Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Sometimes the only people more hated than Donald Trump are the people in his Cabinet. One such target for derision has been Betsy DeVos, Trump’s Secretary of Education, who some on the Left say bought her Cabinet post and will be disastrous for public education. Yeah, like the current system is running like a well-oiled machine.

Recently, Secretary DeVos announced she would be revisiting Title IX regulations as they pertain to rapes and sexual assaults on college campuses. Seems the current system pretty much throws due process out the nearest sorority house window and defaults to believing the victim. Now, DeVos wants to change that so the accused gets at least a chance at equal footing under the law, and you’d think you gave the Left a full-fat mocha latte made with full GMO non-organic coffee beans with steamed whole milk instead of soy milk. And you forgot the whipped topping and sprinkles!

This week’s Leftist Lexicon is going to go back to the hallowed halls of academia and look at Title IX a little more closely.

Title IX

What the Left thinks it means – federal guidelines prohibiting women from discrimination on college campuses

What it really means – a good idea used for bad purposes

Let’s be honest here. Outside of Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, and Planned Parenthood, there are only a handful of people who believe women should be mistreated in any way, shape, or form. Title IX was set up as a means to give women another level of protection from the brutish and often unsympathetic college administrations out there who didn’t have women’s interests, let alone their best interests, in mind.

Then, a little thing called mission creep happened. Basically, mission creep is when a good idea gets used to promote other ideas unrelated to the purpose of the original idea. A great example of this is Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or MADD. MADD was originally created to combat drunk driving, but since its founding, the organization has taken a zero-tolerance approach to drinking anything harder than water that hasn’t gone through a water softener. The woman who started MADD lamented this and had to quit the organization she started because it had gotten too strident for her tastes. Plus, their summer pool parties were a bit of a drag because the only way to have fun around the kind of militant anti-alcohol types is to drink to excess.

Mission creep has also made Title IX into a logistical nightmare, and you can thank the Obama Education Department for Civil Rights for helping that process along. In 2011, they sent a “Dear Colleague” letter to colleges and universities pushing them (i.e. voluntelling them) to enforce Title IX laws as they pertained to sexual assault and harassment. As you might imagine, this made an already touchy subject worse. Who could have seen that coming (I mean, aside from anyone who has spent any time waiting in a DMV line)?

With new mandates…I mean suggestions in place, colleges and universities began their own personal Star Chambers where the accused were guilty until proven guilty by a jury of their superiors with a vested interest in keeping things on the down low, and the victims, real or alleged, were given the benefit of the doubt more often than Hillary Clinton with the DNC. No way this process could be corrupted, right?

Well, that’s what we were lead to believe until false rape allegations started coming to light. Through these incidents, people outside the ivy-covered walls got to see how screwed up the process has been under Title IX. For whatever good Title IX has done, it’s being used as a sexist weapon against college-aged men who may not have the faculties to fight back…provided, of course, the college lets them fight back. In some cases, they aren’t, to their detriment.

But, hey, at least rape victims get a voice, right?

Let’s be frank here. (Or if you don’t want to be Frank, you can be Steve or Lola. Your choice.) Rape is a serious crime and with good reason. Those who are accused of it are permanently tainted by society and public opinion. And it’s because of the seriousness of the crime that we need to be careful and ensure both the accuser and the accused have the same opportunities to present their cases. That’s what Secretary DeVos is trying to do here. She’s not siding with rapists. She’s not stripping rape victims of their rights. She’s ensuring due process gets its due in a situation where it’s needed the most.

Let’s also not throw away the entirety of Title IX just because some people are abusing its protections. A measured approach is what’s needed to ensure everyone is kept equal in the eyes of the law and the college and university administrations. Leave the kangaroo courts to Australia.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

As the seasons turn from summer to fall, there are some things we can depend on. Kids going back to school. Leaves turning colors. And discussions about the debt ceiling.

Recently, President Donald Trump spoke to House Minority Leader Nancy “Joan Rivers Was a Piker Compared to Me” Pelosi and Senate Minority leader Charles “Don’t Get Between Me and a Microphone” Schumer and agreed to raise the debt ceiling in exchange for concessions on disaster relief. Yeah, I know. Debt ceiling talk is so sexy, right? Well, get ready to get really hot because here we go!

debt ceiling

What the Left believes it means – a budgetary procedure to ensure the government can pay its debts without shutting down

What it really means – giving the least fiscally responsible entity on Earth a pass on bad spending.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to pay the debts of the country, including the debts they themselves rack up allegedly representing the county. Usually, this gets done through the budget process, where the House, the Senate, and the President try to hammer out a vision for what needs to get paid and by whom. There’s a tiny snag with this currently: we haven’t actually had a budget since 2006. The way Congress has done around this detail has been to raise the debt ceiling, which allows the government to pay debts. A necessary evil, right?

Not quite.

Let’s say you have a credit card that you max out on a trip to Las Vegas. You may be able to skate by for a while, but eventually you are going to have to make a payment. Then, instead of making a payment, you request raising your credit line. The credit card company agrees, and you go back to Vegas to max out your card again. Then, payment time rolls around again, and you request yet another credit line extension. The credit card company agrees, and the process continues.

There’s no way this can end badly, right?

Actually, there is no way this can’t end badly. With a budget, Congress has a framework for how to proceed. Without a budget, Congress can spend and spend without much oversight. Wait…did we just stumble onto the reason we haven’t had a budget in 11 years? Why, yes, yes, we did!

