Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

29 Views

As I write this week’s dive into the intellectual sewer that is Leftist thought, we are on the verge of another Labor Day. This holiday is meant to honor the working men and women who make this country great, but has become just another day off for barbecues, backyard festivities, and occasional sporting events.

The Left has a similar attitude towards the working class, especially as it pertains to labor unions. Maybe it’s worth looking closer at the relationship between Leftists and unions. And if it isn’t, we’re still going to do it, so get on your hardhats and let’s get going.

labor unions

What the Left believes it means: hard-working people struggling to exist under the bootheels of Big Business

What it really means: a working class dinosaur

There was a time in history when labor unions were needed. Workers were clearly being abused by business owners, and they were there to ensure there was reform. And things were great. Those were the days…

And they were last century.

Since those early days, labor unions grew in power and stature, eventually becoming a staple of American life. Even in the late 60s and 70s, it was a symbol of pride to belong to a union.

It was around this time the Left started to realize the political power labor unions held. Imagine having an army of people going to the polls for your candidates, each member willing to give their hard-earned dollars to support them. And when they weren’t willing, the unions still gave their dues to the Left. It was a perfect system.

Then, something happened. The business environment changed, but labor unions didn’t. As America moved away from being an industrial giant, unions lost their position as a must for young men and women looking for a career. And unions have Democrats to thank for it.

It started with a little thing called NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. Although it was an idea that had the support of many Republicans, it should be pointed out it never would have gotten passed without Democrats. At the time NAFTA was signed into law, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Presidency were all controlled by…Democrats.

That’s right, union kiddies! Democrats made NAFTA a reality, many of them the men and women you poured money and votes into. And as we’ve seen, NAFTA was a bigger failure than a murder mystery written by Paris Hilton. Even now the Left is trying to rewrite history to erase that little tidbit from their pasts.

After NAFTA, union power started a downward spiral that would rival an Irwin Allen airplane-related disaster movie. Nowadays, unions are a shadow of their former glory. Where they were once champions working against an oppressive faceless boss, they became oppressive faceless bosses themselves, threatening anyone who wasn’t one of their ranks with violence if they dared cross picket lines for any reason. After all, it was their jobs that were being taken by people who wanted to work! The nerve of those people!

If you want to see a microcosm of how far labor unions have fallen, take a look at Wisconsin governor Scott Walker. After Walker stood up to public labor unions, unions from all across the country tried pushing back using a recall election effort. Unions organized marches, staged sit-ins, and managed to do property damage, all in the name of fighting for working men and women.

And they bombed.

Not only did they fail to unseat Walker, he won his recall election by a larger margin than when he won the gubernatorial race in 2010.

Ouch.

No matter how many times union supporters remind us of what unions have given us, it should be pointed out those accomplishments occurred a long time ago. As Janet Jackson (Miss Jackson if you’re nasty) once sang, “What have you done for me lately?”

At the beginning of this year, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics calculated that 11.1% of wage and salaried employees belonged to a union in 2015, and that number isn’t expected to be jumping up anytime soon. This begs the question of what labor unions have gotten from their alliance with the Left.

Aside from needing to meet more requirements to fire a union employee than the Catholic Church has for sainthood (and with a lot more paperwork from HR), not much.

If labor unions were a business model, it would have been tossed out a long time ago. Maybe it’s time we do just that.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

33 Views

It’s been said no publicity is bad publicity, but whomever said that hasn’t seen Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. Even so, the University of Chicago may have just struck gold, thanks to a letter that went out to incoming students. In defiance of the current trend on college campuses (or would it be campusi), the University of Chicago told students…there would be no safe spaces on campus.

As expected, the Left went into hissy-fit mode, blasting the dean for his obvious insensitivity. Meanwhile, those of us wearing our big boy pants praised the decision. So, what exactly is a safe space? I’m glad you asked!

safe space

What the Left believes it means: a space for oppressed people to be free from hate and those who oppress them

What it really means: an echo chamber

If you were like me growing up, I’m sorry. Seriously, I’m sure most of us at one time or another have had to deal with someone who you think had it out for you. No matter what you said or did, this person would find a way to make fun of you. Then we grew up and realized those types of people only have the power we give them. No less than Leftist icon Eleanor Roosevelt said, “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”

You would think the Left would have learned this by the time they got out of preschool, but nooooooooo! Apparently learning about Heather having 2 mommies, Marty having two dads, and why the contestants on RuPaul’s Drag Race are fabulouuuusssss to actually learn important life lessons like how to get along with people. And bathing.

