdressing midget who likes clog dancing will automatically be a Leftist removes what makes said person unique and limits what Leftists know about him or her. To use a concept Leftists love to use against others, they are removing people’s agency (and that is another blog post altogether).

Instead of looking at people as what makes them different from each other, why don’t we look at what unites us? We are all human beings with all the positives and negatives that come with being human. Anything beyond that is minutia. And this is one reason why #WalkAway has become so popular. People are tired of being stripped down to labels and being told those labels define what we must believe. The beauty of humans is that we aren’t limited by what we’re born with or as. The only limitations are the ones we impose on ourselves.

And really that’s the heart of identity politics: imposing limits on everyone in the hopes we will agree with said limits. That creates an implied need for help, and the Left is all too happy to oblige. The problem is their “help” never actually…you know…helps. It’s designed to keep people dependent upon the Left for every need, including self-esteem and personal identity. That’s slavery on a whole different level, kids.

So, Senator Harris was right. Identity politics has become a pejorative, but it’s not because of the critics. It’s because identity politics sucks.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Normally, Senate hearings tend to be more boring than Al Gore’s audiobook reading of “War and Peace.” Or Al Gore in general. But recently sparks flew during a Senate hearing with Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Senator Kamala Harris. Senator Harris asked Sessions a question and in the process of him trying to answer it, she interrupted him. Repeatedly. Ferrets on crack have more self control and restraint. Then, when the head of the committee interrupted Harris and advised her to let the Attorney General answer her questions, you would have thought it was the end of the world. A white man dared, dared, to interrupt her as she was interrupting a white man!

As you might have expected, the Left has a term for what happened to Senator Harris: manterrupting. And as you might have expected, I have a definition of the term.


What the Left thinks it means – a man interrupting a woman as a means to showcase his dominance over her

What it really means – a man interrupting a woman so he can get a word in edgewise

Okay, ladies, I’m only half-kidding with that last one, so you can cancel the protest march, or maybe just half a march. But there is a salient point to be made: interrupting someone is rude, but it’s only considered rude half of the time to the Left. When a man does it, it’s a detestable act worthy of only the harshest punishment (like being made to listen to anything by Yoko Ono). When a woman does it, it’s a sign of her reclaiming power and striking a blow against the Patriarchy.

In other words, being rude is okay if you’re a woman, but only if you’re a Leftist woman. If Sarah Palin tried to do something like that, she would be called out for being rude and/or a whiner. Since it’s Kamala Harris, she’s free to be as rude as she wants without fear of condemnation from within her ranks. (It doesn’t help that she’s President Obama’s favorite state Attorney General, either!)

Wait. Isn’t preferential treatment based on one’s gender sexist? Why, yes! Yes it is! However, as with much of what the Left believes, it’s self-contradictory. Women are seen as an oppressed minority when they outnumber men. By definition, women are the majority, not the minority, but there’s this perceived oppression they experience because of men. Thus, the Left feels justified in being sexist, all while criticizing sexism when it’s done by other people.

Which brings us right back to manterrupting. The concept in and of itself is sexist, but it’s the name that adds a little lemon juice to the open wound. Seriously, the Left’s lexicon includes a lot of anti-male ideas, such as toxic masculinity, manspreading, and mansplaining, but those are blogs for another time. The fact the Left sees masculinity as a negative trait is telling. After all, there isn’t anything like womansplaining or womanterrupting yet, and I doubt there will be. Why?

Because men are easy targets. Men are held to a completely different standard than women, which is all well and good since we’re different genders. But that standard shouldn’t be hypocritical. Amy Schumer can make all the jokes she wants about how morally loose she is, but if a man makes a joke about Schumer being morally loose, he’s the sexist pig?

One of the great double standards of the Left’s treatment of women is they claim to want equality between (or among, depending on who you ask) the sexes, but only to a certain point. When it’s advantageous for the woman to be dominant or be seen as a victim, equality of the sexes goes right out the nearest window. In doing so, the Left creates an idea where women are strong enough to take on the world, yet can be weakened by a single comment from a man.

Or in Senator Harris’ case, a comment from a man holding her to the same standards as her male colleagues.

Let’s be perfectly clear here. Interrupting anyone isn’t good form, whether you’re a Senator or some guy on the street. The gender of the person doing the interrupting doesn’t matter, nor should it. To that end, I propose we stop calling it manterrupting when a man interrupts a woman and call it what it is.

Being an asshole.

That way it applies to men and women.