Under the typical budget process, the House comes up with a budget and gives it to the Senate to look over and either approve as-is or offer changes. If there are changes, the House and Senate come together and work out the differences before sending it to the President to sign. Then, if the President vetoes it, the budget proposal goes back to Congress to either fix the proposal or override the veto. In short, there are checkpoints at every stage of the budget process to prevent one side or the other from running roughshod over the other and to put limits on what is to be spent. By simply agreeing to forego the normal budget process and raise the debt ceiling, those safeguards are as reliable as the TSA.

If America had her financial house in order, raising the debt ceiling might not be an issue. After all, we’ve accrued debt in the past for noble purposes, like fighting a war. However, America is spending like a drunken sailor these days. Okay, that may have been out of line. After all, drunken sailors have a bit more fiscal responsibility than the average Congrescritter. I mean, when was the last time you saw a drunken sailor spend money to watch shrimp on a treadmill?

Complicating matters further is the fact America doesn’t own all of its debt. We have issued bonds for our debt for various parties to buy. And guess who owns a good chunk of those bonds. China. Yeah, that country that hasn’t quite gotten over the Cold War and has a penchant for trying to handicap America whenever it can. And we gave them Most Favored Nation status in the 1990s! And how do they repay us? Sending toys with lead paint and dog food that actually kills dogs.

But I’m sure they’ll do us right this time!

All it takes for our fiscal house of cards to come tumbling down is for China to say, “Yeah, we kinda want our money back because we don’t think you can pay us back.” If you thought the financial crisis in 2008 was bad, this will make that look like “Heidi.” (For you Leftists out there reading this, that is a bad thing.) And if that happens, we have Democrats and Republicans to blame. Our representatives decided that spending money is more important than fiscal security. Even when we get representatives elected who promise to keep us on budget, those voices are either drowned out or sold out by those who think we can print enough money to keep ourselves afloat. Spoiler Alert: we can’t. The more money we print, the less valuable the money we have becomes. That isn’t a recipe for success, kids.

So, how do we fix it? Outside of a Congressional enema, we’re stuck until our representatives figure out raising the debt ceiling without a reason will cost us more than the ability to spend money we don’t have on crap that has no real purpose.

Like shrimp on treadmills.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Happy Labor Day weekend, kids! As we take our first tentative steps into fall, Labor Day elicits quite a few memories and emotions. Anticipation for the leaves to start falling, as well as the temperatures. The knowledge we’re not supposed to wear white until spring, unless you’re a Klan member. And remembering the hard work of the men and women who comprise the working class.

The demographics of the working class may have changed throughout the years, but they still represent a vital voting bloc for the Left and the Right. If you persuade the working class to vote for your candidate, you stand a good chance of winning an election, or at least doing better than Evan McMullin in 2016. In honor of Labor Day (and because I really didn’t have anything else to write about this week), let’s take a closer look at the working class.

working class

What the Left thinks it means – a vital group of voters who need Leftists to be their champions against Big Business

What it really means – a group of people who have been jerked around by both sides of the aisle

As a working man myself, I am on the front lines of the struggles the working class faces. Whether it’s fighting traffic to and from work, trying to make each dollar we earn stretch as far as it can, or even just trying to get through the day without getting written up, fired, or, worst of all, being asked to stay late because everybody else went home already, the working men and women of America are being asked/told/demanded/expected to grind it out day after day without complaint. Put on a happy face and eat that crap sandwich like it was your last meal.

That’s why I find it laughable that the Left and the Right try to get us to believe they represent the working class in Washington, DC. The political class, most of whom have never done anything more physical than blocking someone on Twitter, have zero clue of what John and Jane Doe of Everytown, USA, have to put up with just to try to keep a roof over their heads. After all, Congresscritters get tons of perks for being elected, so even if they’re from the smallest of small towns in the states they represent, they quickly forget what it means to work hard most every day.

But when it’s time for reelection, you can count on them to show up and shake hands and kiss babies (just don’t get those two mixed up) in an attempt to “reconnect with the great people of [insert state].” Once their reelection is sewn up tighter than a XXXS corset on Roseanne Barr, they promptly forget about those great people and head back to Washington to live their lives of luxury.

Gee. I wonder if that might be the reason I think the working class is getting screwed over by the political class…naaaaaaah!

The Left claims to be the party of the working class (mainly because they get tons of money from labor unions who are often as out of touch as their Leftist masters), but this claim is as baseless as a news story on MSNBC. When you boil it down, the Left doesn’t care about anything about the working class and merely gives them lip service. Take a look at how much disdain they heap upon WalMart, for example. The Left wants WalMart eliminated from the economic equation for one reason: WalMart doesn’t have a union. Sure, they’ll give you a ton of other reasons ranging from alleged lower pay and importing products from China, but it comes down to the lack of a union. Yet, WalMart makes products and services affordable for people in the working class because they’ve figured out something the Left can’t seem to grasp: you can’t keep your doors open if you don’t have customers. WalMart isn’t perfect, but they do enough right to keep people coming in (usually after making highly questionable fashion choices). By going after WalMart, the Left has made it clear they don’t care about the actual working class, just about their money and votes.

