Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

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

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

her truth

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

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

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

Yeah, still too high a price for that power.

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

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

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

And that’s what the Left is counting on.

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

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

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

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

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

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

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

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

rape apologist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

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

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

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

bravery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

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

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

Let’s find out!

fair

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

With Hurricane Florence on the minds of people on the southern Atlantic coast, many eyes are focusing on the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA. To say the men and women who staff FEMA are under a lot of pressure is like saying Nikki Minaj is a talentless hack: it’s accurate, albeit understated. And when you have so many people directly and indirectly affected by what you do, you are expected to perform well under that pressure. Even one screw up can mean you turn into a pariah.

I’m looking at you, Michael “Brownie” Brown. These days he’s managing a Fryalator at the Regional Shanty of Flapjacks (their motto: Try our Possum and Pancake Combo Because ‘Murca.)

Leftists seem to have a love/hate relationship with FEMA. On the one hand, they have an incredible amount of power as a result of tragedy and have people relying on them for help. On the other, occasionally FEMA is run by a Republican, which makes their statist wet dreams a bit less enjoyable, but gives the Left an excuse to exploit tragedy to further their own political ends. So, any day ending in “day.”

Let’s take a closer look at FEMA, shall we?

FEMA

What the Left thinks it means – a competent federal agency that works well when a Leftist is running it, but is a failure when a conservative or Republican runs it

What it really means – a government agency that both fulfills a need and infuriates small government types

And, yes, I am one of those small government types. Having said that, there are some problems that can only be handled at the federal level because of the sheer logistics necessary to resolve them. Imagine renovating a large house. Even if you are a Ron Swanson-level handyman, there are going to be some jobs you are going to need to hire out to do. You know, like if your house is lacking a floor…on every floor.

This is what FEMA does, in essence. They are the people who get hired to handle the big jobs we can’t do ourselves. And just like with every job, there are people who will go the extra mile, and there are people whose greatest effort of the day is walking over to the coffee pot. Think Congress with tool belts.

We saw the impact of this recently in Puerto Rico. Although President Donald Trump called FEMA’s reaction to Hurricane Maria “an incredible unsung success,” the visuals make it hard to take the President’s word for it. Many parts of Puerto Rico are still without power, people are sick and dying, and food and water isn’t getting to the people who need it. Even though Trump has a point about the successes of the response getting overlooked in light of the devastation, we can see where there are areas of improvement.

Therein lies one of my problems with FEMA: we keep seeing these areas of improvement without seeing anyone addressing them. Whether it was the FEMA trailers going unused and the misuse of federal funds to subsidize porn (you read that right, kids) after Hurricane Katrina to case after case of bottled water and food going unused because they weren’t distributed, you would think FEMA would be better at the logistics than they appear. Granted, whenever you deal with people, there are inefficiencies built in, but when your job is literally to help get areas affected by natural disasters up and running, the expectation is that you should be good at it.

This issue isn’t made any easier by adding politics into the mix, as the Left is wont to do with, oh, everything. It always amazes me how inept FEMA is when there is a Republican President and how exceptional that same agency is when there is a Democrat President, at least according to the Left, even though we keep seeing the same problems regardless of the party of the President. Pointing fingers may help the party, but it doesn’t matter to someone whose house was destroyed by a hurricane.

What we need is accountability at FEMA. Considering we are still cleaning up after Katrina in spite of the fact it occurred over a decade ago tells me there is room to improve, but that won’t happen in the current environment. America deserves a FEMA that not only delivers on the expectation of addressing issues after a disaster, but does so with an attention to the money being spent and how it’s being spent. And there has to be follow-through. When Puerto Ricans are dying because they don’t have access to bottled water, it shouldn’t take a year to find out about it and address it.

Maybe it’s time for a FEMA for FEMA. Instead of assuming the next disaster will be the one FEMA gets right, let’s prepare for success before it happens. Weather is unpredictable, but the response shouldn’t be. Figure out how non-government entities address disaster responses and replicate that at the federal level. Maybe take a cue or fifty from insurance companies who do at a smaller level what FEMA does on the federal level.

But perhaps the best thing we can do to help FEMA is to be thankful they’re there. Flaws and all, FEMA does a lot right and it shouldn’t be overlooked in the name of political points or personal drama. Let’s make it easier for FEMA to do their jobs without the hoops and bureaucracy that make the simplest tasks an exercise in futility, red tape, and forms in triplicate. The easier we make it for FEMA, the better the responses will become.

And if you’re in Florence’s path, stay safe.

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

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

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

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

white supremacists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

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

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

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

#VoteThemOut

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

What it really means – a hashtag that will accomplish nothing

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

Blather. Rinse. Repeat.

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

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

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

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

And, yes, I’m being sarcastic here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

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

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

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

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

woke

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what’s the point to being woke?

