Every so often, I come across a story about a former celebrity whose star has fallen so far they might be asking you whether you want to super size your combo meal as you ask that all important question, “You’re still alive?” This past week, I had a similar feeling about a long-running TV show, “Saturday Night Live.”
See, comedian Shane Gillis delivered a monologue that…how can I put this…pissed off a lot of Leftists because he made some disparaging comments about how some women dress in gyms. As a result, SNL got mentioned in the news after being a news, talent, and entertainment void for decades.
Consider me jumping on this bandwagon, but with a lot more humor than the subject.
Saturday Night Live
What the Left thinks it means – an exceptionally funny and well-written show that pokes fun at the powerful
What it really means – an occasionally funny show that should have been cancelled years ago
I wasn’t that old when Saturday Night Live started, but I caught up quickly as I got older. They weren’t the cutting edge of comedy at the time; they were leagues beyond it. Early hosts like George Carlin and Richard Pryor brought a lot of eyes to the fledgling show from controversial appearances, but it was the steady hands of the Not Ready For Prime Time Players that kept people watching. The men and women who made up the regular cast all had comedy chops and weren’t afraid to push the envelope more than a postal worker working straight commission.
After the original cast left, there were some lean years, but the core of what SNL was remained the same. They weren’t afraid to take on raw topics in the cultural zeitgeist or poke fun at politicians regardless of party. Even if you winced at how the cast skewered your side, there was still some solid writing that you could appreciate.
And don’t get me started on “Weekend Update” that gave us absolute geniuses behind the desk from Jane Curtain and Gilda Radner to Dennis Miller and Norm Macdonald. I would wade through sketch after sketch just to watch SNL’s take on the news of the week because, well, I was a nerd and had the time on Saturday nights because I had no social life.
And that’s why I was in therapy for so long.
Anyway, when it was firing on all cylinders, nobody could touch SNL. Oh, there are some who tried, like ABC trying to upstage SNL with their show “Fridays,” but it didn’t last long. Even coming on a day earlier didn’t help. Saturday Night Live was an entertainment juggernaut.
Then, things changed. Oh, the format was the same, but the material started losing its bite. Gone were the days when Democrats and Republicans would get smacked around with something resembling equal time. Some topics (including the President in Briefs, Bill Clinton) weren’t being covered as savagely as before. The comedy was hit-or-miss (or Ms. if you prefer). What made SNL so entertaining got muted by ideology and status.
When SNL started, it was the comedy counter-culture. By the mid 90s, it was the culture. And with their reputation preceding them, the competition just ran syndicated shows in the hopes “Baywatch Nights” or “VIP” could peel off even a couple of viewers. That made the powers that be comfortable, which made them complacent.
The cracks really began to show during Norm Macdonald’s turn behind the Weekend Update desk because of his frequent jokes at the expense of O. J. Simpson. And really, all he did was kill his wife and a waiter in a fit of rage. Who could hold that against him?
Norm did. And he did it very well.
Which brings us to the figure I think is the touchstone for the fall of SNL. His name was Don Ohlmeyer, who at the time was NBC West Coast president at the time. Oh, and he just happened to be close personal friend of…O.J. Simps0n. Apparently, “the Juice” couldn’t take Macdonald’s jokes on Weekend Update and called Ohlmeyer to complain. Naturally, Macdonald was told to stop, and just as naturally, Macdonald refused. As a result, Macdonald was fired from the show, only to return to host the show a year and a half later and deliver quite possibly the best monologue in the show’s history.
Sure, it’s no Alex Lifeson’s acceptance speech at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, but it’s up there.
Comedy works best when there are no sacred cows. By picking and choosing who gets mocked, you limit your potential joke sphere, which in turn defangs its bite. Comedy is supposed to be the great equalizer because we all do funny shit.
And Ohlmeyer forgot that rule, if he ever knew it at all. After all, that pindick fired Macdonald for not being funny. Humor may be subjective, but there was no doubt Macdonald was a comedic genius.
Once the heads of the network got to determine who could be the butts of jokes, SNL truly lost its way and, with a tiny handful of exceptions, no longer became a must-see for people on Saturday nights. The sketches got predictable and safe, Weekend Update was the show’s version of Mitch McConnell, and not even the musical guests could salvage what was left of SNL’s bloated, unfunny corpse.
But instead of picking up on the fact their show sucked ass, they kept on doing what they were doing. People still showed up for the live audience, the critics almost universally praised the show’s comedic chops, and nobody was the wiser.
Except, you know, for the people who understand comedy is supposed to be funny.
I still catch SNL clips every so often, but it’s not something I go out of my way to find. It’s more like a notice of an impending IRS audit; I know it’s there, but I try to put it out of my mind before I get anally raped.
Even by the most liberal (figuratively and literally) standards, SNL’s brand of comedy makes Hannah Gadsby look like Dave Chappelle. And if you don’t know who Gadsby is, consider yourself lucky, but I can give you an idea of how she approaches comedy.
She sneaks up on it, is about to pounce on it, and then gets distracted by a shiny object, thus allowing comedy to hop away unharmed.
SNL doesn’t even try to approach comedy so much as it shops for it at Whole Foods, but only if it’s free range cage-free cruelty-free organic comedy because they have an image to maintain. Even their edgier jokes these days have all the edge of a Nerf ball.
And it shows in the ratings. They’ve had some high points since 2022, but most of the time they’ve struggled to consistently get 5 million viewers. Even longtime fans, such as your humble correspondent, are turning off SNL in droves.
That’s why I think they asked Shane Gillis to host. If he entertained people, it would be successful and SNL would get positive press for putting on a good show. If he offended people, SNL could (and did) disavow his performance and would get positive press for not standing for offensive humor. It’s a win-win situation.
And who cares if the show sucked otherwise!
The thing is SNL doesn’t seem to care anymore. It is a legacy show, so it will have a spot in the lineup for as long as NBC wants to keep it on the air. But that doesn’t mean it’s a good show. After a while, even the best shows get trite and as predictable as a mystery novel written by the Socialist Socialite. (Spoiler Alert: the oligarcy did it.) “The Simpsons,” “Family Guy,” and “Friends” all got boring for me after a time because the jokes and plots got predictable.
And Saturday Night Live has been that way for the better part of two decades with no signs of changing anytime soon. In the meantime, if you want to reminisce about its heyday, see if you can find old episodes on steaming services or YouTube, or check out old episodes of MadTV, which had more of the old SNL vibe than anything since the start of this century. At some point, they’ll have to get the hint that they aren’t the cultural phenomenon they once were. Instead of thumbing its nose at The Man, it became The Man.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to prepare for Halloween. The trick or treaters are bound to make me laugh more than Saturday Night Live has.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With the midterm elections taking up so much media attention (as the non-stop shitstorm of political ads shows), there are some stories that slide under our respective radar. One such story is that of Christa Pike, a woman on Tennessee’s death row who just happened to survive two execution attempts via lethal injection. Aside from questions about how she would do in Atlantic City casinos, it opened up another discussion about a controversial topic, that being the death penalty.
The public is still divided on whether violent criminals should meet their maker via the world’s most lethal Tinder date, with a majority still favoring it. Of course, that means the Left opposes it, including groups like Amnesty International, because, well, the Left is fucking contrarian these days. And in the past. Well, ever, if you really think about it, and I do because there’s nothing good on TV anymore.
Needless to say (which is why I’m typing it), the death penalty is worth a gander for a Leftist Lexicon entry.
the death penalty
What the Left thinks it means – a barbaric process that should be outlawed for various reasons
What it really means – a punishment that should be the on the table for the most extreme cases
There are a lot of divergent opinions on the Right when it comes to the death penalty. Some of the faithful variety support it while others reject it, both on religious grounds. And both sides have valid perspectives on whether God would allow His followers to end a life in the name of justice. Even more secular members of the Right have concerns about whether the state should be in the business of killing prisoners. These positions show a great deal of thought and introspection.