So, instead of learning how to do something (remember, kids, these are the smart people, according to, well, themselves), they circumvent the entire socialization process and invented a way to hear only want you want to hear, feel what you want to feel, and say what you want to say, all without having to deal with people who disagree with you. In other words, the personification of the New York Times opinion page.

Here’s the problem I have with safe spaces: they turn people into creampuff cowards afraid of anything that doesn’t exactly line up with what they already believe. It may make the people in these safe spaces feel good, but it ruins their intellectual, emotional, and societal development by teaching them falsely that they are the center of the universe.

I think the whole idea of the safe space came from adults who didn’t want kids to feel bad when they tried something and failed, so they decided everyone gets a trophy. After all, kids shouldn’t find out they suck as something before they’re adults, right? It will only hurt their self-esteem!

Yeah, well, self-esteem doesn’t mean squat if you don’t know how to do even basic things. A failure who feels good about himself or herself is still a failure. Or the person who usually rings up my order at McDonalds.

By trying to avoid adversity, college students are setting themselves up for failure once they’ve graduated and tried to get a job. Your boss isn’t going to give you a safe space on the job when you screw up. Screw up enough times and you can have a safe space while standing in the unemployment line. Listen, kids, life is a bear trap coated with habanero juice sometimes, but you can’t pretend it’s a unicorn that farts Skittles. The more you put off the unpleasantness of life, the less you actually grow as a person.

Take me, for example. When I was single, I dated and tried to date a number of women. More often than not, the relationships ended on a sour note, but they taught me more about myself. For instance, I no longer whip off my pants and ask my date if she wanted to ride “The Screamer.” For one, my wife would get pretty mad at me, and for another, I learned to use that trick after the third date.

Regardless, safe spaces are the equivalent of closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears, and yelling “LALALALALALALA” at the top of your lungs. It’s fine if you’re a kid throwing a tantrum, but if you’re a college student, it just looks stupid.

Besides, you guys already have safe spaces. It’s called your room. Inside those four (or hopefully four) walls, you can be, do, and say anything without fear of contradiction. But once you walk outside the bedroom door, all bets are off and no one is required to cater to your whims. I learned that the hard way from dating, as referenced above.

So, take a tip from your old pal, Thomas, and stop being wussies.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

31 Views

I know I shouldn’t do this, but occasionally I read articles from the Huffington Post. Most of the time, the articles make me laugh because it goes to show you get what you pay for. But sometimes, the HuffPo articles are thought-provoking.

In this particular case, the thoughts provoked were ones of “How in the Hell did this person get a job anywhere, let alone HuffPo, the Vox of the media?”

The writer talked at length about the online harassment American gymnast Gabby Douglas received by not putting her hand over her heart while the National Anthem played at the Olympics after her female gymnastics team took gold. Then, she compared it to the alleged lack of criticism for American swimmer Ryan Lochte for lying about being robbed at gunpoint. The cause, according to the writer? White male privilege.

I wish I were making it up.

But at least, we get a nice intro to this week’s Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week!

privilege

What the Left believes it means: an unfair advantage given mainly to whites, straight people, and males because of their race, gender, sexual preference, among other things

What it really means: another excuse for lazy Leftists to explain their failures

Leftists scapegoating others to cover up their faults? Why that’s…completely expected!

I had heard this concept being tossed about like a frisbee at a stoner convention on April 20th, but I wanted to learn more about it. Naturally, I went to a Leftist, since it was Leftists who kept using the word. Here’s how it went.

Me: What exactly is privilege?
Leftist: You should know. You’re a white male.
Me: That’s true. And devastatingly handsome, too.
Leftist: You got me there. (Editor’s Note: The Leftist didn’t actually say this.)
Me: So, I have privilege because I’m a white male.
Leftist: Exactly.
Me: Can you show me an example of this privilege?
Leftist: It’s not my job to educate you.
Me: So, you can’t show me where I have privilege?
Leftist: Get away from me, you cisgender white male asshole! (Editor’s Note: The Leftist actually said this.)