The Right isn’t much better. They have the image of being in the back pockets of Big Business to the point they have permanent disfigurement from the stitching in said back pockets. And why is that? Because they haven’t fought back against the image. The Right reaching out to the working class is often as cringeworthy as Michael Dukakis in a tank, John Kerry in hunting gear, or Debbie Wasserman Schultz any time. And this is disappointing because the working class needs people fighting for them in Washington, and it’s clear the Left is like Pee Wee Herman boxing MIke Tyson.

But there is a glimmer of hope for the Right in the form of Donald Trump. Trump for all of his faults has a grasp on both the corporate and the working world, which came out during the 2016 election. And the working class rewarded him with their votes, much to the consternation of Hillary Clinton and the DNC. If the Right can pick up what Trump did in the campaign and build upon that by convincing the working class they can coexist with the business class, that will be beneficial to both. The working class will have their champions on Washington, and the business class will have an in with their workers.

In the meantime, the working class will have to keep plugging away, doing what it needs to do to survive. Just like they always seem to do.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

President Donald Trump and the media are a match made in the Tenth Circle of Hades. It’s like the Ninth Circle, but it’s away from the hustle and bustle of the Ninth. Plus, it’s on the bus line and it has great public schools. Whenever Trump says something, the media analyze it, have “experts” talk about it, figure out what kind of spin to put on it, and then broadcast it to the world without checking facts. Then, when the President gets upset and comments on it, the media pretend they’re under attack (in spite of the fact it’s their crappy reporting that created the problem in the first place).

To hear the Left talk about it, freedom of the press is under attack because of President Trump. “We are the first line of defense against the Trump Administration,” media figures cry as they find the closest American flag to wrap themselves in for that added effect. (I’m looking right at you, Keith Olbermann.) Whether you agree with the Left or are smarter than a bag of hammers, it’s time to take a look at the institution secured in the First Amendment.

freedom of the press

What the Left believes it means – a sacrosanct right that allows the press to act like the Fourth Estate and keep politicians honest

What it really means – a right that the Left has abused so the press can act like the Fifth Column to the Right and lapdogs to the Left

As a former journalism school student, I have a deep respect for reporters who go out and find news stories that matter. I want to buy you two or three good reporters a beer.

As for the rest of the media, I need to have a word with you. I know you think you’re doing great work trying to protect us from the evils of the Trump Administration, but you’re about as useful as the stick after you eat a corndog. And if you don’t know what a corndog is, that’s part of your problem, but we’ll talk about that later.

Let’s deal with the neon green elephant in the room: you guys and gals aren’t helping the situation under your current business model, which makes Gawker look responsible. How many stories have you run with that have been poorly sourced, if they were sourced at all? How many hit pieces have you published or broadcast over minutia like whether Donald Trump’s daughter’s nanny’s brother’s cousin’s optometrist’s dog walker had an overdue library book in 1978? How many times have you had to print or broadcast retractions to cover your collective hinders after being exposed as being hacks?

And you wonder why the media are trusted less frequently than used car salesmen.

Yes, the First Amendment gives you the right to publish and broadcast the news, but it also gives me the right to call you out when you suck at your job. And right now, a billion Dysons at the center of a black hole can’t reach your level of suck. And, no, claiming to be defending the freedom of the press isn’t a shield from legitimate criticism. Say what you want about President Trump (and I know you will), he has a point about the current state of reporting. A lot of the news being generated from your ranks falls into a handful of buckets: celebrity, tragedy, political expediency, and stuff you make up to fill air time or column inches. Sometimes you combine some of the items in the buckets (like if Justin Bieber comes out with a new CD supporting Planned Parenthood and, when played backwards, gives proof of aliens at Area 51), but the point is you aren’t doing the best work right now.

Think about the reporters who came before you. Would Edward R. Murrow consider what you’re doing to be good reporting? Do you even know who Murrow is? If not, learn about him and try to emulate him whenever you can. And while we’re here, Keith Olbermann isn’t the second coming of Ed Wood, let alone Edward R. Murrow.

Freedom of the press is a legitimate shield in a lot of cases, and I wouldn’t want any politician, Left or Right, to curtail your right to report. Having said that, the right to a free press comes with the responsibility to use it responsibly. That’s where you folks are going wrong. Look at CNN’s Jim Acosta, for example. You may look up to him as a tough journalist, but if you strip away the ideological lenses, he’s trying to feather his own nest by trying to bring down Trump with nonsensical questions. That doesn’t help your legitimacy at all. And I can list a number of high-profile nothingburgers the media have put forth as news within the past few months. Shouldn’t you try to be more reliable than a Smart Car in a demolition derby?

Until then, I have a simple request. Stop pretending you’re doing something noble by defending freedom of the press against the Trump Administration and weed out the bad faith players within your ranks. Then maybe you can not only restore your former credibility, but have more people willing to support you when you take a stand in defense of the freedom of the press.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

To say President Donald Trump’s relationship with the press is hostile is like saying the Hatfields and McCoys had a minor tiff. A particular thorn in Trump’s side is CNN’s Jim Acosta, who is one part Eddie Haskel and one part Sam Donaldson (or at least the way people saw Donaldson during the Reagan Administration).

This hostility came to a head recently during a press conference where White House senior policy advisor Stephen Miller and Acosta over a proposed cut to our immigration policy introduced by Senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue. During this exchange, Miller referred to Acosta’s “cosmopolitan bias”, which has made the Left go completely over-the-top cray-cray. (In other words, they way they act on any day ending in a Y.)