The Left, on the other hand? They just fucking love criminals.
Take the impending executive by firing squad of Nidal Hassan, the Fort Hood shooter. Sure, he killed 13 people, but the Left want us to overlook that inconvenient truth (hey, that would be a great name for a book, unless that fuckwit Al Gore got his mitts on it) because Hassan was injured as a result of his killing spree. Now, he’s a paraplegic and the Left are turning him into a martyr for their cause.
Which is, you know, loving criminals.
Although Hassan’s circumstances are different than Pike’s, the Left’s position is the same: we can’t kill them because…well, they’re still trying to figure that part out. But I’m sure that, given sufficient time and consideration, the Left will come up with something by the end of the decade.
They’re still trying to figure out which decade, mind you…
For me, I’m of two minds on the subject. As a Christian, I know it’s God’s job to judge, and I’m smart enough not to get in His way. As a skeptic of government getting things right, I can’t completely go along with the same bunch of asshats who can’t figure out how not to spend us into insurmountable debt until the sun burns out having their fingers on the switch.
But as a human being who pays attention to the world around me, I know there are some deeply evil motherfuckers out there. And keeping these dregs of humanity alive while their victims didn’t get the same consideration has always struck me as supremely unfair. I’ve often said any murderer who doesn’t get the death penalty has effectively beaten the charge, and I still feel that way.
Even though we have clowns to the Left of me and jokers to the Right, I’m still not willing to take the death penalty off the table, but only for those extreme cases where there is no other punishment severe enough to adequately address the crime committed.
Of course, the Left loves to paint the death penalty as racist because of the races of the people on death row. My counter to that is the racial makeup of the people committing the crimes that land them on death row. Seems the FBI has some pretty detailed statistics on the matter. But, the Left believes math is racist, so there’s that bullshit to deal with.
Even if I grant the Left’s position that the criminal justice system is biased against non-whites, there’s a way to avoid it completely: don’t commit violent crimes! This is a fixable issue, kids! And, yes, I understand the racism can reach down to the local police departments, some of which make the white people in court in To Kill A Mockingbird look like a Benetton ad. The point still remains the best way to avoid a racist judicial system is to not get in a position to run afoul of it.
The problem we face with the death penalty is some of us aren’t willing to even consider using it for the worst of the worst. The fact California couldn’t bring themselves to execute Charlie Fucking Manson should disqualify them from any morality discussions. Well, that and the fact they covered for Harvey Weinstein like he had blackmail material on Hollywood.
Regardless, even when we have someone who turned in his membership to the human race decades ago, we can’t seem to bring ourselves to accept his/her resignation and wish them the best of luck in their soon-to-be-truncated future endeavors. This can be boiled down to a belief executing a criminal somehow diminishes our humanity. If we can learn to forgive those who commit the most egregious of crimes, even if it results in the loss of life, we’re lead to believe it shows we are better for not giving into our baser instincts.
And this is what the Left counts on in their anti-death penalty rhetoric.
In the Bizarro World logic the Left uses, the criminals are almost always the victim (except if they’re involved with J6 or conservative causes, then they’re all guilty) and they deserve to be kept alive in case we execute an innocent man/woman. I sympathize with those wronged by the judicial system, but I also recognize the relative infrequency in which an innocent person is erroneously punished. By playing to the fears of excessive punishment of the innocent, we have rendered justice toothless and irrelevant to the guilty.
And you can be damn sure the guilty know that.
That’s how Lindsay Clancy got a mistrial in a case where only the truly delusional believe she shouldn’t be held truly accountable for killing her three kids. And it will happen again and again until we get our heads around the guilt trip we’ve been on for decades about the death penalty.
Even so, we have to be careful not to default to the death penalty for every crime. You shouldn’t be getting it for not rewinding a movie from Blockbuster Video in 1994, but if you shot one up and don’t feel any remorse for it I’m going to have to insist we schedule a meeting with Ol’ Sparky for you. I hear he’s electrifying.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Language is a funny thing. Something that is crystal clear for one generation can get muddled by the next and vice versa. But there are some things that we thought would be universal.
Like masculinity.
Well, we can cross that off the “No Shit Sherlock” list because the Left has been trying to reshape the idea over the past few years. The latest salvo in this war of words came from New York Magazine and its men’s style issue. And who just happened to be at the forefront of the issue? Elliot “The Artist Formerly Known as Ellen” Page.
Yeah, the irony of having a trans man as the epitome of masculinity isn’t lost on me, but it opens the door to discussing it further. Or at least it gives me something to write about until the Left does something else mock-worthy!
masculinity
What the Left thinks it means – a fluid concept that encompasses the best and worst of male traits
What it really means – a specific concept that defines male traits
Having been a man all my life, except for a brief stint in college when I was drunk and needed the money, I have an insight on masculinity the Left doesn’t. That’s not exactly a major accomplishment, mind you. My dog has insights the Left doesn’t and she eats her own shit.
Then again, maybe the Left does, too…
Anyway, the point is masculinity used to have a set stereotype. Think Ron Swanson. A man who likes his whiskey, a steak, and to build shit. Often at the same time because, dammit, that’s what men do. Can you tell me Elliot Page could replace Ron Swanson without ingesting copious amounts of illicit drugs?
No, but that’s not going to stop Leftists from trying.
In fact, this isn’t the first time the Left has tried to redefine masculinity. During the 70s, the Left tried to get us to see Alan Alda to be the epitome of manhood, mainly because he exhibited traits that were decidedly not masculine. Being in touch with your feelings and unafraid to show them are nice traits, but they’re not exactly masculine. But it worked well enough that men, including your humble correspondent, felt they had to be “good guys” to get female attention.
Works great in romcoms. Works like shit in real life.
This is because heterosexual women like masculinity, even if they don’t want to admit it. You’re going to find most women (and a good number of men) lusting after Jason Momoa than after Jack Black because the former exudes masculinity and the latter is, well, Jack Black. It’s biological hardwiring, kids. At our most primitive levels, women like men who look like they will protect them from a T-Rex or a drunken asshole, and men want women to like them. That way they can make babies and the bloodline will continue.
And when you consider the Left considers sex to be more for pleasure than procreation, it explains a lot about why they don’t get what masculinity is. That and their 406,193,248 genders bullshit.
Now, this is going to come as a shock to some of you, but the Left loves to try to make things more difficult than they actually are. Their constant attempts to redefine masculinity is part of that, but it’s also a part of their attempts to make trans women “real women.” After all, if they can get enough people to think of Dylan Mulvaney as a real woman instead of a man with a weird Audrey Hepburn/Ariana Grande fetish, they can get people to see Elliot Page as a real man.
They do this by preying on our humanity, and by having a social media mob that would make the villagers going after Frankenstein’s monster look positively pacifistic. It’s the classic iron fist wrapped in a velvet glove approach. If you don’t respond to their softer attempts, you’ll get a 10 ton five knuckle shuffle across your jawline.
But now they’re running into some unexpected resistance in the form of people just saying “fuck it” and not playing along. The Left’s kryptonite with any of their current attempts to reshape manhood (oh myyyyyyyyy!) is getting people outside the Leftist hivemind to agree with them on the freakier shit they support. The slippery slope is a thing, but it’s hard to overcome the lack of traction on that slope when someone throws out sand, salt, and common sense.
And guess what the “fuck it” is.
What the Left and their cohorts fail to see is how tired most people are of the near-constant assaults on reality. We don’t want trans people to feel like second class citizens, but we need them to meet us halfway on the respect front. If you want to dress like Judy Garland trapped in the body of an NFL linebacker, go for it! Just show us the same respect for the way we live our lives. And as it stands right now, the majority of the Left so little respect for alternate opinions that Nick Fuentes is suing them for intellectual property theft.