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

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

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

This past Thursday, 350 newspapers joined in an editorial writing campaign lamenting President Donald Trump’s attacks on the press. And because it’s a social media age, it came with a hashtag, #FreePress. These editorials and the hashtag are designed to make people aware of the vital role a free press is to maintaining a healthy democracy.

Or at least that’s what they say.

Freedom of the press is a hot-button issue, partially because of President Trump’s seemingly endless attacks on the press, and partially because the press has earned quite a bit of scorn in recent years. (I’m looking right at you, Jim Acosta and April Ryan.) Whether you consider reporters to be brave warriors against an oppressive government (which begs the question of why they’re allowed to report if the government is so oppressive) or stenographers for the Left, it’s a good time to discuss freedom of the press again.

freedom of the press

What the Left thinks it means – the freedom for the press to publish what it wants without government interference

What it really means – the freedom for the press to publish facts and let the people decide without government interference

The Left loves to conflate what they think freedom of the press is with what it really is because, to them, a free press should be unfettered by editorial, social, or political norms. And for a long time, it was. Where the two concepts part company is that the former doesn’t take said norms into consideration anymore when deciding whether to run with a story or sit on it for a while. Remember, some of the same people who decry Trump’s attacks on the press were pretty silent during the Clinton and Obama years in spite of the egregious acts those two Presidents took against the press.

Or was it that the press allowed themselves to ignore?

There’s the rub. (Settle down, Mr. Clinton.) The media have immense power to create a perception of reality simply by deciding what deserves our attention and how it’s presented. The free press are gatekeepers of information and can either promote or kill a story with a single editorial decision. Such power needs to be used judiciously and impartially as possible. Unfortunately, the free press has decided to abuse that power to cater to an ideologically-driven audience. And it worked for a long time.

Then, talk radio, Fox News, and the Internet came into being. Although they too fall into the same trap the press has, they provide an alternative view to what is being presented by other sources. You know, like the 350 newspapers parroting the same editorial about how freedom of the press is important? The Left has always seen talk radio, Fox News, and the Internet as one-offs that can be ignored/discarded/mocked, but they miss one important element: these sources are also branches of the free press tree. Just because they’re ideologically different from you doesn’t make them any less factual or balanced.

And speaking of balanced, who do you think is the most balanced news network in reporting on President Trump? That would be…Fox News, with a smaller difference between positive and negative coverage than the rest of the free press. MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, and others have made it a personal vendetta to spew as much negative news about Trump as they can. Trump could walk on water and they would say it’s because he’s afraid to swim.

The #FreePress situation is a self-inflicted wound from people who keep turning the handle of the Gatling gun pointed at their feet in the hopes a bullet will ricochet and hit their target. Their main problem unless they change their tactics is they’ll either run out of bullets or run out of feet without even getting in a shot on their target. Say what you will about freedom of the press, but what we are seeing now from the press isn’t something that necessarily should be shrouded in the concept of a right. What the free press is doing currently is a disservice to the bedrock principles that made freedom of the press worth fighting for in the first place.

When I was just starting to learn about how to be a reporter, my journalism professor drove it into my head to leave my feelings out of what I saw and report on what happened using the best judgment available. The example he used was whether a newspaper would be okay to run the picture of a dead body next to a story about a gruesome murder. Would the picture be newsworthy? Absolutely. Should it be run? That’s a tough call. The editor making that decision would have to balance the benefits of running the photo against the negative implications that would arise from running it.

Today’s loudest defenders of freedom of the press have their thumbs on the scale of that decision, and it has created an environment where there are people who actually do want to limit the freedom of the press, including our President. And last time I checked, the President has access to nukes, so it might be a good idea to slow your roll a bit.

Having said that, freedom of the press isn’t under assault as much as those proclaiming it is are trying to make it out to be. Unless, of course, you consider being held to a level of accountability to be oppressive, which news flash…IT ISN’T! Journalism isn’t an occupation for the faint of heart, and those who take up that line of work deserve a level of respect until they try to take shortcuts, either out of laziness or out of allegiance to an ideology. And if it’s not one, it’s the other.

If the #FreePress crowd is really concerned about the negative image they’ve cultivated (admitted with President Trump’s help), they need to take a step back and do an honest accounting of what they’ve done and continue to do. Take the emotions and politics out of it and deal with the facts. If you can’t do that, you are part of the problem and you need to relearn Reporting 101. If you can and you feel you did nothing wrong, see the previous point. If you can and you can’t take pride in what you’ve done and do, then fix it and encourage others to do the same. To borrow a different hashtag with a similar sentiment, #WalkAway.

And to the reporters, editors, and media types jumping on the #FreePress bandwagon under the guise of protecting freedom of press, remember one thing. Freedom is a constant fight. You don’t get it by virtue of your occupation or ideology; you earn it by working to preserve it. A hashtag and a constant stream of negativity towards a President you don’t like in defiance of the truth, or conversely a constant stream of positivity towards a President you do like in defiance of the truth, doesn’t cut it. Earn the respect you seek.

 

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.