Strap in, folks. We’re in for a weird one.

cosmopolitan

What the Left thinks it means – sophisticated and intelligent, people targeted by white supremacists for being sophisticated and intelligent

What it really means – a bunch of people who think their farts don’t stink

If there is one thing the Left excels at, it’s being egotistical. (That, and not being on speaking terms with reality.) They also are great at pretending to be victims, as we can see from Acosta’s actions and statements. To them, being cosmopolitan is not an insult because it speaks well of them. And everyone in their social circles is just like them, thinks like them, speaks like them, and is generally a carbon copy of them.

In other words, they wouldn’t know what to do if they actually had to interact with someone who isn’t one of them. It’s like they’re all Eva Gabor’s character from “Green Acres.”

It’s this kind of thinking Miller was criticizing and Acosta was reflecting. It’s also this kind of thinking that prevents reporters from being as informed and effective as they need to be in today’s media landscape. People rely on reporters to keep them informed on the news of the day, but when the reporters are dumber than a bag of hammers, that trust is violated. Of course, the public trusts the media less than the Weekly World News these days, so maybe they’re coming to realize reporters aren’t that smart.

Exhibit A: Jim Acosta

Acosta’s attempt to take a portion of the inscription on the Statue of Liberty and turn it into immigration law shows he’s ignorant of both. But to hear him describe it (and, believe me, you can’t get him to shut up about it on Twitter), he was defending the rights of those trying to come into this country. Of course, Acosta doesn’t want us to think about the distinction between those trying to come to America through legal channels and those wanting to sneak in because that would ruin the narrative. And in Acosta’s world, if you try to make that distinction as the Trump Administration is trying to do, that’s racist.

I told you he wasn’t that smart.

Adding to this stupidity is the Left’s attempt to paint “cosmopolitan” as secret code for white supremacists because they say Hitler expressed some of the same sentiments about the sophisticated and intelligent. Yeah, and Hitler wore pants. Using that logic, any Leftist who wears pants is literally Hitler. Using real logic, there is a big difference between echoing sentiments and being 100% behind a person’s agenda. And considering Hitler actually leaned more left than right, the Left might want to think carefully about using such flimsy logic to compare people to Hitler.

Now, for the funny part. (And I’m sure some of you readers are saying “Finally!”) Acosta’s outburst was over…a bill. Not a law. Not a platform plank. Not even a sternly-worded memo. A bill. As fans of “Schoolhouse Rock” can attest, that means it’s not a law yet, and…it can be changed.

You know, for people who claim to be cosmopolitan, Acosta and his fellow Leftists are quite unsophisticated when it comes to vital concepts.

To take Miller’s point a bit further, the Left is insulated from the rest of the world, and that’s by choice. Yet, they seem to think they’re so much smarter than the rest of us because…reasons. That’s a bad situation. Picture if you will a scientist whose expertise is in one area of science and decides to comment on a completely different area of science because he or she is considered to be an expert on science by people who don’t understand it. Wait, we already have Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Let’s try another analogy. Let’s say you have a plumber and you need your roof fixed. Unless your plumber also does roofing, you wouldn’t go to him or her for advice. But we’re being told people who rarely leave their urban settings have their fingers on the pulse of the nation outside of their urban settings. Nothing could be further from the truth. That’s the problem with living in an ideological echo chamber: you don’t hear anything outside of it.

The biggest problem with the Left’s reaction to Miller’s comment is it let their mask slide a bit more to show just how much they disdain people outside of their cliques. The media by and large don’t know what life is like between the East and West Coasts, and few are willing to put in the effort to find out. Whether it’s reporters from the Huffington Post or Dan “Fake But Accurate” Rather, Leftists keep being mystified there are people who live between the East and West Coasts and may have a different perspective than they do.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, was Miller’s point.

And Acosta and the Left completely missed it.

By calling out Acosta’s cosmopolitan bias, Miller wasn’t trying to blow a Nazi/white supremacist dog whistle. He was making a point about how out of touch the Left is, and given how many column inches have gone into finding more conspiracy theories than Art Bell and Jesse Ventura hooking up with the guys from “Ancient Aliens”, it’s clear they haven’t figured it out. But you do you, kids! You may not think much of me, but that’s fine. At least I can tell the difference between a poem and immigration law.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

People have handled the election of Donald Trump in different ways. Some have been happy. Others have been sad. Others have been more unstable than a house of cards on a wobbly card table on the San Andreas Fault.

Then, there’s California. (Granted, the lawmakers there might fall into that third category, but work with me here.) There has been a movement in California for the state to break away from the United States in the same vein as England’s Brexit movement. They’ve even come up with a totally original name, too: Calexit. Those Leftists are so creative!

Let’s take a look at the Calexit movement, shall we?

Calexit

What the Left believes it means – a movement for California to leave the United States and stand on its own

What it really means – the Mirror Universe version of Galt’s Gulch

If you’re not familiar with Galt’s Gulch, it’s a reference to Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged which deals with productive members of society deciding to drop out of sight and start life in a society where one’s efforts and productivity are championed instead of derided by those who are less productive than Keith Olbermann. In other words, the opposite of California right now. And, if Calexit proponents get their way, they will get to live out their Leftist version sooner rather than later.

On the surface, Calexit has merit. California is said to have the sixth largest economy in the world. Not in the US. The whole fraking world! And let’s not overlook the fact the global film industry is centered in Los Angeles, or the fact Silicon Valley is still pumping out global technology that we use (usually at least a year or two after Japan had it). Agriculture is still a major force there. So, why shouldn’t California break up with us?