So, apparently privilege is like Bigfoot: only a fraction of people see it, and those who do swear it exists. Actually, I take that back. There is more proof Bigfoot exists.

Yet, no matter how many times someone questions the existence of privilege, it seems more people want to believe they have it. And the funny thing is the people who tell us we have privilege don’t know us from Adam. Unless, of course, they know an Adam, then it all kinda goes to Hell. Either way, we need to do a better job in challenging the concept at its core. And here’s how you do it.

Mock the hell out of it.

Seriously, how can someone who doesn’t even know you tell you what breaks you’ve gotten in life? And to say you have privilege because you don’t see it is like saying you’re eligible to be President without having done anything worthy of it. Of course, we would never let that happen, right?

But here’s the thing that gets me more than the absurdity of the concept. It’s who is being targeted as having privilege. Whites? Yep. Males? Uh huh. Straights? Bingo. Now, what would happen if someone like me would target, say…oh, I don’t know…Raven Simone of “The Spew”…I mean “The View”? I would be called racist, sexist, and homophobic.

See where I’m going with this, kids? The concept of privilege is…racist, sexist, and even homophobic in some cases, but more often than not it’s heterophobic. (I know it’s not really a word, but I figure if the Left can make up words, so can I.)

The way the Left sees success (or privilege, if you will) is the same way it sees economics: as a zero-sum game. They believe there is a finite amount of success, and if someone has it, it’s at the expense of someone else. Of course, this isn’t the case. The fact Joe Biden is Vice President doesn’t mean I can’t be successful. If anything, the fact Joe Biden is Vice President makes me more successful…at making jokes at Joe Biden’s expense.

So, if there isn’t a finite amount of success in the world, why should you feel bad about what you’ve earned? The short answer is you shouldn’t, and you shouldn’t let people who don’t know you make you feel bad about it. I mean, they’re racist, sexist, and heterophobic. How valid can their opinions be?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

35 Views

Recently, Hillary Clinton tweeted the following:

We’ve got to stand up against climate deniers.
There isn’t a problem we can’t solve if we put our minds to it.
The first problem Hillary needs to address is her bad grammar. But this week’s installment doesn’t have anything to do with English, but rather a concept behind Hillary’s tweet: science. Democrats and Leftists like to portray themselves as the Party of Science, as opposed to the Party of Superstition (according to them, of course). But how much does the Left actually know about science? Let’s find out!

science

What the Left believes it means: a system of proving phenomena in nature in a way that cannot be refuted

What it really means: a system of proving phenomena in nature in a way that can be manipulated by Leftists

The Left loves to throw out science to support their ideological positions as though it were the ultimate shield. Polar bears dying off due to climate change? There’s a scientist for that! GMOs causing human mutations that make the family from the original “The Hills Have Eyes” look like the Von Trapp family? Grab a scientist! Want to prove gun ownership kills more people than Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and playing Led Zeppelin backwards? Look, there’s a scientist!

Or so we’re lead to believe. With climate change alone (a topic I may or may not have covered yet, but I’m too lazy to look right now), we have a number of people with impressive-sounding credentials pushing the notion man is responsible for global warming. Here’s a short list of them.

Neil Degrasse Tyson – Probably the most sciencey of the group, Degrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist and cosmologist, as well as a “science communicator.” And if you’ve read his Twitter feed, he’s also someone who posts more weird crap than Tommy Chong smoking some high grade weed.

Bill Nye – Best known for his 90s TV show “Bill Nye, the Science Guy”, Nye has attempted to beef up his scientific street cred by talking about global climate change. And he has the cred, what with his vast backgr…wait. Nye has a Bachelor of Science in mechanical engineering. Although he worked for Boeing for a time, he has more screen credits than academic credits when it comes to science.

Michael Mann – Mann may rival Degrasse Tyson in academia, but he’s not as well known. Probably for the best, considering he’s one of the masterminds behind the now-discredited “hockey stick graph” and is currently in litigation against Mark Steyn because Mr. Steyn dared to question his scientific prowess.