Joke’s on him! There’s nothing intellectual about Fuentes.
And there’s even less intellectualism about the Left’s attempts to turn Elliot Page into the new face of masculinity. Remember, these are the same assholes who tried to get us to believe Tim Walz was the modern “real man” because he coached football and can change parts on a truck. This is “Naomi Wolf teaching Al Gore about manhood” levels of dumbfuckery. And it didn’t work either time.
The real kicker here is how the Left has to put qualifiers on masculinity. If you lean more towards the Ron Swanson side of masculinity, it’s “toxic.” If you lean more towards the Tim Walz side of masculinity, it’s “healthy.” In other words, if you want to be popular in Leftist circles for your masculinity, you have to be an utter buffoon.
And even then, you can be replaced by a trans man.
If I could offer TIMMAH Walz some advice, it would be this. Stay down. Don’t even try to get up again. Just stay down.
As far as the Left is concerned, my advice is to stop trying to redefine masculinity into something that is the Bizarro World version of it. Men are men, and not even clever wordplay can change that. Elective surgery, yes, but not clever wordplay.
And to Elliot Page, I say live your life, but don’t let yourself become the face of a concept you didn’t come to naturally. You can be your version of masculinity, but it’s not the masculinity most people recognize and that’s always going to make you an outsider, and not of the Pony Boy variety. Juno what I mean?
See what I did there?
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Since it’s a day ending with, well, day, the Left are pissed off yet again, and it’s against a familiar target. Donald Trump? Nope. JD Vance? If only! Common sense? Well, that’s an ongoing situation, but not what the judges were looking for. The target of this week’s Leftist meltdown?
Sydney Sweeney.
Seems the hottest woman on the planet not named my wife did an ad for a sports betting site where she was mostly and totally nude, covering the more…intriguing parts of her body with sports equipment. Of course, feminists and Leftists (but I repeat myself) got their collectivist granny panties in a wad over it, talking about hypersexuality and other buzzwords that sound bad, but mean nothing.
But the term I’m adding to the Lexicon this week isn’t hypersexuality, but rather a phrase the Left has used in other circumstances with much less attractive women. I’m talking about female empowerment. It’s another term that means nothing, but I figured I’d bring it to the forefront this week for two reasons. One, it exposes the Left’s hypocrisy regarding the aforementioned Ms. Sweeney and feminism in general. And, two, it gave me a chance to do a lot of…research watching the ad repeatedly.
The things I do for you, dear readers…
female empowerment
What the Left thinks it means – a movement that makes women feel they can do anything
What it really means – a movement to treat ugly and incapable women better than beautiful and accomplished women
The concept of female empowerment sounds good in theory. After all, women make up nearly half of the world population, so it might be a good idea to treat them well. Especially if they know where you sleep.
Where things get fucked up is in practice. Since the Left are the ones screeching about female empowerment and the Right wondering who’s going to be empowered to make a sandwich, the Left controls the narrative. So, what have they come up with?
Let’s just say it’s not really empowering women.
Their idea of female empowerment is more about forcing society to accept every woman as powerful leaders than it is about preparing women to achieve lofty heights. The former gave us Brie Larson as Captain Marvel. The latter gave us Margaret Thatcher. There is a big, big difference between the two. For one, I would rather see Margaret Thatcher in skin-tight latex.
Wait. That was out loud, wasn’t it? Nevermind…
Anyway, the way the Left approaches female empowerment is more superficial than super. Whether it’s their support of the body positivity movement (basically, you have to accept a person no matter how thin or fat they are) or making the case getting an abortion is something to be proud of, it all comes down to whatever they think women want/need to feel empowered.
And a lot of it comes down to another favorite Leftist term: patriarchy.
See, Leftists have it in their heads everything bad in the world comes down to the existence of men. So, they think the only way to make women more power is by rubbing men’s noses in it.
Hence, Brie Larson as Captain Marvel in a series of films that would make Tommy Wiseau say “OHNOMARK.”
Here’s what I mean. I’m a comic book fan and I like most superhero movies. I gave “Captain Marvel” the benefit of the doubt and wound up tapping out after 10 minutes because Larson was insufferably off-putting. In her attempt to convey strength, she came off as an arrogant “girl boss” with no real concept of actual strength. She was a super powered “I want to speak to your manager” Karen. And I hated it.
I didn’t hate the character, though. I understood her. She was accomplished, a leader, and someone in full command of herself. Larson’s performance was devoid of everything that made the character worth following. It would be like replacing Bruce Lee in “Enter the Dragon” or Chuck Norris in, well, anything with Pee Wee Herman. No matter how good of a job he could have done, it still wouldn’t work.
Not unlike most Leftists.
A lot of the Left’s perception of female empowerment is connected to titles. Take Kathleen Kennedy (please!), for example. She became the president of Lucasfilm (i.e. Star Wars) after Disney bought it. Leftists pointed to her as an example of female empowerment because she took the existing Star Wars franchise and turned it into DEI drek. Almost every female character was a “girl boss” and didn’t need any man to help her be awesome.
Personally, I should have seen it sooner. I went into “The Force Awakens” with an open mind and left saying “They did a fucking gender swap on ‘A New Hope’ but made it suck!” And since then I’ve started walking away from the franchise I loved since I walked out of “A New Hope” (that’s Episode IV for the kids playing along at home).
And if it had stopped there, I might not have been as pissed. But Kennedy kept recycling the formula and the franchise kept getting worse and worse to the point the Star Wars Holiday Special looked like Shakespeare. Even “South Park” couldn’t avoid taking well-deserved potshots at Kennedy. And when she stepped down earlier this year, she empowered…well, no one, really, but she was a total girl boss!
And now we have a bunch of “empowered” females writing Star Wars without a fucking clue of what’s really going on, but with a mindset that every female character is powerful and demands respect even if she’s as bland as oatmeal flavored oatmeal.
Of course, there are going to be Leftists reading this saying I hate strong women. That’s going to come as a shock to my wife because she’s a strong woman and I love her with all of my heart. Where I part company with the Left (aside from having better hygiene, an actual job, and an IQ higher than that of a rotting turnip) is the definition of a strong woman. First, I know what a woman is, which puts me leagues ahead of your average Leftist. Second, I don’t think strength comes from where someone sits on the corporate ladder or who pushes the “right” ideology in a particular medium.
Everything the Left thinks makes women powerful is 180 degrees out of phase with what actually makes women powerful. Going with a personal example, one of the strongest women I’ve ever known was my mom. Not only did she have to help raise your humble correspondent as well as two older brothers, but she took care of our house, made meals, bought groceries every two weeks, got the mail from our downtown post office, and so many other things that Leftists would hate for her. My mom carried a lot of responsibility on her shoulders, but she did it with a warm smile and comforting words.
My mom’s power came not from any seat of corporate or government leadership or from beating the drum of any cause. Her power came from the way she supported her family every day. In retrospect, I wish I could have done more for her to show her how much I appreciated the gentle guiding hand she had, but in the same breath…or keyboard clacking I can say that I’m already doing it by wanting to do more. My mom’s power came from taking the gifts she had and using them to inspire others to use their gifts.
Which brings us back to Sydney Sweeney’s huge…gifts.
Remember what I said about the Left’s perception of female empowerment being driven by hatred of the patriarchy? Well, Ms. Sweeney is the epitome of the patriarchy to them because she is beautiful and confident. By appearing semi-nude or nude, she’s reducing women to sex objects, thus perpetuating the male-dominated society. She’s setting women’s rights back 100 years! She’s objectifying female athletes!
To which I say she’s pimping a sports betting site, not claiming to be an athlete or a feminist.
And the side that perpetuates “slut pride” and “my body my choice” completely missed the point in their rush to self-righteous outrage.