Venezuela.

For a number of years, Leftists fawned over how Hugo Chavez ran a seemingly successful economy based around oil. (Also, Chavez mocked George W. Bush repeatedly, so Leftists loved him for that almost as much as his economy.) Chavez spent a lot on Leftist-approved causes.

Then the oil market crashed like the Exxon Valdez.

Suddenly, all those Leftist programs became unsustainable. As a result, their economy went into a nosedive, their currency became less valuable than a Hillary Clinton political endorsement, and widespread poverty has hit Venezuela hard. Now, who could have seen that coming? I mean, aside from anyone who has studied socialism for any length of time and realized the fundamental flaws. And it’s not like we haven’t seen the failures of socialism throughout history, either! If only there were a country that called itself socialist and even had “socialist” in its name…oh, wait. Try the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics!

What the Caliexit folks don’t realize is they are setting themselves up for the same problems Venezuela is experiencing right now. What happens to your economy when you can’t afford to keep illegal immigrants and poor citizens on the public dole? How high will your taxes have to be in order to keep your dreams of high speed rail afloat while people leave the state in droves? And how much pot will you have to smoke to make these problems go away?

The problems with Calexit go beyond the economic. If California leaves the US, they will have to give up the military bases within the state because those bases, equipment, and manpower technically are part of the United States. That leaves the California National Guard, and a good case can be made that the federal government can lay claim to those folks, too. If you strip away those two layers of national defense, you’re left to citizens with guns. Oh, wait, California has strict gun laws that only the law-abiding follow in the first place. Looks like you’re screwed, California!

Going back to agriculture for a moment, we see another major problem. Since California tends to be a bit on the arid side, they need irrigation to keep their crops (and rich people’s lawns) growing. That wouldn’t be a problem normally, but California tends to get a lot of water from neighboring states. Guess what happens if California leaves the US. Yep, that water goes away! And when you consider the state hasn’t figured out how to make desalinization a thing when they are literally on the ocean, it’s going to be a lot harder for crops to grow if Calexit becomes a thing.

There are a ton of logistical issues with Calexit (whether marriages in their state will be recognized elsewhere, whether people will need a passport to visit California, whether the state will get Congressional representation, just to name a few), and I’m not sure the Calexit fans have thought this out far enough. It reminds me of the time I decided to run away from home after I had an argument with one of my brothers. I packed up what I thought I needed, slammed the front door, and started heading for the street. Of course, I was too young to even go out on the street or go through neighbor’s yards without permission, so I wound up coming right back. Then, I turned 30, and my parents said I was mature enough.

If Californians want to leave the United States after electing Donald Trump as President, I have two words to say to you, courtesy of Curly Bill from “Tombstone.”

Well…bye.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Sometimes the topics for the Leftist Lexicon take a bit of time to develop, while other times the topics just fall in my lap. Thanks to two news stories this week, the topic was a Rose Parade float complete with fireworks, dancers, and lasers.

Earlier this week, the Huffington Post published a piece about a transgender activist attempting to get people to believe men can get periods, too. Then, President Donald Trump tweeted a sentiment saying transgendered people should not serve in the military, which came as a surprise to the Defense Department. So, what’s the topic?

Stupid media, of course!

Seriously, I suggest you grab a cold drink and some food because this one’s going to be a long one.

transgender

What the Left believes it means – people whose gender identity does not correspond to their birth gender, which exposes them to discrimination and oppression by the straight world

What it really means – it’s complicated

I will fully admit I’m not an expert on transgendered issues (but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night), so I will entertain the possibility I am wrong. Currently, I see three different factions within the transgender movement: the political transgendered, the social transgendered, and the “average” transgendered. Although these descriptors seem pretty self-explanatory, I want to explore them in greater detail, mainly since this blog post would be a lot shorter if I didn’t.

Let’s start with the political transgendered. This is the activist wing of the movement, seeking to create a more inclusive environment by forcing people to accept their way of life through judicial and governmental fiat. This group is closely tied to the activist gays because they have the same goals and enemies, hence their inclusion in the LGBTQAEIOUSOMETIMESY movement. Although they preach tolerance, they are anything but. If you stray from the script even a little bit, you may find yourself on the wrong end of a shunning that would put the Amish to shame.

This brings us to the social transgendered. There are some people who dress androgynously, not because they have gender identity issues, but because they crave attention or they think it’s cool. Many of these people don’t actually want to transition from male to female or vice versa, and they are open about that. Does that make them transgender? They say so, but I’m not sure I agree. If I put on a dress (because I have the gams for it) and say I’m a woman, does that make my frank and beans disappear? Not in the times I’ve done it…I mean, not that I know of.

This is where the transgender activist who says men can get periods comes into play. You can dress, talk, act, walk, and look like a member of the opposite gender, but you are still the gender you are when you were born. In my 47+ years of life, I have never once had a period, and I’m going to bet I won’t anytime soon because…how can I put this delicately…I don’t have the right plumbing. If you’re a woman, more likely than not, you will have a period at some point in your life. That’s not a gender identify issue; that’s biology. You know, science? To have the self-described “Party of Science” get behind a concept so anti-science speaks volumes, and none of it good.

Finally, we have the “average” transgendered people. If you are trans and reading this, I apologize for not coming up with a better descriptor, but I couldn’t find any other term that I felt encapsulated what I see as the bulk of the transgendered community. If you have a preferred term that better fits the community, please let me know.