Al Gore – Yes, Al Gore is considered by the Left to be one of the scientific geniuses because he made global warming/global climate change a thing in Leftist circles. And much of his efforts have been in conjunction with the aforementioned Mann and, thus, have been mocked mercilessly by people who understand real science.

Of course, Leftists will throw out the accusation anyone who disagrees with them is a) ignorant, b) too controversial to be believed, c) dishonest, or d) bought off. You know why? Because Leftists scientists are all of the above.

See, what the Left doesn’t want you to know is their scientists are on the take. Grants from wealthy donors don’t go to scientists who don’t say “the right things.” (Meaning, who don’t subscribe to the Left’s doom and gloom predictions.) And when you get big money from donors, you tend to want to keep it flowing, so you will do whatever they want.

Of course, the Left doesn’t see the problem in this, unless scientists who are more concerned with facts than financial gain start disputing the findings. And it’s not fair that the scientists disputing them are using actual science!

The Left has cornered the intellectual market on science due to its ties to academia. Yet, with all of that firepower, the Left knows next to nothing about science.

Take the Left’s opposition to genetically modified organisms, for example. To listen to the Left, GMOs are an abomination, a step towards the misuse of science out of Mary Shelley’s worst nightmares. Yet, they overlook one simple fact: most crops today are genetically modified. Whether it’s to make plants more disease resistant or to allow them to grow in various conditions, there are ways plants can be modified for the betterment of mankind. So, instead of worrying about Frankenstein’s Farm, the anti-GMO crowd could be learning more about the ways GMOs can be good for people.

Ah, but that would take away from their feels, and when it comes to Leftists, fee-fees trump facts. So, what happens when the facts don’t match up to the fee-fees?

The Left makes up the results it wants. And with the star power (if you’ll pardon the pun) of people like the four people referenced above, it gets harder to overcome.

The thing about science, though, is facts always find a way to win out in the end. Remember cold fusion? Neat idea until no one could reproduce the experiment. It may take a while, but science finds a way to overcome even the brightest smile and the neatest graphs.

And then people like Degrasse Tyson, Nye, Mann, and Gore can get real jobs instead of pretending to be smart.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

35 Views

Unless you’ve been living under a rock or looking for Hillary Clinton’s “missing” emails, you’ve heard about the Democratic National Convention. According to many on the Left, the DNC was a victory for democracy.

And they would all be wrong, mainly because they don’t understand what a democracy is. Unfortunately for them, I do.

democracy

What the Left thinks it means: our system of government

What it really means: not our system of government

Although we’re used to using “democracy” to describe what we are, it’s not completely accurate. Put simply, a democracy is a system of government where everyone gets to vote. On the surface, this isn’t a bad idea. I mean, who wouldn’t want to let everyone vote?

Considering the extent to which most of us vote these days is limited to flavors of Mountain Dew and M & Ms, I would be a little scared to allow everyone to vote.

Let me put it another way. There are people who vote for Sheila Jackson Lee time and time again. To put it mildly, Sheila Jackson Lee is a dunderhead of epic proportions. Yet, she finds a way to keep winning her House seat. Having someone like her in Congress is bad. Now picture the same people who vote for her having access to the nuclear codes by virtue of a vote.

I think you get it now. Let’s move on.

What we are is a constitutional republic. That means we get to vote, but we vote for representatives who are supposed to act on our behalf and in accordance with our Constitution. What we have today is…well, 1 out of 3 ain’t bad. Or maybe it is.

I’m sure there are people who will try to say it’s a semantic difference, but it’s really not. A democracy allows for everyone to vote without the need to have spokespeople. A republic allows everyone to vote for people to handle the business of running the country. Of the two systems, I prefer the republic because of how utterly unwieldy a democracy can be on a large scale.

As of the moment of this writing, the US Census Bureau Population Clock estimates there are 324,137,185 people in our country. Under a democracy, each person would get a vote, regardless of whether they are capable of understanding what they’re even voting on. And I thought Nancy Pelosi’s statement about having to vote on Obamacare before figuring out what was in it was absurd!

Imagine how long it would take to tabulate that many votes. It would make a trip to the DMV seem like a 15 second video commercial on YouTube! And that’s not even accounting for the number of births and deaths going on per minute. Getting something like a spending bill to keep the country’s lights on would be a monumental task. Like it is now, only with a lot more hands in the pie.