What Sydney Sweeney did is the definition of female empowerment. She wasn’t forced into a decision by a man as far as I know, and she brought a lot of attention to a service no one heard about before now. And she’s already been paid for her work, but will definitely get more work afterwards. That’s the power of success, and no amount of teeth gnashing from rainbow-haired Leftists will change that.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to get back to my…research. I will take no further questions at this time.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
If you’re like me (and if you are, I apologize), you’ve been following the Lindsay Clancy shitshow…I mean trial. I touched on it briefly last week, so if you want to read it before getting into this week’s entry, check it out here. If you don’t want to, click on the link anyway because reasons.
Anyway, one of the twists I didn’t see coming was a renewed discussion about the 19th Amendment. The odd thing is members of the Left and the Right are coming out and suggesting it may have been a mistake.
And all it took was a triple murder of children to bring both sides together.
So, let’s dive in!
the 19th Amendment
What the Left thinks it means – an important Constitutional Amendment enshrining the right of women to vote
What the Right thinks it means – one of the biggest mistakes we ever made as a country
What it really means – a Constitutional Amendment that underscores the power women have in government
The 19th Amendment reads as follows:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Wow. Looks like there was a time when the federal government didn’t need to overexplain something! Color me impressed!
Seriously, the 19th Amendment came about during a time when women were becoming more visible in everyday life and in politics. Although the origins of the women’s rights movement started in 1848 in New York, the 19th Amendment wasn’t ratified until 1920. After centuries of being considered non-factors, women finally had the power to make their voices heard.
And in 2026, many are wishing they would shut up.
I’m kidding, of course. As much as I like to point and laugh at Karens wanting to speak to managers and shake my head as others defend a triple murderer because uterus, I have been blessed to have many strong, intelligent women in my life, not the least of which being my wife.
And, no, she is not standing behind me as I write this. After all, she knows where I sleep.
Just kidding, honey! Love you bunches!
More to the point, not all women are psycho hosebeasts with the morality of Hunter Biden at an all-you-can-snort cocaine party on Epstein Island. For example, I would think Margaret Thatcher would be bitch-slapping the Lindsay Clancy fangirls and telling them in no uncertain terms murdering three kids is bad. Of course, if Thatcher were doing that today, we might have a zombie problem, which is just a bit more important than a triple murderer.
Since 1964, more and more women are voting, outpacing the number of men voting in Presidential elections. Even before then, voting data showed women tended to vote Democrat. With this combination of factors, women became a voting bloc that could no longer be ignored.
And yet, Republicans have for a looooooong time, as shown by the gap between women voting Democrat and women voting Republican consistently being in double digits. That, and the fact Democrats pandered more to women than a nerdy simp trying to get the attention of an attractive woman.
Not that I know anything about that, mind you…
Although this explains why Republicans might want the 19th Amendment to go the way of Jeb Bush’s Presidential aspirations, it doesn’t excuse it in light of current events. With the Left being eternally confused about what a woman is, this is an opportunity for Republicans to reduce that gap if they’re smart.
Unfortunately, that’s a bit of an ask these days. After all, all the Left needs to do to mobilize women is to mention abortion rights and wait for the votes to roll in…oh, wait, that’s what they do when they’re fabricating votes to cheat…I mean win elections. But the game plan is still the same.
1. Invent an emotionally-based threat to women.
2. Create ads that play with women’s emotions.
3. Rely on their allies to amplify the threat to women.
4. Blather.
5. Rinse.
6. Repeat until the election cycle is over.
Let’s just say this tried and true method that gets results doesn’t put women in the best light. Yet, it’s tried and true for a reason: it works. The Left continues to use women for votes and money by exploiting female psychology, which tends to prioritize emotions. Although emotions can play a part in our ideologies, it doesn’t always work out when it comes to electing competent people.
If you doubt me, I have two words: Joe Biden.
But it took a triple murder of children for people on both sides of the aisle to reconsider if women should have the right to vote. Personally, I think that breaking point was when older women started to identify with Taylor Swift’s music, but that’s just me.
What’s also me is a bit of pushback on repealing the 19th Amendment. In spite of the outbreak of winemomitis so prevalent in today’s society, I still think women can make good decisions. The fact I got married shows that!
More to the point, women aren’t purely emotional creatures. They just think differently than men do, which is necessary for both genders (and, yes, still 2 genders, kids) to be better people. If we want to have a better society and government, we need to be better people, and taking a significant chunk out of the voting pool because of the actions and sentiments of some freaks doesn’t achieve that.
There’s also a Leftist workaround already in place to deal with the repeal of the 19th Amendment should it come to pass. All Leftist women have to do is self-identify as men and fellow Leftists in positions of power will let allow it. Except, of course, if you’re a man self-identifying as women to play in the WNBA, that is.
Instead of repealing the 19th Amendment, there has to be another option. And being the idea guy that I am, I think I have one. I call it the “Are You Fucking Stupid?” test.
Prior to getting a ballot, a potential voter, man or woman, must submit their recent social media history to election officials. If a majority of them have to ask if you’re fucking stupid, you don’t get a ballot. I’m not talking about having shitty taste in music, movies, or the like. If your serious posts on issues make you look like an idiot, you clearly lack the intellectual heft necessary to vote.
That eliminates the TikToker vote, and it helps to clean up social media for people who have more than two brain cells to rub together. So, win-win!
In the meantime, I urge anyone who has second thoughts on the 19th Amendment to really think about the implications of such an action. You would be condemning an entire gender to disenfranchisement all because some of their sisters decided to back a triple murderer because fee-fees. That’s not fair, nor is it advisable.
Remember, as the great philosopher LL Cool J so eloquently put it, Mama said knock you out.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
As much as I like to keep my thumb firmly up the ass of politics, social issues, and pop culture (hey, don’t judge me, man), there are times when I notice a convergence of a couple of topics that hasn’t been discussed at all. This requires a keen mind, a calm demeanor, and a way with words.
And since that guy is on vacation right now, it’s up to me.
There are two recent prominent court cases that dominated the public’s attention. The first was the trial of Karmelo Anthony, who was convicted of murdering Austin Metcalf at a track meet in 2025. The other is the ongoing trial (please check local listings for the status of the trial in your area) of Lindsay Clancy, who is accused of killing her three children in 2023. Aside from the murder aspect, these two cases couldn’t be more different.
Until you look at the people following the trials.
And I’m not just talking about some of the people who covered them as journalists. I’m talking about the brainless asshats who invent “facts” to devote their undying support for…the murderers.
Yes, we’ve gone that fucking stupid.
Gad Saad was instrumental in creating the concept of “suicidal empathy” where those who would do us harm rely on our humanity to help them destroy ourselves. I would write about it, but so many others have done a much better job than I ever could. However, using suicidal empathy as a starting point, I think I’ve stumbled upon another equally destructive concept.
homicidal empathy
What the Left thinks it means – We have no fucking clue.
What the Right thinks it means – Mega dittos. We don’t know what he’s talking about either.
What it really means – a psychological need to protect those who victimize others
To show you I’m not talking out of my ass (for once), I’ve been following the Karmelo Anthony trial on Facebook and following the Lindsay Clancy trial online, mainly through YouTube. Not exactly the kind of hard-hitting journalism you’d expect, but this shit’s free and you’re getting what you paid for.
What I’ve found so far is this:
1. There are people online who have emotional attachments to the two central figures because they feel they related to the figures in question.
2. These people will create any scenario in their heads or believe whatever scenario someone else puts forth, regardless of whether it’s factual or logical.
3. Anyone who tries to introduce inconvenient facts and logic are immediately attacked by these people.
4. The attacks from the aforementioned people will be irrelevant to the trial, highly personal, highly emotional, and often full of vulgar language to avoid dealing with the facts.
On a side note, number 4 resembles my single life.
Meanwhile, back that the point that doesn’t require weekly therapy sessions, the pace at which these folks spin narratives is breathtaking. No matter if it’s a line of logic that goes nowhere or if it’s someone else asking a logical question that exposes the claims as more full of shit than a Porta-Potty outside of a Taco Bell in New Dehli, there’s always a response. Usually, a personal insult. And nothing short of God himself coming down and notarizing your statements will sway them, and even then it’s a crapshoot.
That’s because homicidal empathy isn’t about the truth. It’s about taking up for a cause without consideration to the factual underpinnings of the cause. We saw this earlier this year with the Southern Poverty Law Center when Leftists came out in droves to defend it in spite of the fact they were breaking several laws to funnel funds to the very racist groups they said they were fighting. No matter what excuses they came up with to justify the behavior, Leftists still couldn’t grasp the concept that breaking the law has consequences, no matter how noble the cause.
Then again, these are the same people who can’t figure out what a woman is, so I’ll cut them some slack in the intellectual prowess department.
In both the Anthony and Clancy cases, we have laws being broken and clear evidence the perpetrators committed murder. Where homicidal empathy comes into play is the supporters of each murderer seeks to downplay or justify the actions of the murderer by deflection, poisoning the well, and general dumbfuckery. After all, as we all know, murder is perfectly fine if other unrelated factors are evident!
For you Anthony and/or Clancy supporters out there, that was sarcasm.
But here’s something that isn’t sarcasm: you’re supporting a fucking murderer. And I’m not talking in a hyperbolic sense like “Donald Trump has killed 482 bazillion people because of shutting down USAID.” Both Anthony and Clancy are literal murderers who confessed to murdering people. There is no amount of “but Austin Metcalf was racist” or “the husband is a different Zodiac sign” that will change that fact. It’s yours. Own it.
The sad thing is they never will because the narrative will continue to put out new “facts” to support itself, not unlike one of my Irrefutable Facts of Life: The sole purpose of a bureaucracy is to grow itself to the point it becomes impossible to remove. With the Anthony and Clancy supporters, the sole purpose of the narrative is to mitigate the facts of the cases to the point murder is no longer the central concept. It becomes the “yeah, but” defense.
Then, it hit me the kind of tactics these folks use is similar to that of cults. Let’s look at the characteristics of a cult, shall we?
– Absolute authoritarianism without accountability
– Zero tolerance for criticism or questions
– Lack of meaningful financial disclosure regarding the budget
– Unreasonable fears about the outside world that often involve evil conspiracies and persecutions
– A belief that former followers are always wrong for leaving, and there is never a legitimate reason for anyone else to leave
– Abuse of members
– Records, books, articles, or programs documenting the abuses of the leader or group
– Followers feel that they are never able to be “good enough”
– A belief that the leader is right at all times
– A belief that the leader is the exclusive means of knowing “truth” or giving validation
Guess what groups hit the majority of these warning signs. If you said “the Anthony and Clancy supporters” you’d be right. The judges would have also accepted “Hasan Piker fans.”
If that isn’t your cup of Earl Grey, I can also point to the lyrics of Living Colour’s “Cult of Personality.”
I exploit you
Still you love me
I tell you one and one makes three
Guess what, homicidal empathy fans. You’re in a cult. And if you can’t trust a combination of psychologists and Living Colour, who can you trust?
The worst part of homicidal empathy (aside from the whole sticking up for murderers bit) is there is zero return on investment here, and I’m not talking about it in a monetary sense. Instead, consider the personal psychological costs involved with it. Men and women (mostly women I’ve found, unfortunately) are devoting their lives to people who don’t even know they exist, but they are more than willing to use their supporters to garner sympathy. Sure, the Anthony and Clancy supporters can hand wave away such observations by claiming they’re fighting for a higher cause (namely justice), but these cases aren’t the hills you should be dying on, kids.
If you’ll pardon the turn of a phrase, that is.
Even if you don’t, the point remains. Is there racism in the justice system? Absolutely. Do women experience post partum depression after giving birth? No question. Are Karmelo Anthony and Lindsay Clancy the best poster children for these issues? Abso-fucking-ly not. You can address these issues independent of bad people facing the consequences of their actions.
And something tells me a lot of the Anthony and Clancy supporters haven’t done shit but complain. You know, classic slacktivism.
Unfortunately, I don’t think we’ll ever be able to get through those willing to engage in homicidal empathy, but we can watch out for signs we might be going down a similar path. Nobody is worth diminishing yourself to elevate him/her, especially if that person is a piece of shit. Karmelo Anthony and Lindsay Clancy are not role models nor innocent victims. They did the shit they’re accused of doing, and no stretches of imagination that would rival Reed Richards practicing hot yoga will fix that.
Consider the wise words of my grandpa: “Hey you kids! Get off my lawn!”
Profound words indeed.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
As a general rule, I try not to discuss people in these Lexicon entries for a couple of reasons. First, I’d rather discuss ideas than people. And second, all it takes is one scumbag lawyer representing a Leftist freak for your humble correspondent to be in court over their hurt fee-fees.
This week, I have to make an exception, but it’s not for these reasons. The Left has their collectivist hivemind set on a Presidential aide with the Trump Administration, Natalie Harp. Apparently, those who believe in strong intelligent women don’t think Ms. Harp can be a strong intelligent woman serving under the President and must have another reason for being there.
Yeah. They went there.
So, in my defense (and Ms. Harp’s), I have to go there to discuss the underpinnings of the Left’s hypocrisy. Get your hip-waders on. We’re gonna get muddy!
Natalie Harp
What the Left thinks it means – a woman who is serving the President, if you know what I mean
What it really means – A Presidential aide. That’s it.
When looking at Ms. Harp’s history, there isn’t much there that stands out as out of place. Her rise to more administrative power could be rewritten for any political operative, right down to the academic bona fides. So, why all of the sudden have Leftists become Harp enthusiasts?
Donald Trump.
I’m the first one to admit Trump has done himself no favors with his sexual history, both real and made up of utter bullshit. (By the way, Tom Arnold, we’re still waiting on your proof of Trump’s “piss tape.” I’m sure you could spare some time in your current schedule of doing jack shit to produce that evidence.) But, as we’ve seen from the Left’s defense of Bill “Commander In Briefs” Clinton, the sexual side of politics doesn’t matter as long as you support the right things.
You know, like journalists offering to give Bubba “mouth hugs” because of his support of abortion rights.
Of course, Trump doesn’t get that glazing (#phrasing) from the Left because he’s literally Hitler! Seriously, it’s because he’s a Republican. As Matt Gaetz can tell you, the Left will do anything they can do to insinuate sexual impropriety against Republicans when the facts may or may not be there.
Guess what they’re doing now, kids.
Ms. Harp’s proximity to Trump makes her a prime target to use as a cudgel against the President because as we all know all Republican or right-leaning woman is a mindless MAGA fembot without agency. (For y0u Leftists reading this, that was sarcasm.) Then again, these same Leftists think Dylan “Temu Ariana Grande” Mulvaney is a strong and brave woman, so do with that what you will.
One of the criticisms the Left has levied against Trump is he surrounds himself with a “type,” namely attractive blonde women. And Ms. Harp certainly fits the bill. Naturally, the Left latched onto that to fabricate fanfic stories less believable than the results of a California election under Governor Gavin Newsom.
This is one of the most amusing parts of this pseudo-scandal for me. On the one hand, the Left acts like giggling little kids because of the sexual innuendoes involved. At the same time, they’re acting like the moralizing scolds from the Religious Right from the 1980s (all while hiding their own sexual skeletons). It’s Schrödinger’s Sex Scandal: it’s both good and bad the President is accused of sexual impropriety, and it depends on how one perceives it.
Appropriately enough, both this concept and the original form of it involve pussy.
When sex and politics come together (#phrasingagain), you’re going to find weirdos emerging from the woodwork to weave a story. And some of those weirdos hold public office.
May I introduce Senator Jon “Lying My” Ossoff. He kicked off a firestorm over Ms. Harp when he made the following statement during a campaign stop:
He doesn’t want to do the job. He wants to build his ballroom and travel with Natalie on their apparently defenseless flying palace gifted by the Emir of Qatar.
There’s a few things to unpack here, but the main point is the suggestion President Trump and Ms. Harp are fucking. Slight innuendo perhaps, but it’s there. He later tried to explain away the comment and then doubled down on it. (Schrödinger’s Denial perhaps?)
By the way, if any members of the Schrödinger estate want to kick me a few bucks for promoting your late relative, I’m okay with that.
But it’s not just Leftist politicians getting into the act. Leftist media types (but I repeat myself) are also getting into the fray. Here are just a few snippets from our favorite presstitutes.
Natalie is essentially a body person. She is a human binkie. Somebody who loves him as much as his wife. He would say to aides she’s never going to leave me. – Maggie Haberman, New York Times
None of these people defending Trump’s side piece seemed to have any issue with Trump calling female reporters “piggy” and “hag.” – Julie Brown, Miami Herald
Meet Natalie Harp, the aide so close to Trump she once rode in an SUV trunk to accompany him “As the motorcade idled outside his Trump Tower residence, staffers confronted a more immediate problem: There wasn’t room for Harp, the hyper-loyal aide whose devotion to Trump had quickly entrenched her within his orbit. A screaming match in the lobby ensued, with Harp insisting that Trump had personally asked her to attend the court appearance, two sources familiar with the matter told CNN. Denied a seat but determined not to be left behind, Harp jumped into an SUV trunk, according to the two sources and confirmed by a photo obtained by CNN.” W @adamcancryn – Kristen Holmes, CNN
Salary of executive assistant Natalie Harp: $150,000 a year.
Average salary of a sailor on the USS Lincoln:
~ $50,000 a year. – X post from Bill Kristol
Trump’s Human Printer Is Cray-Cray – title of article on The Bullwark by Jonathan V. Last
“Man, I wish Trump were just having an affair with someone forty-five years his junior. That kind of relationship would make sense. It would be gross, but intelligible. The reality of the Trump–Harp…thing…is so bonkers that I don’t have words for it.” – X post from Bill Kristol, quoting from the aforementioned Bullwark article
Erin’s full interview with the estranged brother of Trump aide Natalie Harp as CNN reports Harp is constantly around Trump all hours of the day: “It really blows my mind.” – X post from Erin Burnett OutFront, CNN
And speaking of Ms. Burnett, she had an interview with Ms. Harp’s estranged brother on her show. Because when you want to get to the heart of who someone is, you gotta talk to a relative you don’t get along with. That’s Journalism 101.
And for any Leftists reading this, that was also sarcasm.
Although going into public service means you have to give up your privacy, what Ms. Harp is experiencing right now is beyond the fucking pale and only because of her political leanings. Of course, the Left doesn’t care about the privacy of women who don’t agree with them, or anything else about women who don’t agree with them for that matter. Yes, dear readers, the self-professed “Party of Women” doesn’t see anyone outside of its hugbox as human worthy of even the most basic of human respect. And I can prove it in one word.
COVID.
The kind of utter disdain the Left has for non-Leftists was hard to overlook and even harder to endure. Throw in the Left’s lawfare against Trump (including the aforementioned lies about him), the capriciousness of the January 6th detainees, the frequent death threats against Trump and other Republicans, the joy they had at Charlie Kirk’s assassination, the list goes on and on.
But if you don’t use the proper pronouns, you’re the monster.
That’s the area we’re heading in right now with Michelle Harp. She isn’t a woman in the eyes of the Left; she’s a tool to be used against President Trump, and that’s all she’ll ever be to them. No intelligence, no agency, not even an entity deserving of respect. Just a weapon, a tool used by tools if you will. Even if you won’t, I’m sticking with it because it’s my blog, dammit!
Either way, I hope she gets through this media-fueled rough patch with humor, grace, and determination to keep doing her job to the best of her ability. Success is the best revenge you can get on people on the Left.
And since they’re not familiar with it, it will come as a complete surprise, which makes it all the funnier!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
I’ve said it before that I’m not a Trump man, but there is one thing that I will always admire about him: his ability to piss off Leftists. And, to borrow a phrase from the President, he does it yugely.
The latest incident involved him sneaking off Air Force One prior to lifting off from Turkey due to an apparent threat on his life. That alone was enough to get the Left’s perpetual anger machine going, but it got even better when it came out there were reporters on Air Force One at the time. I haven’t seen that many people losing their shit since Chipotle had their “All the Food Poisoning You Can Get for $5” promotion.
Now, the Left tends to have some of the most artistic people in their numbers, but their Trump insults miss the mark more than Stevie Wonder at the gun range. My favorite so far due to the utter cringe factor comes from Seth Abramson, who called for Trump to be impeached over what he termed “Operation Orange Chicken.”
Yeah. So, that’s not a thing, but it is a thing we’re going to talk about this week!
Operation Orange Chicken
What the Left thinks it means – a clever way to describe how President Trump cowered in fear
What it really means – proof Trump Derangement Syndrome is real
It’s hard to deny Donald Trump is a polarizing figure, even within the Right (or in the case of Never Trumpers, the Grifter Right). I mean, it’s not like he’s survived actual attempts on his life or anything…oh, wait.
Regardless of how you feel about the man, Donald Trump is still the President of the United States, and any person in that role needs to heed security warnings, no matter how small or unlikely. You can disagree with the details, but it’s a fact of life as the Commander In Chief.
And it’s a fact of life Leftist influencers can’t stand. Take social media whore…I mean political commentator JoJoFromJerz, for example. For those of you who aren’t on the Social Media Platform Formerly Known as Twitter (or who don’t want to give her the clicks), here’s what she said:
Joe Biden never hid in a food truck like a scared little bitch.
And we can trust her because she uses more filters than a water treatment center on the Ganges River. But she can speak extensively about being a bitch, so there’s that.
Of course, there were plenty of other X users to set Temu Kellyanne Conway straight about how she supported a man who was more secluded on the campaign trail than Boo Radley with agoraphobia, not to be confused with algoreaphobia, which is the fear of ManBearPig. And I’m super cereal about that.
But what Temu Kellyanne Conway fails to realize is heeding the advise of the Secret Service isn’t being a scared little bitch. It’s following basic safety protocols for one of the most powerful men in the world. Granted, she hasn’t faced any legitimate threats on her life since coming out as being stupid, so she may lack the perspective to understand why the President and the Secret Service take the steps they do. Unless you count hurt fee-fees and being George Conway’s second choice as potentially lethal.
However, we can learn something from her reaction, as well as the reactions of other Leftists taking rhetorical pot shots at the President. The most obvious is they legitimately want Trump to be hurt or killed because tolerance. (Don’t ask me. I’m still trying to figure that shit out.) The Left has become more comfortable with violence against political rivals, perceived or otherwise. Anyone outside of their hugbox is literally Hitler, thus proving a) they aren’t serious thinkers, and b) they don’t know what the fuck “literally” means.
But going back to the original message that started this Lexicon entry, the Left wants any and all bad things to happen to Trump and his family, regardless of whether they make sense. This may come as a surprise to Mr. Abramson, but impeachment over hurt fee-fees isn’t in the Constitution, mainly because the Founding Fathers didn’t get offended that easily because, well, they were men. Mr. Abramson even makes J. Edgar Hoover look like Chuck Norris here.
And that’s saying something when a dead man in a dress is more butch than you’ll ever be.
The thing is the calls for impeachment aren’t really because Trump did anything illegal. It’s to cause more rhetorical pain to him. Another impeachment means more time spent on defending the President in what will ultimately be a fruitless effort right now, and possibly after the midterms. And Trump will rightly laugh it off, as will anyone with the brain capacity of a chick pea. Sorry, woman pea.
This is where the Left excels in pettiness. Since they have a working knowledge of bureaucracy and lawfare, they know how to punish those who dare to not follow the beat of their drum through those processes. Whether you’re the President of the United States for a Christian baker in Colorado, the attack strategy is always the same: grind down the opposition to force obedience and discourage others from fighting back.
Spoiler Alert: Trump, like Homey the Clown, don’t play dat.
Which makes their impotent rage and flailing at anything to get Trump all the more enjoyable.
There is another element to the story that would explain the Left’s sperg-out over this situation, that being the number of DNC stenographers…I mean reporters on Air Force One at the time. The Leftists in the media (but I repeat myself) got their collectivist panties in a bunch, going so far as to claim the reporters were in danger and Air Force One was a “decoy.”
Okay, time-fucking-out here. We have some Leftists claiming Trump was a coward, and then we have other Leftists clutching their pearls at the danger the reporters were in because of the ruse. I know you Leftists have the self-awareness of President Brick Tamland on a bad day, but you can’t simultaneously say Trump was afraid of getting hurt and say the reporters were in danger. Not that it’s going to stop you, mind you, but there’s a logical disconnect here that’s hard to explain away without looking like fucking morons.
To be fair, I’ve never been one to jump on anything the Left does as evidence of Trump Derangement Syndrome, but after this latest round of sperg-outs, I’m starting to believe. And don’t get me started on the Left’s attempt to change TDS from “Trump Derangement Syndrome” to “Trump Delusion Syndrome.” It’s cringy as hell and utterly unoriginal. Like Err America, but less entertaining.
Regardless, the Left simply cannot let Trump have a win under any circumstances, and it’s starting to cost them politically. From the possibility of trans athletes in the WNBA (the W standing for “Whatever” these days) to immigration enforcement, TDS has turned a major political party into the embodiment of constantly being on the wrong side of 80-20 issues. At this rate, Democrats will be lucky to lose in the midterms and in future Presidential elections because they can’t stop being batshit insane and/or defining their platform beyond “get Trump.”
Although it’s typical Leftist bullshit in lieu of anything that might make voters consider pulling their levers for Democrat candidates. Or voting for them, for that matter. (Sorry. Obvious double entendre. Had to be done.)
Operation Orange Chicken will be red meat for the Leftists (which is odd considering chicken is white meat), but it’s not going to resonate beyond the faithful because most people understand the importance of keeping the President alive while in office by any means necessary. That, and we’re not partisan assholes.
Well, except for me. You folks are golden.
This latest Leftist squawking point will fade away soon enough, only to be replaced by something even less important because that’s what the Left has become. They’re no longer in control of the overall narrative, so they’re forced to react to what’s happening. And with their fingers firmly up the ass of the electorate, their reactions will probably be less accurate than a Media Matters fact check.
And the worst part about Operation Orange Chicken? An hour later, I’m hungry again.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
As we near the end of summer (check local listings for the season in your area), I’m reminded of a time when big budget and ultra-hyped movies would dominate the theaters during the summer months. Some of these films would be sequels to previous movies (because that’s how you get sequels in the first place). Some were good (“Empire Strikes Back”) and some sucked ass (the “Twilight” movies).
I bring this up because there’s another sequel in the works on the Left. Remember “woke,” kids? Well, thanks to some Leftists, they’re coming out with a new version, “Woke 2.0.” Well, when the Left serves up such a steaming hot pile of dogshit, it’s my duty to mock it mercilessly!
Woke 2.0
What the Left thinks it means – unapologetically standing up for more progressive policies
What it really means – same shit, different version
When “woke” became a thing, I wrote about it here, but to give you the short version, it was a bunch of Leftist bullshit to virtue signal how wonderful and inclusive they are (unless, of course, you disagree with them). Now, I could recycle all of my previous points and jokes and it would still be relevant, but I’d rather take this on with a fresh perspective.
But don’t be surprised if the new boss sounds the same as the old boss.
Virtue signaling isn’t anything new for the Left, but woke was virtue signaling on Bane-style steroids. And, by and large, it worked to a point. People didn’t want to look like they were intolerant and backwards, so they went along with the woke agenda. From big companies to small groups of friends, everyone seemed to be on board to stay out of the negative crosshairs of woke advocates. I mean, who would want to be attacked by 96 cats?
The problem with this shame-based approach is it doesn’t work with people who don’t care about how people they don’t even know think about them. Call it the “Who the Fuck Are You?” defense. That’s kinda where I’m at right now with the various parts of woke culture these days. I can see a need to diversity if only so our personal horizons can expand, but I don’t think it’s a requirement that I adopt ideas that make no fucking sense. I’m from Gen X. I’m used to being considered an outsider and I’ve made peace with it. And since I’ve been online since you needed a hamster wheel and two paper cups connected by a string to get online, I’ve been called any number of things by people who didn’t know me. Your weak-ass shit is nothing.
And it’s still nothing under Woke 2.0.
So far, what I’ve seen included in Woke 2.0 is the same 80/20 issues the Left have been on the wrong side of since, well, ever. For example, they’re trying to pull in the anti-ICE crowd as part of their happy little movement full of perpetually pissed-off dumbasses. After all, who could ever be against the deportation of illegal immigrants?
Answer: the dipshits supporting Woke 2.0.
I’m curious to see what else Woke 2.0 is going to try to co-opt to make it seem bigger than it actually is. The funny thing is the Left has already tried to do this. Since the 1990s, Democrats have created a patchwork coalition of different social and economic interests that managed to win elections by playing their only card in the deck, “Republicans are far worse.”
Over time, though, that patchwork started to fray as the members of it grew dissatisfied by what party “leaders” did and didn’t do to keep their promises. That, and the Democrats became the batshit insane party. This left the disillusioned with a few choices:
– stick with the party in the hopes the “leadership” would listen to them (Spoiler Alert: they never will because all they want are your votes and money.)
– try to get in positions of power within the party ranks (This is where the Democratic Socialists of America are.)
– go even further to the Left (This is what caused the DSA to get so much traction recently.)
– move to the Right, if not out and out join them
Intelligent people would consider doing that last one, but since we’re dealing with Leftists here, we’re not dealing with intelligent people. Although this causes headaches for the DNC, it makes for great content for me. So, yay!
Unfortunately, it means the first woke crowd may become the foot soldiers for Woke 2.0, up to and including preaching to us from a position of presumed moral superiority. You know, the Religious Right did that in the 80s and all it ever got me was the Satanic Panic and the Parents Music Resource Center. And neither one was that great.
But here we are on the verge of watching the woke evolution try to become the woke revolution by being just like Tipper Gore. Fucking brilliant! If it gets physical arcades at shopping malls back, I’m willing to give it a pass, but I doubt that’s going to happen.
After all, there are more important things than Galaga (counterpoint: no, no there isn’t). We have ICE agents shooting and killing innocent bystanders exercising their First Amendment rights to protest. And by protest I mean attempt to kill ICE agents because fee-fees.
I also get the sense Woke 2.0 won’t just go after people for disagreeing with them because they tend to be the group that tries to beat people up Antifa style. Leftists are more and more okay with political violence, so it’s not out of the realm of possibility they would agree with Go Woke, Get Broke(n). And when dealing with such persuasive violence…I mean rhetoric, who could resist?
Oddly and appropriately enough, it’s the people who mocked them for their attempts to “Resist.”
From my perspective, the Left has a lot of impotent rage issues over everything from pronoun usage to ICE deployment. A big part of that stems from times when they’ve had control over different aspects of life and social media because they were the ones to hold themselves accountable. And, surprise surprise, they investigated themselves and found they did nothing wrong!
Since Woke 2.0 is just starting out, I can’t say for certain it’s going to be a repeat of the Resist movement or any other Leftist movement we’ve experienced in the past decade, but I’m gonna go out on a limb and say it’s going to end the same way. For all of their talk of being highly educated (just ask them), they fail at the most important part of being educated: applying what they’ve learned.
Here’s an example. You know how Leftists are jumping on the Democratic Socialist bandwagon? If you notice, they come from a position of financial and social privilege. Much like in the former Soviet Union, those in higher positions can afford to live in a way contradictory to their rhetoric because the people beneath them can’t afford to rebel.
Spoiler Alert: We ain’t the former Soviet Union.
For all of its faults (like electing Democratic Socialists), America is still a global economic powerhouse. We may not produce as much as we did, but we still consume, which makes us an attractive market for anyone wanting to be successful. There are enough people who will push back if only to cause you to lose your collectivist brain cells in disbelief.
The same thing will happen with Woke 2.0 as it did with Woke 1.0. After a while, the concept of woke became a joke and, except for some parts of the perpetually pissed-off sections of the Interwebs, isn’t taken seriously. Woke 2.0 has all the makings of New Coke, but with fewer fans. And when it eventually flops like the most recent “Supergirl” movie, or the original for that matter, there will be more laughing at the Left’s expense. Which will eventually lead to Woke 3.0, and so on.
So, I’m not getting my hopes up that Woke 2.0 is going to shock the world, but it may wind up to be a Shockmaster event.
And if you got that reference, you are my kind of people.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
After sifting through the ones and ones of the emails from my tens and tens of fans, I figured I’d better get cracking on an actual submission this week. And boy was it a target-rich environment.
This week I want to venture into a topic I delved into previously because it’s gained a lot more attention recently. Plus, I’m big into recycling, especially if it’s my own writing. In recent weeks, the Democratic Socialists of America have found their way into political relevancy, both because of winning primaries and because of politicians supporting them. But a recent Fox News interview with a DSA co-chair leaves the Left in a precarious situation.
And by precarious, I mean utterly mockable.
Democratic Socialists of America
What the Left thinks it means – a new and long overdue progressive movement that will bring equality and justice to America
What it really means – a new and very underdone progressive movement that sucks ass
The concept of democratic socialism sounds good on paper. The way the DSA explains it makes it sound so logical and appealing. I mean, who wouldn’t want more of a say in government and how it wastes…I mean spends our tax dollars? We should really take back our power from the greedy corporations who are running everything into the ground and join with our neighbors so we can build a better tomorrow.
Yeah, that and $5 will gets you a hand job from a crack whore…not that I know anything about that, mind you.
The problem with what the DSA promotes is it’s all bullshit. And it’s not even good quality bullshit, either. It’s Temu/Great Value bullshit, if that.
The core of DSA’s platform is anti-capitalism. In their own words:
Capitalism is a system designed by the owning class to exploit the rest of us for their own profit. We must replace it with democratic socialism, a system where ordinary people have a real voice in our workplaces, neighborhoods, and society….
We want a democracy powered by everyday people. The capitalist class tells us we are powerless, but together we can take back control.
Where do I begin with this? Well, first off, the DSA has a below rudimentary understanding of just what capitalism is. Here’s a very simple definition of capitalism from Investopedia.
Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership, voluntary exchange, and profit-driven activity.
Now, if you’re observant and have an IQ higher than that of table salt, you’ll notice there’s an important word in the definition of capitalism that undercuts the DSA’s description of it. And if you’re a Leftist, I’ll tell you so you don’t spend the next few weeks trying to figure it out.
It’s the word “voluntary.”
Capitalism isn’t a system where people are forced to take any action whatsoever. Everything done under capitalism is done by choice. If you have a job, you choose to go there. If you buy groceries, you choose to do that. If a company puts out a certain type of widget, that’s a choice. Seems to this humble observer that’s…freedom.
Compare that to the DSA’s description. Based on them, all commerce is forced by the producers. In order to create a Democratic Socialistic society, the DSA would have to take from the producers and give it to the consumers. Maybe it’s me, but I don’t think that’s freedom, kids.
Not to mention, the DSA overlooks the power consumers already have. Remember Crystal Pepsi? I do. You know why it’s no longer prominently sold? Because enough people thought it fucking sucked. New Coke? Same thing. Potato chips made with Olestra? Off to the great outhouse in the sky, along with a lot of Taco Bell meals. (Too soon?) All of these (except for the Taco Bell) is a direct result of consumers not wanting the products the corporations put out for consumption.
You know what’s still on the market? Mountain Fucking Dew! And that’s because people like it and keep buying it in all of its multicolored variations. Imagine an economic and political movement whose core beliefs can be destroyed by Mountain Fucking Dew. And that includes Caffeine Free Diet Mountain Dew, which takes away two of the reasons people buy Mountain Dew in the first place.
Now, let’s talk about the platform itself. Or more specifically, the shit they think is important. For their “Socialist Summit” which will be going on when this piece goes live, here is a short list of programming tracks.
– how the DSA can win elections
– promoting a general workers’ strike on May Day
– Palestine
– abolishing ICE
– organizing so more DSA candidates win
And the best part? Registration for the Socialists Summit is $200. Oh, and they suggest bringing food and water for yourself because a meal won’t be provided. But if you need childcare, you can let them know!
And they have an online merch store.
And they have membership tiers, complete with increasing prices.
And it’s not voluntary. If you want to join the DSA, you have to pay.
See what I’m getting at here? The DSA is a marching contradiction. They can talk all about how they’re for the common person, but they’re just as invested in capitalism as those they want to topple.
Now, here’s the really funny part. The DSA is making electoral strides only because Democrats are so pathetically weak right now. Let me put it this way: in the face of the DSA, the DNC would surrender before the French would. Part of this is because Democrat leadership is a contradiction in terms. More to the point, though, this void in leadership has left an opening for fringe players unhappy with the aforementioned void to step in and be loud, giving the illusion of popularity.
As of July 2026, there are over 120,000 members of the DSA. In comparison, there are 45.4 million registered Democrats as of April 2026. Granted there may be some crossover voters, but let’s assume for the purposes of this sketch the numbers are right. A major political party of 45 million is kissing the ring of a group that represents less than 1% of its own voting base.
Pardon my French, but WHAT IN THE WILD WORLD OF FUCK? You literally have the numbers to make the DSA your bitches, but you can’t.
Or won’t.
Modern Democrat politics and Leftist politics revolve around the same thing: capitalizing on buzzwords they think voters want to hear. That’s why Bernie “Three Houses” Sanders and the Socialist Socialite continue to blabber on about the oligarchy (which is ironic given the fact they are the oligarchy and rarely vote against their peers who are also the oligarchy). It’s never about actual policy anymore. Trying to pin down a Leftist on a policy position is like trying to staple Jello to the wall using a banana. It might work at Lutheran potlucks, but not where it counts.
While Democrats struggle with how to handle the influx of Democratic Socialists, their indecision/silence is speaking volumes. The leadership is flummoxed, the party faithful are either staying quiet or supporting the DSA, and the rest of us are noticing what’s going on. In this case, my Democrat friends, silence is consent. Or is it violence? Maybe it’s infrastructure. Either way, you have to say or do something to not look like cowards, fence-sitters, or comrades. (Yes, I know that’s more communism than Democratic Socialism, but they’re not that far away from each other.)
One final note on Democratic Socialism that has always bothered me. The term makes it sound like we can vote in socialism, which I don’t mind necessarily because it’s still the will of the people. Stupid people, I grant you, but people nonetheless. If we can vote in socialism via Democratic Socialism, can we vote it out again?
Still not getting a line on that question from the DSA, so I’m assuming the answer is “we haven’t thought that far ahead yet.”
While I continue to prime my cryogenic chamber to wait for the answer, I suggest keeping an eye out for the Democratic Socialists of America. Partially because they seem to be gathering steam and may take over the Democrat Party relatively soon. But mostly because it’s fun watching them saying capitalism is bad while posting on social media using the latest smartphones.