Now, onto the meat of this particular part of the blog. It’s been my experience many trans people (as well as gays, lesbians, and queer folk) just want to be left alone and treated with the respect you would give to anyone else. That’s it. And, I am perfectly cool with that. All I ask is the same consideration. I won’t try to convert you to my Lutheran faith (at least not without providing a hot dish), and I ask you don’t try to get me into a leopard skin miniskirt. I mean, I have the gams for it, but still.

Although I’m not an expert on the subject of transgendered people, I don’t come into this discussion without knowledge. One of my favorite YouTubers is Blaire White, who is a trans woman and offers interesting insights into being trans. If you haven’t checked her out, do so. I will defer to her knowledge on the subject, and all I ask in return is to go into her channel with an open mind and don’t be mean to her.

With the three groups I’ve mentioned, I feel the most for the “average” transgendered group because the political and social transgendered groups are unwittingly making it harder for them to be fully accepted. Granted, there are some pockets out there who will fight back against any and all variations on the human theme, but I genuinely think most people today would be open to trans people were it not for the aforementioned groups gumming up the works. It’s okay to be trans and proud, but if you’re scaring off people who would be your allies, you’re going to drive people away faster than a David Duke stand-up routine at an NAACP convention. It’s all about finding a balance.

As far as the political and social trans folks out there, I have one piece of advice for you: stop trying to help because you’re not. Your actions and machinations are creating an environment where trans people can’t be seen as real people. When you put your own selfish needs and wants above the needs and wants of those you claim to represent, you undercut the trans community.

With “friends” like that, the trans community doesn’t need any more enemies.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The home of the Free Speech Movement in the 1960s is at it again! The University of California at Berkeley (home of the Fighting Totally Non-Violent Yet Destructive Antifas), is preventing conservative commentator Ben Shapiro from giving a speech on campus, citing their inability to find a venue. Similar circumstances affected Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter when they attempted to give speeches on campus.

Leftists, those champions of free speech as long as you agree with them, cheer whenever a conservative speaker gets shut out from giving a speech or offering an opposing viewpoint on news show, citing it’s not right to give these people (if the Left deem to call them that) a platform to share their opinions. Those vital spots should go to people who actually bring something to the table (i.e. who regurgitate the squawking point du jour). To better understand the Left’s objections, let’s take a look at the core of their complaints.

platform

What the Left thinks it means – an area where ideas can be expressed with the consent/approval of the person, people, or entity providing said area

What it really means – the free market arena of ideas

One of the driving forces behind the Left is control. To put it simply, they are control freaks to the point Lady Macbeth looks like a coma patient. Since so much of their agenda revolves around controlling what is said and who is given credence, the Left needs to ensure theirs is the only voice people hear and their people are the only ones who are deemed credible. As a result, they need tight control over the medium, the message, and the messenger, and for many years, they had it all.

That’s when people like Rush Limbaugh came into the picture and started taking on the Left. Once there were new players on the board, there were different opinions that could be given attention. It was no longer one voice and one message, but multiple voices with multiple messages. That created chaos in the Leftist utopia, so they did what needed to be done: they tried to silence and marginalize the opposing voices.

Yeah. That totally worked. I mean, who in 2017 has heard of Rush Limbaugh? I mean, aside from his approximately 20 million listeners per week.

When the platform didn’t exist or wasn’t readily available for Rush, he created his own platform and turned it into a global phenomenon. No matter how the Left tries to demonize or disregard him, Rush finds a way to get his message out there. And Rush spawned others like Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, and scores of others who found their niche over the airwaves, in print, and online.

And the Left doesn’t have an answer. The current mainstream media are writing and reporting stories that make the Weekly World News seem credible by comparison. And the Weekly World News has fracking Bat-Boy! Err America…I mean Air America failed spectacularly, even with George Soros bankrolling it. And when it comes to online presence, the Right has the edge. Then again, when your Leftist standard bearers are Vox, Slate, and Daily Kos, the Right could just run a Blue Screen of Death and be ahead of the game.

And the Left can’t stand it. Since their efforts to delegitimize the Right have failed worse than an Al Gore exercise tape, their next step is to deprive conservatives of the ability to spread their message to people who might be receptive to it. That brings us back to UC Berkeley. Instead of allowing multiple voices on campus, the Leftists have resorted to any means necessary to take away the platform given to conservatives and then using that as proof the conservatives don’t have anything worth saying. That’s like an arsonist starting a fire and then saying it proves the need for more firefighters. These tactics include shouting down speakers, actively engaging speakers, physical altercations, violence, death and bomb threats, and rioting. In many cases, it’s worked.  This tells me two things. First, liberal arts majors are taking some seriously disturbing electives, and second, the Left isn’t prepared to defend their positions against opposing viewpoints. By taking the stance they have, Leftists are conceding the intellectual battlefield through trying to turn college campuses and other venues into actual battlefields.

Not exactly an air of confidence from the “smart” ones.

The Left’s approach stems from the notion that allowing someone outside of their ideological and intellectual bubble to speak his or her mind gives the ideas legitimacy and means the entity hosting the outsider agrees with him or her. That’s an assumption without a basis in fact. Sometimes television news programs or radio shows give time to people with opposing viewpoints for ratings or to give another side of a situation. That does not mean they necessarily agree with the opposing viewpoint. In this case, silence is not consent, and silencing others is not an appropriate response. As we’ve seen with CNN, the Left will put on people the hosts vehemently disagree with just to get a rise out of people or to try to give the Left’s arguments more credibility by comparison. And that worked about as well as you might think from one of the networks running with the “Trump colluded with Russia” story.