And when you really think about it, the DNC wasn’t exactly a victory for democracy, even by Leftist standards. Just ask any Bernie Sanders delegates.

In either case, we should be glad we have a constitutional republic. As imperfect as it seems at times, it’s far better than any of the other alternatives.

Especially the ones where Sheila Jackson Lee voters get access to the nuclear codes.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

26 Views

After a relatively quiet Republican National Convention, the Democrats have their national convention this week, and with it comes a plague: protesters. I think it’s one of the Biblical plagues, right after locusts and Amway salesmen. This gives us a good chance to look at protesting through the Leftist lens.

protest
What the Left believes it means: an expression of outrage protected under the First Amendment designed to raise awareness of social and political issues many people don’t know exist

What it really means: an excuse for Leftists to act like assholes

When Leftists get really upset about something, they often take to the streets with signs, chants, and passion. I don’t mind that so much. What I mind is what they often leave in their wake: a lot of trash. Especially on Earth Day! But at least it’s biodegradable trash…kinda.

The key to understanding Leftist protests is remembering they operate emotionally. They don’t worry about details like making sense or having a cohesive and sustainable message. You just need to feel passionately about the cause.

Take Astroturf Wall Street, for example. When they burst onto the scene, it caught the attention of a lot of people, mainly on the Left. What did they stand for? Initially, it was to hold Wall Street accountable for alleged crimes that lead to the financial crisis, but it grew into other ideas including demands for free college, getting rid of capitalism, and any number of other ideas that had nothing to do with Wall Street. And now years later, Astroturf Wall Street has morphed into…Bernie Sanders voters.

Well, at least they’re still recycling, even if it’s bad ideas.

The way Leftist protests grow is through absorption of other Leftist groups to give the illusion of size. You may have a group that wants to preserve the habitat of the rare Speckled Gecko With an Overbite, but that group would probably fit in the closet of my first apartment and still have room for my comic book collection. Then, that group might know someone in a Socialists For Free Ice Cream group, who mobilizes its members to join with the Speckled Gecko With an Overbite crowd. Before you know it, the original group grows and grows with the inclusion of groups like Luddites for Nuclear Energy, the Gay and Lesbian Dog Walkers Association for the Advancement of Professional Wrestling, and, if you really want to be silly, the Clinton Foundation.

Once you get that many people together, it’s going to raise attention. Large crowds typically do that. That is another way the Left judges the success of its protests: how much media coverage they can get. Then, they figure out a spokesperson to represent the original group’s mission and give the illusion the entire protest is made up of people who agree with the cause. This, in turn, may make others believe the cause is valid and popular, so they join in.

In short, it’s based on a series of carefully crafted lies.

But if you’ve noticed, there’s one thing missing in each step of the Leftist protest process: people actually trying to make an argument in favor of the cause. That’s one of the little details the Left doesn’t bother itself with that I mentioned earlier. Oh, they have slogans they’re willing to repeat, but slogans do not an argument make. And that’s the Bottom Line. (Wait…wrong outro, wrong blog.)

Look. It’s great to be passionate about a cause, but if that’s all you invest in it, it’s not going to go very far. The truly lasting causes are the ones with passion and intellectual heft. Like finding Waldo.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

16 Views

Recently, a photo of Paul Ryan and Congressional pages made its way through the Internet. No, it’s not the same as the Anthony Weiner pictures, but on the surface it wasn’t seen nearly as positively. In the picture, many people saw a sea of white faces. The Left chided Ryan and all Republicans for a lack of diversity. But what exactly is diversity? Glad you…errr…I asked!

diversity

What the Left believes it means: celebrating and respecting all of the differences in people

What it really means: bean-counting

While the Left thinks it has a slam-dunk squawking point with the Ryan picture, it actually shows just how little they consider actual diversity beyond skin color. Granted, the GOP has been seen as whiter than a polar bear convention in a blizzard at Ice Station Zebra, but have you seen the Democrat leadership lately? I’ve seen more diversity at a twins convention.

Except when they need to show the world just how diverse they are. Then, they bring out “their” people of color to take the lead on important issues like, well…you know…calling Republicans racist! But when it’s a really important issue like, well…you know…calling Republicans evil, it’s whites only, baby!

What the Left doesn’t want you to know is they think of diversity purely in terms of political agreement. If you’re a part of a certain minority that tends to agree with the Left’s world view, they want you to show how much they care about your particular issue. Androgynous albino swordswallowers who walk with a limp and vote straight ticket Democrat? The Left will practically demand you get a month to yourself. Just be glad Tumblr isn’t in charge of the calendars of you’d be lucky to make it to your first birthday in time for your funeral.

Ah, but if you deviate one bit away from the standard Leftist viewpoint, you’re a traitor to your subdivision and must be shunned. That’s how someone like Rachel Dolezal is considered to be closer to a “true black” in the Left’s eyes than Stacey Dash, someone who doesn’t have to wear Extra Dark George Hamilton Skin Bronzer to pass for black.

But that’s where the Left gets creative. They talk a great game about the need for diversity, but when it comes time to deliver, they actually have to produce something. And that something usually doesn’t come in the colors of the diversity rainbow, but something closer to the color of money. The Left loves to buy off different groups to keep them from straying too far away from the rest of the hive. And that, ladies and gentlemen, has given us a concept of diversity that runs counter to what diversity actually is.

Back in the days when colleges actually taught something other than How to Find a Safe Space 101, intellectual discussions of various topics were the norm. Nowadays, you’re lucky if you can find anyone, student or faculty, who isn’t a member of the Microaggression of the Month Club. (This month’s microaggression is Pokemon GO being a tool of the Patriarchy.) Why is that?

Simple. The Left cannot win when their ideas get exposed to contrary opinions. Global warming/global cooling/global climate change/global Sharknado probability/whatever they’re calling it this week is a prime example. The Left built a narrative around faulty data, fudged research, and the lure of easy grant money to get scientists to say manmade global warming is a thing. Oddly enough, they used the same strategy to get Barack Obama elected, but that’s another story for another time. And for a number of years, it actually worked.

Then, the actual temperatures started coming out, and the Left lost their minds…errr mind…okay, brain cell. They couldn’t possibly be wrong! They are the true believers in science. Except when that science showed they were wrong, then it’s “junk science” paid for by Big Oil, Big Pharmaceuticals, the Koch Brothers, the Illuminati, the Bilderburgs, the Fnord Motor Company, and Hitler’s brain in a jar.

Put another way, the Left needs an echo chamber in just about everything it does, including when it comes to diversity. After all, if everyone you know tells you your Chicken Tartar is great, shouldn’t you believe them? They prop each other up to make themselves believe they’re being diverse, just like every other Leftist. And in doing so, they’ve proven they don’t get it. You cannot create diversity by checking off boxes on a list. You actually have to look outside the box and find out how people really are.

Then again, if Harvard had bothered looking outside the box, we wouldn’t have Princess Running Gag, Elizabeth Warren.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

25 Views

This past week saw racial tensions get higher than a Pink Floyd concert in Denver on April 20th. In the advent of two new shootings of black men at the hands of police, Black Lives Matter and its allies on the Left had a chance to revisit a concept they’ve talked about before. And it gives us a new Leftist term to dissect.

institutional racism

What the Left thinks it means: racism ingrained into existing systems preventing people of color from succeeding

What it really means: a ready-made excuse for failure

From the people who think it’s silly to consider corporations to be people comes an idea where large organizations take on human traits, like hating people. And they’re the smart ones?

When you really think about it, institutional racism doesn’t make a lot of sense. To believe it exists, you have to believe there is a concentrated effort by people in systems of power to keep down people of color…even when those systems are filled with people of color.

On second thought, don’t really think about it, at least not without a bottle of aspirin and several stiff drinks.

The concept of institutional racism stems from recent history (or as recent as the 1960s) when people believed The Man was responsible for the ills of society’s ills. Racial tensions boiling over? The Man was keeping people down. The gap between the rich and the poor growing? The Man was keeping people down. The rise of Leo Sayer? Well, The Man can’t keep everyone down, yanno.

Now, instead of claiming The Man is keeping people down, the Left has done away with The Man and started blaming everything on the institutions. Yet, what exactly are the institutions the Left wants to destroy?

Higher education.
Government.
Free market economics.
Media.
Law enforcement.

What do these institutions have in common? They tend to be dominated by…white men. In order to take the first step towards eliminating institutional racism, the Left wants to eliminate white men. But that can’t possibly be racist, can it? I mean, doesn’t racism require power to be racism? According to the Left, yes. According to people on speaking terms with reality, not so much.

On a side note, wouldn’t denying blacks have the power to be racist be an example of racism?

The real fun is trying to get the people who claim there is institutional racism to come up with a concrete replacement. Usually, they fall back on a concept we’ve discussed here before, social justice. For those of you who didn’t catch it, social justice essentially combines all the fun of socialism with all the intellectual depth of a 3 year old’s Twitter account, with a sprinkling of the sense of humor of a Third Wave feminist.

In other words, it looks great on paper, provided that paper is of the toilet variety.

Of course, the Left says if you don’t see institutional racism, that means you’re a part of it and you’re blind to it. If this sounds familiar, it is. It’s the same idea behind white privilege. If you don’t recognize you have privilege, it’s because you have it and are blind to it. And if you recognize you’re a racist with privilege, you are somehow more enlightened than the rest of us.

Of course, that would mean you’re a racist elitist, and I’m just not sure I want to follow you because, well…you’re a racist elitist.

And the worst part of the idea is the fact it creates an environment where people believe the worst in themselves and others. If you’re already in the mindset that you’re going to fail, you will. It’s called a self-fulfilling prophecy. And instead of working harder and believing yourself, institutional racism is your Get Out of Responsibility for Your Life Card. After all, you can’t succeed because society won’t let you, right?

Wrong.

The minute you accept institutional racism, white privilege, or any other Left-leaning self-loathing claptrap is the minute you give up on yourself and accept the judgment of others who don’t even know you as truth. I say this as a heterosexual white man: I want everyone to realize their dreams, but that come with a price. That price is the sweat of your brow, the blood pumping through your heart as you find the courage to defy your own expectations and limitations, the will to go big or go home and knowing that going home is not an option.

I want everyone to be the best person they can be, and that doesn’t happen when you rely on the easy crutch of low expectations that no one will hold you accountable for. You must live like the barriers you’re told exist are speed bumps on the road to your destiny.

Believe in yourself, not in institutional racism, and you will be far better off.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

26 Views

As America celebrates Independence Day, two concepts always enter the discussion: barbecues and quasi-legal fireworks. And between food-induced comas, we occasionally talk about freedom and our rights. We all have different ideas about what these concepts mean, but the Left has some pretty kooky ideas about them.

freedom

What the Left believes it means: the ability to do what you want when you want
What it really means: the ability to do what you want without negatively impacting others

rights

What the Left believes it means: the legal authority to do what you want when you want
What it really means: the legal authority to do what you want without negatively impacting others

That’s right, kids. Freedom and rights are not necessarily interchangeable. You may have the freedom to yell “fire” in a crowded theater, but it’s not a right. Now, if you yell “movie” in a crowded firehouse…

Where the Left gets the two concepts mixed up is when they apply it to what they would like to happen. Take the entire concept of “safe spaces,” for example. The idea behind them is to allow people the Left believe aren’t getting enough attention to speak freely in a comfortable surrounding where their voices will be heard and accepted.

In other words, it’s an echo chamber.

Now, try to be someone who doesn’t “belong” in a safe space. Your right to express yourself goes away faster than Bill Clinton’s pants on Spring Break. And don’t expect the Left to take up your cause because you’re not one of them. They will restrict your freedoms faster than you can say the first syllable in “First Amendment.”

Meanwhile, they claim any time they disrupt a conservative speaker it’s free speech. Just YouTube any of Milo Yiannopoulos’ speeches during his Dangerous Faggot Tour, especially the one involving Trigglypuff. But I would advise you not to eat while you watch it.

In the particular scenario referenced above, the Left has taken the freedom to speak their minds…sorry, hive-mind and equated it to their right to speak. One tiny problem with that approach. You do not have a right to be an asshat. Interrupting a speaker exercising his or her right to free speech is pretty much the definition of being an asshat, and it doesn’t exactly help your case.

Where the rest of us get confused is because we don’t see rights and freedom separately. Quite the contrary. We see rights and freedom as connected as your fingers when using Super Glue on anything, except the thing you’re trying to glue. The difference between the two is there is no legal support for freedoms. If you claim you have the freedom to run around naked in your backyard, that’s cool, but try to exert you have a right to run around naked in your backyard and you’ll have the cops arresting you for indecent exposure. (Or so I’ve heard…)

Rights are concepts that require a really good reason to have them curtailed. And, no, protecting your fee-fees from opposing opinions isn’t a good enough reason. Going back to the “fire” in a theater example for a moment, there is a greater need for personal safety than the right to free speech because yelling “fire” would create a panic and result in potential injuries and death to those in the theater. The same could be said of someone yelling “This is the latest Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie” in a crowded theater.

Put another way, freedom is what you can do as long as nobody is looking and nobody gets hurt. Rights are what you can do even when nobody is looking and nobody gets hurt.

But if you’re looking for someone to watch…I have no idea who you can talk to about that. After all, this is a family blog!

(But seriously, I might know some people.)

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

33 Views

Today the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law requiring abortion clinics to have the same cleanliness standards as a hospital. As a result, abortion rights activists have been happier than Bill Clinton at a sorority of nymphomaniacs when Hillary is on the campaign trail. But what is abortion to a Leftist? Let’s find out!

abortion

What the Left thinks it means: an unfortunate medical procedure that should be legal, safe, and rare

What it really means: the unholy sacrament of the Left

A little over the top? Not really, when you consider the lengths the Left will go to in order to protect the practice as it currently stands.

Take the Texas law referenced above, for example. The Left opposed making abortion clinics as sanitary as other medical facilities. Let that sink in for a moment. The Left opposed making abortion clinics, where a medical procedure is performed, as sanitary as a hospital, where medical procedures are performed.

From the same people who claim abortion is a women’s health issue.

Don’t try to understand it, folks. You’ll only get a migraine.

At the head…err heart…ummm…at the forefront of the abortion rights fight is Planned Parenthood. On the surface, they appear to be defenders of women young and old alike. They oppose government intervention into a woman’s sexual life and want everyone to be free to make their own decisions. Seems pretty innocuous, right?

Well, that’s where things can get a little muddy. Planned Parenthood does a great job in coming up with more euphemisms than parents trying to explain sex to a three year old. Even though they won’t come out and say it, they do a lot of abortions. And by a lot, I mean 327,653 according to Planned Parenthood themselves in their 2013-2014 annual report.

Now, how much do you think it would cost to get an abortion at Planned Parenthood? For a first trimester abortion, these hardworking, honest, and well-meaning people get up to $1500 per procedure. Granted, they also say it may be much less, but they don’t come out and say how much it costs. (Good thing they take Medicaid!)

Let’s run some numbers. The Guttmacher Institute (the research arm of…Planned Parenthood) and the Centers for Disease Control estimate 89-92% of all abortions occur within the first trimester. Taking the low end of this range and assuming Planned Parenthood’s percentage matched it, that would mean PP performed 291,611 first trimester abortions. If each procedure cost $1500, that would mean a net windfall of $437,416,500.

Of course, it’s likely only a fraction of the first trimester abortions performed would be $1500. Even if only 10% of the abortions cost $1500, we’re still dealing with $43,741,650. Let’s go even further and say only 1% cost $1500. Still a decent take-home of $4,374,165.

So, why did I run these numbers? To establish a simple concept: Planned Parenthood has no fiscally responsible reason to want there to be fewer abortions. And when you consider the political fundraising arm of Planned Parenthood tends to skew more Left than NPR run by Bolsheviks (in other words, NPR), the Left has no politically responsible reason to want there to be fewer abortions.

And when the Leftists in Congress give Planned Parenthood over a half billion dollars in federal tax dollars? Let’s just say I haven’t seen this much cycling since the Tour de France.

We can (and probably will) argue about the legal, moral, and personal implications of abortion until the cows come home, sleep on the couch, promise to look for a job tomorrow, and then move out to go back to college to get that Bovine Studies degree. At the end of the day, though, the abortion rights side of the argument needs there to be more babies being aborted to sustain itself.

Taking innocent life to sustain a political and monetary agenda. If that isn’t unholy, I don’t know what is.