If you want to showcase your brilliance, test it against those who disagree. If you win, great. If you lose, that shows flaws in your thinking that can be addressed to make your arguments stronger. But the Left can’t bring themselves to making better arguments, so they resort to trying to win debates by default through intimidation, disinformation, and shouting down arguments they don’t like. They think a crappy argument without a response makes the crappy argument unassailable, but what they don’t realize it is only makes their argument seem weak when you realize what they’re doing and why they’re doing it. If you have to win by deceptive means, you’re not really winning. You’re merely participating.

Then again, the Left loves participation trophies, don’t they?

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week – 2 of 2

Yep, you read that right. This week you’re getting a Leftist Lexicon two-fer, and I will make this worth your while.

Recently Women’s March organizer, Leftist activist (which is pretty much the same thing), and prominent Muslim Linda Sarsour raised a few eyebrows recently when she referenced the word “jihad” in a speech criticizing President Donald Trump in a keynote address for the Islamic Society of North America. The Right focused on her use of the word to suggest she wanted to wage holy war against the President, while the Left said she was taken out of context and that jihad has a completely peaceful meaning.

Let’s take a look at this explosive word, if you’ll pardon the pun. And if you don’t, I’ll win on appeal.

jihad

What the Left thinks it means – an internal struggle, but can also mean holy war in limited cases

What the Right thinks it means – holy war, but can also mean an internal struggle in limited cases

What it really means – holy war and an internal struggle, depending on context

Yes, there’s that little word “context” again! In the interest of making sure Sarsour’s words are put in context, here is the portion of the speech in question. I would type it out, but a) it’s better if you read the transcript in full, b) it’s too fraking long to type, and c) it’s nuttier than squirrel dung. In context, Sarsour doesn’t overtly come out and call for violent holy war, but she doesn’t overtly come out and say it’s a personal struggle, either.

Now, if this were an isolated incident, I might be inclined to agree with the Left on this one. It’s not, of course, so I’m going to disagree with the Left’s take on jihad. Reading through Sarsour’s Twitter feed brings up some interesting tidbits, including an attempt to turn Islam into a female-friendly religion. Also, she has said female critics of Islam should have their genitals removed.

And remember, kids, she’s a feminist.

Sarsour has tried to push back against the Right’s criticism of her use of “jihad” in a speech, saying she was taken out of context and would never advocate violence. Given what she said and who she was targeting, I would be hard pressed to give her the benefit of the doubt. She speaks of fascists, Islamophobes, and white supremacists in the White House, but we’re supposed to believe her call for jihad is strictly peaceful? Let’s not forget she said earlier in the section I linked earlier that those who sit on the sidelines in the fight for Muslims in America are empowering the people who she says are oppressing Muslims. So, how would Sarsour propose to peacefully stop the oppression via a personal struggle?

Well, she hasn’t really gotten to that point yet. However, I might have a hypothesis; she’s lying through her hijab. Although she likens her movement to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, the civil rights movement didn’t behead racists en masse or force FGM on white women who didn’t see segregation as a positive step forward. Nope, those actions are supported by…Muslims. Granted, not all Muslims model this season’s bomb vests, but enough do to raise eyebrows.

Digging a bit deeper into Sarsour’s history, you find she is Palestinian. Let’s just say Palestinians may not have gotten the memo about jihad meaning personal struggle because they’ve been practicing the more violent kind of Islam. This leads me to believe Sarsour also may not have gotten the memo, or did and wants us to ignore Palestinian violence in the name of Islam while paying sole attention on her version of jihad.

Sorry, Ms. Sarsour, but that’s not how this works. Not only are you using the tired Leftist “I was taken out of context” defense, but you’re relying on people not to take your upbringing and history into account when you speak of jihad. You can say you’re following Dr. Martin Luther King’s example, and you can certainly believe that with your whole heart. I can call my dog a bird, but it doesn’t mean he can fly. Words mean things, Ms. Sarsour, and you used the word jihad purposely to elicit a response on both sides of the aisle. And you succeeded, but to what end? So you can play the victim, thus getting Leftists to run interference for you and possibly give you praise and money for your struggle?

Or is it something more sinister? Let’s be honest here. The Left has gotten more violent than an MMA fight directed by Sam Peckinpah, and they are finding ways to act on their violent natures. It’s not that far of a leap to suggest the use of jihad in Sarsour’s speech was meant to inflame the same people attacking Republican Congressmen, threatening Republican Senators, and cheering the “artistic expression” of a bloodied severed head of Donald Trump. And given what she said in her speech about Trump, it’s easy to conclude she’s a fan of the violent Left as well as the violent Muslims. Put another way, Sarsour is the perfect spokeswoman for both the Left and Islamic extremists because she speaks both of their languages.

Let’s not kid ourselves here. Jihad has more than one meaning, so it’s important to keep context in mind. I know Muslims who wouldn’t hurt a fly and find radical Islam distasteful. These are good men and women whose jihads may be closer to what Linda Sarsour and her Leftist fans want us to believe it means. But we cannot ignore the definition of jihad that involves violence, death, and destruction. The two meanings cannot be separated and must be defined in the spirit in which they are used. To assume one definition or the other is the right one is to open up the possibility of being wrong.

And when it comes to Islam, we can’t afford to be wrong. If we round up all Muslims when they want nothing more than to live in peace, we deny them basic human liberties and prove Linda Sarsour right about America. If we treat all Muslims as peaceful, we run the risk of leaving ourselves vulnerable to attack from those who wish to do us harm.

Not an easy road we walk to be sure, but as Americans we owe it to ourselves not to give in to the overly optimistic or the overly pessimistic view of Islam. That means we have to do our own vetting on a personal level, but it is worth it to protect not only our country, but our liberty. After all, a government that can round up Muslims today can round up Christians tomorrow without changing their mission statement.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week – 1 of 2

For the first time in Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week history, I had a hard time deciding on a Word of the Week. There were a couple of news stories this past week that caught my attention, and both involve words that the Left seek to use as a means to advance their agenda. After careful deliberation (i.e. a coin toss), I decided on a word. Oh, and the Minnesota Vikings have elected to defer to the second half.

collusion

What the Left believes it means – an illegal secret agreement between two parties where vital information is shared with an enemy, grounds for impeachment

What it really means – a secret agreement between two parties that may or may not be illegal or grounds for impeachment

Thanks to Donald Trump, Jr. and an email practice arguably worse than Hillary Clinton’s, the Left have glommed onto collusion their latest word to throw around without actually knowing what it means. On the plus side, Mr. Trump didn’t send out pictures of his…shall we say Little Junior…to underage girls. Still, the Left is having a field day accusing President Donald Trump of having a secret agreement with Russia to take down Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential election.

Let me bring up one slight bone of contention here. As of right now, Russia is still considered an ally. A scummy ally, I grant you, but an ally nonetheless (or at least they were during Barack Obama’s Presidency, as former Secretary of State Clinton can attest if she’s being honest. I know, it’s less likely than Bill remaining faithful.) As a result, the information shared with Trump or any of his campaign team may or may not be illegal to obtain.

And that’s where the Left’s ideas about collusion get messier than Jackson Pollock painting on the San Andreas Fault during a 6.9 on the Richter Scale. If there is alleged collusion as the Left defines it, then the information provided must be illegal in some way. So, what was it?

Enter the mess. No one really knows what the Russians had that they were willing to give to the Trump campaign. Through some investigation, it was determined a Russian lawyer with ties to Vladimir “Rudy” Putin offered damning evidence of possible unethical/illegal activities by Hillary Clinton. Is that illegal in and of itself? That’s the problem: we don’t actually know, and Donald Trump, Jr., isn’t giving specifics that would help us determine the legality of the information. Put another way, we have the word of someone with a vested interest in downplaying the potential illegality of his actions versus the presumptions of people with a vested interest in hyping the potential illegality of his actions. Until we learn more about the information in question, I have to opt for Donald Trump Jr.’s version of events with the possibility of future revision upon receipt of new information. You know, the whole “innocent until proven guilty” thing?

The collusion allegation is the latest in a long string of double standards the Left has for the Right. Whenever a member of the Right does something as serious as…dare I say it…having an overdue library book, the Left says that person has lost all moral authority to speak, act, or lead and should step down from any leadership position he or she holds. Of course, when a member of the Left does something as trivial as…let’s just create a hypothetical offense…leaving a young woman to drown in a car overnight while he went home and slept (again, it’s completely hypothetical because I’m sure the Left would come down hard on someone as horrible as the guy in this purely hypothetical scenario), the Left screams “witch hunt” and complains about how nasty and partisan politics has gotten. Notice the Left never admits their people do anything wrong while accusing the Right of making Adolf Hitler look like an Amish Boy Scout? That’s by design.

The Left operates under the notion that if you can’t beat them, make them beat themselves. (Get your minds out of the gutter, you cheeky monkeys!) This idea may not have originated with Saul Alinsky, but it was certainly documented in his “Rules for Radicals” when he wrote, “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” This is particularly effective against the Right because they tend to hold consistency and doing the right thing in high regard, unlike the Left whose standards are often double, triple, and quadruple depending upon the situation.

To put it in the context of the Donald Trump Jr. situation, the Left wants President Trump to hold his son to the standard he held Hillary Clinton to during the campaign. And if President Trump were a typical modern Republican, he would capitulate faster than a Frenchman in Berlin in 1942. Or today, for that matter. But, Trump isn’t a typical modern Republican. He isn’t afraid to play by the Left’s rules and expose their hypocrisy, which makes it harder for the Left to score points. Not to mention, Trump hopefully learned his lesson after the Left got him to distance himself from members of his staff who were tied to the Russia story because once the Left gets you to surrender on one item, they will flood you with additional requests similar to the original item. At this point, I’m surprised the Left hasn’t demanded Trump divorce Melania Trump because she is married to him.

If I were advising the President, I would tell the Left to pound sand when it comes to the collusion allegations. Until they bring some actual evidence the information Russia allegedly gave to the Trump campaign is illegal and not just morally gray, all they’re doing is throwing around a term they don’t understand in an attempt to overturn an election where their candidate lost because, well, she’s Hillary Clinton. And, if he wanted to twist the knife a bit more, he could remind them how the world isn’t black and white, but merely shades of gray. After all, isn’t that what the Left always tells us about moral issues?

Share This: