The White House Correspondent’s Dinner was this past weekend (check local listings for the weekend in your area), and from what I’ve heard, it was boring and lame. You know, like the current “Saturday Night Live”? Considering this year’s “Nerd Prom” was hosted by current SNL cast member Colin Jost, it’s not surprising.
Although I’ve never been invited to the WHCD (my invites keep getting lost in the mail, I suspect), I want to help make them better. The most obvious, yet less funny solution is to nuke the site from orbit because it’s the only way to be sure. (20 points if you get that reference.) However, I’m not just looking for the easy way out. I want to give it an honest go. But just know I haven’t taken the nuclear option of the table.
The problem with the current WHCD is it’s toothless when Democrats are in power and ruthless when Republicans are in power. There are a lot of reasons for this, not the least of which being many modern comedians are Left-leaning, while many actual comedians are neutral or slightly Right-leaning. This is because actual comedians don’t feel the need to be a cheerleader for one side or the other since…now take notes, kids…it eliminates a good chunk of the audience and the material. No matter how dim-witted and oafish one side’s political leaders are, it’s almost a guarantee you will find similar dim-witted and oafish types on the other.
Why, it’s almost as if politicians aren’t the best and brightest people in our midst!
Anyway, the best way to add some spice to the WHCD is to find hosts who can skillfully filet both sides with a rapier wit. That excludes most current comedians and all current SNL members, but it opens up the door for actual entertainment for a change. Imagine if Donald Trump gets reelected (a realistic possibility given the current economy is a tire fire without the smell) and someone like Frank Caliendo hosts the WHCD with the best Trump impression ever. (Sorry, Alec Baldwin, but your Trump sucks more than Stormy Daniels working a champagne room for extra money.)
Or, on the other side, let’s say Kamala Harris wins in 2028 (regrettably, just as realistic a possibility given the current Left is obsessed with race and gender more than, you know, actual competency). Someone like Dennis Miller would be the perfect host in that situation, although someone might have to explain his jokes to the current Vice President. Maybe she would need a Venn Diagram.
Typically, I’m not the type to lay down hard and fast rules, but I do think there should be some quality control standards in place to choose future WHCD hosts. Here’s what the boys and girls in the Research Department came up with.
– If your sense of humor can be described as intelligent knock-knock jokes, you’re out.
– If your comedy hero is Hannah Gadsby, hard pass.
– If you have more cats than jokes, noooooope.
– If you’re more worried about safe spaces than punchlines, hit the bricks!
– If all your WHCD jokes sound like they’re from an open mic night at the Chuckle Hut, thank you, but we are going in a different direction.
– If you don’t mind whose oxen you gore (or whose gore you oxen), we might just have a place for you.
Personally, I would like to see the WHCD be more like a Dean Martin Comedy Roast, but with more alcohol. Back then, roasters could be much more relaxed and really lay into each other with good humor. And, most importantly, no hurt fee-fees. You have to be able to take a joke as well as you can tell one.
And that includes the politicians and the reporters. One of my biggest gripes with the WHCD is how seriously everyone takes themselves. Look, you’re a couple of steps below used car salesmen, the IRS, and a proctologist with big, cold fingers. Your self-importance isn’t earned and is actually worthy of more mockery than praise. I mean, you guys have Brian Stelter in your ranks. And, no, that’s not a good thing. Heck, you could do a set on MSNBC and not run out of jokes.
But enough about the hosts.
There are some of you out there who might think the White House Correspondent’s Dinner is beyond repair, and you’re not wrong. But, I think if it could be tweaked here and there, it might be salvageable.
If not, there’s always the nuke.
Author: Thomas
I'm a writer and a ranger and a young boy bearing arms. And two out of the three don't count.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Lately there have been quite a few stories about people taking up residence in a property they don’t own, a practice known as “squatting.” And it’s not just catching on here, but in England as well. Yes, Chef Gordon Ramsay had to deal with squatters in one of his pubs (and I’ll bet there was a lot of profanity used in the process).
So, why the sudden interest in squatting? I’m glad you asked…or I asked…either way I’m glad the question was asked. Otherwise, this was going to be a really short Lexicon entry. It’s easy to blame it on President Brick Tamland’s economic policies being so shitty it puts the toilets at Chipotle to shame, but there’s a bit more to it.
And that means I get to talk about it.
squatting
What the Left thinks it means – people taking over properties for necessity
What it really means – people deciding to say “fuck property rights because reasons”
The history of squatting is long and distinguished. And by distinguished, I mean absolutely fucking nuts. Long story short, people have taking up residence in other people’s homes for centuries and there have been various ways to deal with them. Usually, these methods involve violence, but then lawyers and politicians got involved, so things had to change.
Hence, the creation of squatter’s rights. Yes, the same geniuses who couldn’t find their ways out of a non-existent paper bag decided people who openly break the law needed rights that would prevent them from being prosecuted for…breaking the fucking law. Every state has its own set of laws/guidelines/mere suggestions on squatting, but the result is the same: people taking something that doesn’t belong to them and not compensating the owner in any way.
Hmmmm…sounds like theft to me, kids!
Unfortunately, not everyone agrees. Squatting is rampant in Georgia, Texas, and Florida, and the laws (until recently) have put the onus on the property owners to jump through bureaucratic and legal hoops to get squatters to leave. And when you consider the squatters are stealing income from the property owners by not paying rent, that puts quite a burden on someone who is just trying to abide by the law.
Hmmmm…sounds like gun control laws, kids!
More to the point, however, is a notion Leftists have tried to push in recent years, that being housing is a human right. That has opened the door for people to assert squatting rights to inhabit buildings. But we’re not talking run down apartment buildings in bad neighborhoods or buildings on the verge of being condemned here. It seems squatters want to live in nice places. And since these nice places are often owned by greedy landlords or companies, it’s clear the squatters have the clear moral authority to take over these properties and make them into…well, unsafe hovels to be honest.
That’s where political ideology comes into play. With law enforcement in different parts of the country being weaker than the plot of a Michael Bay movie, squatting has become one of those ho-hum crimes. You know, like robbery, purchasing a child for sexual purposes, and violence. (And that’s just in California!) And guess who’s been at the forefront of all of this?
Leftists. Every. Damn. Time.
But don’t you make any bad comments on Facebook or they’ll throw not just the book at you, but the entire fucking library!
Anyway, a lack of enforcement makes squatting that much easier because trying to evict them is considered a civil matter instead of a criminal one, so the police are less likely to help. (Need I remind the men and women in blue we’re dealing with property theft here, not just some squabble between people?) Throw in the probability of fraud in the form of non-enforceable contracts or even non-existent contracts, and squatting becomes more criminal in nature.
But since the victims of these crimes are property owners (who Leftists think can just give up some of their property to those less fortunate because compassion), the Left doesn’t see the problem. At least, not until they find their luxury homes overrun with Phish groupies whose only source of income is investing their belly button lint in the NFT market.
For those of you unfamiliar, NFT stands for Nobody’s Fucking Trading.
Through this class warfare, the Left is able to perpetuate the idea of righteous takeover of other people’s properties under the notion of a right to housing. However, there’s a flaw in that thinking because of the nature of rights as compared to entitlements, which the “right” to housing is closer to being. A right is something you already have, like the right to free speech, gun ownership, and voting. You simply need to exercise it.
On the other hand, an entitlement is something you’re owed for one reason or another, like a pension or Social Security. With entitlements, there is a debt to be paid or a wrong to be righted. With housing, there is no real debt, wrong, or other obligation that can be addressed by a property owner giving up some or all of his/her property.
Hence, the Left pushing for people to feel entitled to other people’s shit, but shrouding it in the notion of a right. Most Americans take rights pretty seriously. Not as seriously as anything Taylor Swift is doing these days, mind you, but it’s still up there. By framing housing as a right, it cranks the level of seriousness to 11, and we’re more likely to treat it like a right.
Which is just what the Left wants.
After all, the Left believes government is the source of all good in the world, the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, and the only way to achieve justice. If enough people believe housing is a right, there’s a good chance someone’s going to ask that all important question, “Where are my car keys?” Oh, and the other question, “Why isn’t our government doing anything about this?” Then, just like Oprah with a new scam to get wine moms to buy stupid shit with her name on it, government swoops in to save the day!
Only, the exact opposite happens.
Where things get really messy is when you consider the impact on contract law. Whenever there’s a transfer of property of any kind, there’s going to be a written agreement between/among the parties involved. And, yes my Leftist friends, this is a contract, and it can be legally enforced. When Leftists decide squatting is okay, they’re also saying, “We don’t give a fuck about that contract you have!” And as we’ve seen with other ventures (can you say “Obamacare”?), as long as the Left thinks they can do something better, they’re going to do it, whether you’re involved or not. After all, they’re smarter than the rest of us. Just ask them!
Yet, these same Leftists can’t figure out how this idea can backfire on them, or when it actually has. Remember the fuss Leftists made about Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott sending illegal immigrants to “sanctuary cities”? If you think about it (and I have because I have a life that makes Boo Radley look like a bon vivant), the same approach can be applied to squatters. From what I’ve heard, Martha’s Vineyard has plenty of space and people willing to help! And if anyone asks, say you self-identify as an illegal immigrant!
But if we want a more realistic, yet less humorous solution, I have one: make squatting a criminal offense, like Ron DeSantis did. I’m sure Leftists are going to fight this in court because, well, that’s what they do whenever someone passes a law to unfuck a situation they created, but it will be interesting to see how the Left’s lawyers are going to argue theft, fraud, and property destruction are civil matters. Have your popcorn ready for those arguments, kids!
In the meantime, property owners need to keep up on what’s going on at their properties and follow the rules so the government knows who owns a property. Granted, this won’t stop squatters and their Leftist enablers from trying to pull a fast one, but it will make it a lot harder for them to convince the government and police they have a valid claim to the property. Make it as tough on them as they would make it on you if you had a squatter.
And, at least for now, stop short of booby trapping the property. Fences make good neighbors, but shrapnel wounds…not so much.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
There’s a relatively recent concept in media called “The Streisand Effect.” In short, whenever an entity tries to hide or distract from a major fuck up and it gets caught, it brings more attention to what the entity was trying to hide.
Guess who got a crash course in the Streisand Effect this week. If you guessed National Public Radio, you win…absolutely nothing, but you still got it right so there’s that!
It started with a piece written by long-time NPR staffer Uri Berliner where he laid out how NPR went from liberal-yet-respectable to batshit-insane due in part to the election of Donald Trump. After a week or so of NPR doing its best to disparage Berliner’s opinion (and in some cases the man himself) and to pretend nothing was wrong, NPR suspended Berliner and eventually he resigned.
But not before NPR got dragged into the spotlight for being partisan assholes.
And not before they earned a spot in the Lexicon.
National Public Radio
What the Left thinks it means – a trusted source of high quality journalism falsely accused of partisanship
What it really means – a publicly funded Leftist PR firm
That’s right, kids. We pay for the Leftist propaganda to the tune of almost $128 million through its parent entity, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, for fiscal year 2024. Granted, it’s not much in the grand scheme of things both on the federal budget and percentage of NPR’s annual budget fronts, but it’s not insignificant.
Especially when this allegedly non-partisan group donates heavily to Democrats. Or at least as heavily as they can with the budget they have, which is still pretty extensive.
Maybe it’s me, but I’m thinking a news network shouldn’t be funding any political figures and still claim to be fair and honest. Something about a potential conflict of interest. And by “potential” I mean “huge fucking.”
When I started listening to NPR in the late 90s (since it was the only radio station I could pick up in the office building where I was working), I found it interesting and unique. They were covered stories from perspectives the mainstream news media didn’t and more in-depth. But even then, I knew there was a bias because I learned how to root it out. Now, I can turn on NPR at any time of the day and predict what angle they’re going to take or how they will frame a story. They really don’t even try to hide it anymore.
And therein lies the problem. No matter how accurate an NPR story is, it will always be subject to doubt because of the leadership’s political leanings. Depending on who’s listening, that’s going to either create an echo chamber that leads to the logical fallacy the kids like to call Appeal to Authority. After all, if NPR is so consistently accurate (check local listings for the level of accuracy), it must mean they’re right about whatever they cover.
Except, of course, when they’re not.
To be fair, some of the errors they make are misspellings which can be excused. But when you dig into some of the factual errors they make, it casts a long shadow of doubt over how accurate they are. If they get the small shit wrong (like, oh I don’t know…publishing an article that originally said Donald Trump plead guilty to 34 felonies, only to have to correct it after the fact), it’s not that hard to imagine they get the big stuff wrong from time to time. No media outlet is perfect and I don’t expect it to be. But there’s a pretty big fucking difference between pleading guilty and pleading not guilty.
And imagine how many Leftists paid attention to the original flawed reporting and never bothered to check the correction or even the basic facts before tweeting (or would that be Xing) out the wrong information. That’s not a minor “oopsie,” either. That’s a letting-Hunter-Biden-run-the-DEA level fuck-up.
By the way, if anyone from the President Brick Tamland Administration is reading this (or having it read to you slowly so you don’t get confused by all the multi-syllabic words), I don’t want you to make Hunter Biden run anything, let alone the DEA. It was a joke. Move along.
What isn’t a joke is how NPR handled the situation. Let’s just say the nuclear plant operators at Chernobyl were less incompetent, and a lot less radioactive. From an optics perspective, NPR and its fellow Leftists handled the criticism poorly. Instead of making a public spectacle of how non-biased they are (while simultaneously proving how biased they were through their actions), they could and should have taken a calmer approach. Accept the observations publicly and work on ways to address any concerns behind the scenes. You know, like mature adults?
Well, expecting Leftists to behave like mature adults is like expecting a Michael Bay movie to be good: it may happen, but the odds are heavily against it. What they did was act like Leftists. No matter how benign or harsh the criticism, the reaction is always to paint the critic as evil. Not just wrong. Fucking evil. And that’s exactly what NPR did to Berliner. It wasn’t that his essay was factually wrong, but rather that it put NPR in a bad light. And much like Gollum with the One Ring, Leftist had to protect their precious.
Which, surprise surprise, amplified what Berliner said. Thus, welcome to the Streisand Effect. Population: NPR.
There’s not much that can be done right now to salvage NPR’s credibility with people outside the Leftist hivemind. Even if you remove all taxpayer funds from their budget, do a top-to-bottom mass firing, and select someone who isn’t a lunatic to run it going forward, the stigma of what they did to Uri Berliner won’t easily be forgotten or forgiven. Especially among those on the Left who see what Berliner did and are sick of the bias.
Way to shoot yourselves in the foot with a Gatling gun, NPR!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
It’s near the middle of April (check local listings for the date in your area) and that means one of two things. First, the Chicago Cubs are mathematically eliminated from the postseason. And second, it’s tax day.
Along with December 7th, April 15th is a day that will live in infamy, mainly because the Internal Revenue Service makes the TSA look like gentle lovers as they probe you in ways that make proctologists wince. And Leftists think the rich need to pay more. After all, the rich make more money and have more loopholes, so they’re literally cheating the rest of us by not paying their fair share.
Which brings us to one of my favorite topics. No, not the mathematical elimination of the Chicago Cubs, but the concept of “fair share.” Seems it’s a lot more complicated than the Left makes it sound.
fair share
What the Left thinks it means – making sure everyone pays their portion of the tax burden
What it really means – a meaningless term Leftists throw around to get people to hate the wealthy
Before we get into the “what constitutes fair share” discussion, we have to go through some numbers. In the fiscal year 2023, the IRS collected over $4.7 trillion in tax revenue. To put it mildly, that’s a shit-ton of money. For those who use the metric system, that’s a shit-kilo of money.
As big of a number that is, it’s overshadowed by a smaller number: 97.7%. That’s the percentage of the tax burden paid by the top 50% of taxpayers in 2020. Granted, there’s a significant difference between 2020 and 2023 or 2024 for that matter, but the numbers haven’t changed very much since 2020.
The Tax Foundation did a breakdown of the 2021 numbers, which are the most recent we have to work with. And that’s where we find the 97.7% of the tax burden I referenced above. If current trends match the 2021 numbers (and I have no reason to believe they wouldn’t given the glacial pace at which the federal government adopts change), that means the top 1% paid over $12 trillion in federal income taxes.
Now, let’s look at the other side of the equation. The bottom 50% chipped in a little over $108 billion. I think we could scrape that together from the change in our couches, right?
Seriously, though, the Left doesn’t see anything wrong with this, except for the part where the rich are only paying a paltry $14 trillion. To hear Leftists talk, the rich are using the tax code to their advantage to get out of paying what they owe.
In other words, they’re doing what most taxpayers do. Even Leftists who tell us paying higher taxes is our patriotic duty. But fortunately we would never let such a mouth-drooling idiot to become President, right?
The problem with the Left’s approach is it doesn’t exactly have a foundation in facts. The numbers give us a vastly different story: there are a shit-ton (or shit-kilo) of people who are riding on the tailored coattails of the wealthy. And guess who the Left convinces the rich aren’t paying enough taxes?
If you need a hint, check out Bill Gates’ coattails.
Of course, people like Gates, Warren Buffett, and (surprise surprise) Leftist politicians like Elizabeth “Chief Running Mouth” Warren are all on record saying the rich need to pay more. And why? Because they make more! Once the rich pony up a few trillion more, then maybe…and I do mean maybe, things will be more fair.
Actually, it will never be fair enough for Leftists. Every time a group negotiates with Leftists and comes closer to their side, the Left moves the goalposts a little bit further out, requiring the group to do more to come closer to the new goal. But it’s never at the expense of the Left, mind you. If you want compromise, it has to be on their terms and their terms alone.
Which means this whole “fair share” bullshit is dishonest at its face. I was as shocked at you were to find out Leftists are liars.
What the Left really means when they demand the rich pay their fair share is for the rich to pay more. Once the top 1% is taxed to infinity and beyond, then the focus will shift to the top 2%. Then the top 3% and so on. And at every step, Leftists are counting on gullible poorer people and useful rich idiots to justify their actions. Of course, anyone with a lick of sense (which means Leftists won’t get it) sees this eventually getting to a point where anyone with $1 above the average is seen as the rich and has to be taken down a peg or two. Or fifty.
Then where will the money come from exactly? That’s right, kids, it will have to come from the people who were cheering this shit on from the jump. And since they don’t have as much to start with, it’s going to be damn tough to get any more blood out of that turnip.
And here’s the funny part. And by funny I mean grotesque and sad…which isn’t all that funny, but work with me here. If the Left gets what it wants and taxes the rich more, it’s not even going to solve the major issue that it’s allegedly supposed to fix: the national debt. In fact, it’s not going to do anything but give Leftists more money to spend on stupid shit we don’t need and only a handful of people demanded in the first place. There’s a reason some Congresscritters come out every year with examples of wasteful government spending.
One such Congresscritter is Senator Rand Paul. I don’t always agree with him on policy matters, but he has been consistent in his commitment to reducing government waste whenever possible. His 2023 “Festivus Report” showcased some pretty absurd expenditures, like paying dead people. Although I have to admit I’m down with the funding of “Monkey Island” because, well, monkeys are awesome!
That being said, raising taxes makes it easier for people who don’t care about how the money gets spent to spend the money it gets. If it were being spent on infrastructure (which Leftists have said is just about everything except Donald Trump), that would be one thing, but the very fact we paid for Monkey Island tells me it’s not.
But there are ideas floating around that truly are closer to fair than the current shitstorm…I mean system. Two such ideas are the flat tax and the national sales tax. With the former, everybody pays the same percentage with fewer deductions. The latter only taxes items and services purchased. In both scenarios, the rich are paying more by virtue of what they take in or spend depending on the system. And both of them make more sense than what we have now.
Which is why Leftists hate them.
One of the great many paradoxes the Left operates under is how conservative they are when the system works for them. The minute something changes their status quo to the point it jeopardizes it, the Left goes into complete lockdown, can’t change a damn thing or it will be utter chaos with dogs and cats shacking up together mode. When the system doesn’t work for them, they are the most liberal (dictionary definition, not ideological) people out there. Then, they go into complete open up the flood gates, change every damn thing or it will be utter chaos with dogs and cats shacking up together mode.
And right now, they’re not happy with the rich being able to keep more of what they generate by…following the tax code. I could go into all the problems with the tax codes, but then this piece would be longer than the tax code itself and I don’t want to bore you any more than I already do. If Leftists were truly serious about making sure the rich pay more, they would look at the tax code and try to close up some of the legal loopholes.
But that would mean some of them might be subject to the same “tax the rich” arguments they’ve been making for decades. We can’t have that, can we? So, instead, we have to put up with more “the rich need to pay their fair share” talk for the foreseeable future.
But remember these are the assholes who think a flat tax or a national sales tax wouldn’t work to make things fair when they’re arguably the very definition of fairness. Why, it’s almost as if Leftists want the tax system to remain unfair while proclaiming they want it to be fair!
Good thing we aren’t electing total dumbasses who play this stupid game, right?
Party of Science, My Ass!
It wasn’t that long ago that politics and science were kept apart like men’s and women’s prisons. That was until Leftists decided to mix the two for the purposes of ideological advancement.
It started with global warming…ummm climate change…uhhhh climate catastrophes…or whatever the fuck they want to call it this minute. The point is climate science met someone who was willing to bring it into the limelight, but only after it became politics’ bitch. Enter Al “More Boring Than the Color Beige” Gore, a know-nothing know-it-all whose academic accomplishments were more underwhelming than my dating life. Prior to meeting my wife, of course!
Well, looks like I’m spending another night on the couch.
Anyway, Gore brought climate change into the forefront of American consciousness due in part to his book Earth in the Balance. Since I care about you and don’t want to bore you with a lengthy analysis, let me give you a summary.
Global Warming bad. Government good.
Here’s how bad it was. I had essentially a high school level knowledge of science and I was poking holes in ManBearPig’s arguments. But since he sounded like he knew what he was talking about, people believed him. And they still do even though he’s neck-and-neck with Paul Krugman on the idiot who can be the most wrong in modern American history.
But since the advent of the Internet, which Gore took credit for taking the initiative in creating it, surely we’ve become more scientifically literate, right? Not so much. And it’s usually the Left who is advancing the most unscientific bullshit. Here’s a sampling of “the Party of Science” and their greatest shits…I mean hits.
– Trans women can get periods.
– Trans women can get pregnant.
– The COVID-19 vaccine stops the virus.
– Climate change caused the recent eclipse.
– Climate change affects earthquakes.
– Guam could capsize.
– The moon is mostly made of gases.
– There are more than two genders.
– Math is racist.
– Science is racist.
– Physics is racist.
– Trans women athletes have no advantage over biological women.
– Gender-affirming care is health care.
– Abortion is health care.
– Children can choose their gender.
– Gun violence is a health care issue.
– Conservatives are dumber than liberals/Leftists.
I could go on, but you get the idea. Leftists are quick to believe science is on their side…except when it isn’t. When the science proves Leftists are full of shit, Leftists pull out all sorts of excuses. The findings weren’t peer-reviewed. The study was founded by [insert name of Big Something-Or-Other]. Nobody should take these scientists seriously because they defy the established science.
And when the Left can’t use those excuses, they blackball the scientists and memory-hole their findings so no one else can know the truth.
As a fan of science, I’m disgusted by how Leftists have abused science to advance political ends. It’s gotten to the point Leftists have turned what should be an apolitical advancement of knowledge into a cult. And, really, that’s what the Left has done. Just look at this Anthony Fauci devotional candle. That kind of shit doesn’t come from a place of science. It only comes from a place of religious fervor.
And it’s not like Leftists raised incompetent or dishonest people to god-like status in recent history. I mean, aside from Robert Mueller. And Jack Smith. And Fani Willis. And Letitia James. And Adam Schiff. And Nancy Pelosi. And Barack Obama. And Michelle Obama.
On second thought, maybe they do.
By deifying science, Leftists have hindered real science by making it harder for people to accept what they’ve been told from the people Leftists say we need to trust without question. Science works best when that doubt is undercut by the actual process, a little thing the kids like to call the scientific method. As we’ve seen with climate “science” since ManBearPig’s time, the Left has flipped the script. Instead of letting the process confirm or reject the hypothesis, they’ve made it fine to start with the conclusion and work backwards so the science seems to support the conclusion.
But the thing about pseudoscience is it always gets exposed by the sunlight of actual science. All the shit the “Party of Science” told us about COVID-19 has all but been discredited to the point they’re asking for amnesty from their lies. After all, science changes over time, so we should forgive and forget, right?
Nope. Not when you’ve made science your bitch (and not in a good way).
Extremist Makeover: Feminism Edition
Since the 1970s, women have been striving to be seen as equals to men and have used feminism as a conduit for change. During the past 50 years or so, we’ve seen feminism take a more prominent role in our discourse. Then, within the past 5 years, feminism as we knew it has gone quieter than Hunter Biden during a drug bust at a crack house.
Turns out feminism has been replaced by a new ism, transgenderism. Even the National Organization for Women has bent the knee to its new transgender masters…or would it be mistresses? Either way, feminism has taken a bit of a beating recently, so I’m here to help. We need to make over feminism so it can stay afloat long enough for people to come to their senses.
And failing that, at least to recognize the irony of biological men telling biological women what womanhood is and women just accepting it.
The first thing we need to address is the elephant in the room: feminism has been ruined by feminists. One of my Immutable Truths of Life is “A cause’s worst enemy is the members of the cause itself.” And this is no truer than with feminism. What started out as women asking to be treated the same as men evolved into women demanding to be treated better than men. Yes, they want to both be seen as highly competent and strong individuals, but don’t want to give up the perks of being seen as the “weaker sex.”
And that’s why transgender women want to dictate what a woman is. To them, being a woman is like playing a video game on Easy Mode. They want all the perks of womanhood without having to be one. But it takes more than a dress and makeup to be a woman, and that’s exactly what feminists need to do to reclaim womanhood for those who were born women.
Don’t worry about being called a “bad ally,” either. The fact is trans women like Lia Thomas and Dylan Mulvaney aren’t allies to feminism. If anything, they want to replace women while simultaneously mocking them. As of this writing, Thomas still has her…twigs and berries, if you know what I mean, so she’s not even trying to pass as a woman. She’s still just a long-haired man who says she’s trans so she can dominate swimming.
Because that’s what employers are looking for these days: athletic prowess.
And Mulvaney…well, let’s just say she’s on the other side of the equation by playing up the “women are bimbos” trope.
Some allies they are, amirite?
Once womanhood is reclaimed from the Left, the next step is going to be a bit easier. One of the biggest complaints about feminists in recent years is how annoying and judgmental they’ve become if a woman doesn’t do what the feminist ideology of the microsecond demands. The thing is feminism isn’t one-size-fits-all. There are stay-at-home mothers who are just as strident as the rainbow haired harpy screaming about abortion rights, and it’s time the feminist movement recognizes that. The goal should be female empowerment, not female subjugation under a single banner.
And third, dump the “third wave” feminists. These nozzleheads are the ones who have not only made feminism unpopular, but lead the movement to kowtow before our new trans masters…errr, mistresses. They’re the feminist version of the Karen, but without the charm and warmth. And they will not be denied in their quest to turn feminism into their personal sword and shield. The movement as a whole would be better off without them. Let them go off and create their own version of feminism, and you’ll see your membership numbers soar.
Or at least they won’t be embarrassed to call themselves feminists.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
In case you were wondering what disturbed the calm of celebrating the resurrection of Jesus, it was the sound of conservatives and Republicans screaming angrily at President Brick Tamland issuing an official declaration recognizing Transgender Day of Visibility, which occurred this year on Easter Sunday. Granted, this is going to happen occasionally since Transgender Day of Visibility has been on March 31 since it was created, so for once President Tamland didn’t fuck up as much as he usually does. Instead, he fucked up trying to avoid looking like he fucked up.
Instead of focusing on the fuck-up (which would make this one of the longest Lexicon entries in site history), I want to focus on the focal point of this controversy, Transgender Day of Visibility.
And, yes, I’m sorry we have to go there again.
Transgender Day of Visibility
What the Left thinks it means – a day when transgender people can be recognized and celebrated
What it really means – a redundant, unnecessary holiday
Admittedly, I don’t know much about Transgender Day of Visibility (also known as TDOV by the kids), so I decided to go to an authoritative source on all things trans, GLAAD. I’m not sure where the T fits into the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. Maybe it’s a silent T.
Anyway, TDOV started in 2010 because a trans advocate felt the community was victimized by the rest of society due to negative portrayals in the media and news stories focused on violence rather than the accomplishments of trans people. Which shows how little the founder knew about the media, by the way. Since then, it flew under most people’s radar because…now get this…most Americans aren’t transgender.
Trans advocates will argue this proves why TDOV is necessary. After all, the goal of this holiday is to raise awareness of the trans community. My counter to that is with people like Dylan Mulvaney, Jeffrey Marsh, and the “It’s Ma’am” woman, we’re well aware of trans people. It’s like having a Vegan Day of Visibility; we know they’re out there because they can’t shut the fuck up about being vegan.
I didn’t provide a link for Dylan Mulvaney media because if I did, it would be the longest Lexicon post in site history.
Furthermore, TDOV isn’t the only observance of trans people during the year. Here is a list of the other trans-specific days observed throughout the year.
Day of Silence
International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia
LGBT Pride Month
Transgender Awareness Week
Transgender Day of Remembrance
And since trans people have inserted themselves (phrasing!) into the gay community, the list includes even more. At this rate, the trans community will be competing with the Postal Service for number of recognized days.
The issue at hand isn’t that trans people are invisible, not recognized for their achievements, or are only known for negative stereotypes. There are relatively few people who don’t acknowledge the existence of trans people or who actively hate them for being trans. Where most people are concerned about the trans community is when members of that community acts in ways that are at best morally questionable, and the community rallies behind the potential offender instead of calling out the bad behavior.
Take the case of Audrey Hale, a transgender woman who identified as male and shot and killed 6 people at The Covenant School in 2023. While most people condemned the mass shooting, the trans community…well, let’s just say they weren’t so visible following suit. In fact, the Trans Resistance Network mourned not only the loss of lives at Hale’s hands, but mourned Hale’s loss as well.
Furthermore, the trans community got worried about the backlash from the shooting by one of their own. I get that, but for the love of fuck maybe don’t lead with that shit. Six people died because a transgender person decided to shoot up a school, but you collective fucknuggets couldn’t figure out the “poor us” strategy wasn’t the right way to go?
Of course, the pronoun police had to get involved. They weren’t outraged at the carnage, but the “deadnaming” of Hale and the confusion around what pronouns to use.
And people wonder why aliens don’t visit Earth that much.
This is the biggest stumbling block to trans people being accepted or tolerated by the majority of Americans. The majority of the vocal transgender people getting the attention hold themselves and their community above everyone else. They are never wrong; they can only be wronged by others. And they have the egos to flaunt it. I mean, when you can get CBS to not use the term “transgender” in news reports about a transgender shooter, that’s some real power, kids.
I honestly think it’s this power the Left is most scared of, and also the power it most wants to control. It’s like a more flamboyant street gang, complete with utter loyalty to itself and willingness to win at any cost, no matter how down and dirty it will get. The trans community has the Left cowering in its collectivist Doc Martins because they will turn on Leftists who don’t bow to their transgender masters/mistresses.
And the trans community needs several days to be recognized?
Bitch/bastard please! We see you well enough, but we don’t see you when it counts. When Lia Thomas started dominating women’s sports (because, well, he’s a man), you assholes said “get good” to actual women. What would have been a better strategy is to have a good faith conversation about whether biological men competing in women’s events under the guise of being transgender is safe, warranted, and above all else fair for all parties involved. But you’re not ready for that conversation. It’s your way or the high heel way.
And that’s not what you want us to see, is it? You have a lot of power, but still claim to be victims whenever anything bad happens, big or small. Most often small. Minuscule, even. We outside the trans bubble see that all too often, and we see when you folks can’t even bring yourselves to make the right decisions. Like telling Dylan Mulvaney his new song sucks. How fucking hard is that?
Sorry, trans people, but I don’t think you need Transgender Day of Visibility. You need a Transgender Day of Accountability, where you fess up to the shit the bad players in your midst do on the regular and distance yourselves from them. In fact, I think I have the perfect place they can go. Maybe you’ve heard of it.
It’s called Antarctica.
How Good is “The Public Good”?
There’s a general concept within Leftist circles designed to get people to think in communal terms instead of individual terms. I call it “the public good” argument. Basically, whatever a Leftist wants gets argued in terms of the bigger picture for the greater good (or at least their version of it). I ran into this recently and decided it would be a good concept to explore. Oh, and make fun of.
As with so many things these days, it started with a meme…
A Leftist Facebook friend posted a meme with the “public funds should go to public school” idea Leftists have advanced in the past few years in response to parents taking their children out of public schools and either sending them to private schools using vouchers or homeschooling. Because who doesn’t want to send their kids to a school system that even Leftists think suck ass? (I mean, aside from Leftist politicians with kids. They get to go to private school without so much as a mumble of protest from these public school fans.)
Anyway, the original post mentioned “the public good” to praise public schools and to denigrate school vouchers. Being the smartass I am, I started off with a simple premise: both public and private schools serve the same public good, that being a well-educated population. From there, I asked why there is such an uproar over public funds going to private schools via vouchers when they serve the public good I referenced earlier.
To date, I have yet to receive anything resembling a real attempt to answer the question. Oh, I was called “misinformed” by someone promising (and failing) to deliver facts to counter my viewpoint, told I needed to volunteer at a public school to really understand what’s going on (after citing friends and family who are currently teaching, as well as linking to an article showing other public school teachers saying what I was saying), and told “you just want to argue.” But still no answer.
This is the real problem behind the Left’s “public good” argument, whether it be for public education, gun control, or any other Leftist idea they want to promote. Their solutions only go one way, and it’s always the way that favors the Left’s ideological ends. In the situation I experienced, the only way to fix public schools was whatever the Leftists said was the right answer. Which, as it turns out, is exactly the same thing we’ve been doing for decades to a steadily declining standard of education.
Which explains why the Leftists I encountered couldn’t answer the question I posed. If the true goal of public and private schools is to produce well-educated students, there is no logical conclusion where only public schools should get public money. But the Left can’t admit that because it would mean their entire premise of “public funds should stay in public schools” is based on discrimination.
Or should I say bigotry?
One of the big problems the Left has with private schools is how many of those schools have religious ties. They love to cite the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as justification to deny public funds to private schools, but it’s a real stretch to equate public school funding with a law. I mean, unless there’s a public school that has a seat in Congress, it’s pretty much a non-issue. The real issue the Left has with these schools (and only a few openly admit) is the possibility students would be indoctrinated. And Leftists think that’s their job!
More to the point, the Left hates any entity that offers an alternative to government as the sole provider of everything. Which, if you really think about it (and I have because I get bored easily), is a religion of sorts, but…okay, let’s not go too far down this rabbit hole of utter hypocrisy. Let’s just say the Left’s religion includes the holy doctrine of…wait for it…the public good. And their solution? More of the shit that’s failed before, just with a bigger price tag.
That’s where I diverge from the public school fans in the Facebook thread I was on. They say they want public schools to be funded for the public good, but they don’t want to address the problems even public school teachers are seeing today. To them, the funding of public schools is a greater public good than producing a well-educated population.
Which means nothing will get done, but we’ll still be paying for subpar service. If this were a company or a restaurant, we could go elsewhere.
Oh, wait. We can! As public schools continue to see a decline in enrollment, private schools are seeing an increase. No longer are parents subject to the slavery of the public school monopoly, which threatens the pipeline of future Leftists. And because private schools depend on financial donations from donors, they have a vested interest in maintaining and improving educational standards. And that, boys and girls, tends to lead to better results. With better results, these evil private schools are closer to fulfilling the public good public school advocates say they want.
That’s why Leftists are so intent to “prove” public schools are superior to private schools. If parents actually see public schools are shitholes that make Detroit look like Paris in springtime, they are going to demand answers and start looking for alternatives. And thanks to people like LibsofTikTok, we’re getting to see the absolute freaks getting into education and what they’re teaching. Spoiler Alert: the three Rs ain’t too high on the list, but you damn well better learn the teacher’s pronouns!
And somehow public school advocates don’t seem to see this as a problem, but as supporting the public good. The pubic good, maybe, but not the public good.
So, we’re left with the question in the title: how good is the public good? When Leftists define it, not very. When people who actually care about results over politics define it, well it may not be the best, but it’s a damn sight better than the bullshit the Left tells us is the public good.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
To put it mildly, the mainstream media tend to be rather…how can I put this delicately…secure in their beliefs, which just so happen to coincide with Leftist beliefs. Rarely will they even entertain someone from a different ideology to penetrate the bubble they inhabit, and usually it’s done to show how superior they are to that person.
Most of the time, this doesn’t end well. Just ask Sonny Hostin of “The Spew”… I mean “The View.”
It’s because of this the Leftist media tend to hire milquetoast Republicans/former Republicans to nod approvingly at whatever insane shit the Leftist squawking heads say. Such was the case when NBC News/MSNBC hired former Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel as a contributor. And then promptly fired her.
Sometimes when a Leftist sets itself on fire to get my attention, I just have to give it to them.
NBC/MSNBC
What the Left thinks it means – two news outlets known for solid journalism and an honest, tireless pursuit of the truth
What it really means – reliable stenographers for the Left
Granted, the latter definition could apply to a lot of mainstream media outlets, but since we’re focusing on the two-headed monster that is NBC and MSNBC, it fits as well as any.
Back in the day, NBC had some journalistic giants in their employ. Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, and John Chancellor, just to name three. These were the faces and voices people depended on to deliver the news on a nightly basis, and they became the gold standard in the network news industry among so many others.
But as the 70s and 80s came along and new journalists with standards looser than a customer’s stool after eating the new Prune and Ex-Lax Burrito at Chipotle, the newsrooms turned into breeding grounds for ideological PR. Ethical standards, basic reporting, and even conflicts of interest became secondary to advancing the “right” ideas. Which, not surprisingly, got them in a bit of trouble. Repeatedly.
As bad as NBC’s news division got, it wasn’t until MSNBC came into being that the Leftist media utopia could be realized. And, as anyone with an IQ anywhere approaching a heat wave in Antarctica could tell you, it was and continues to be a dumpster fire. The worst part about it is the President of NBC News at the time Phil Griffin allowed it, chalking it up as a natural progression and pointing to ratings as justification. I don’t know who thought becoming a Mirror Universe version of Fox News was a good idea, but I’m sure they were with the same consulting agency that got Air America off the ground…and then right back onto it.
This brings us to the McDaniel hiring and firing. As soon as it was announced she was hired, Leftists within MSNBC threw a temper tantrum because…McDaniel didn’t stop Donald Trump from perpetuating the notion the 2020 election had issues. We can’t have differing opinions in a newsroom, as chairman of the NBCUniversal News Group Cesar Conde wrote in an internal memo:
No organization, particularly a newsroom, can succeed unless it is cohesive and aligned.
But I’m sure that doesn’t mean ideologically aligned, amirite kids?
Not so much.
The Left says they welcome all voices, but the voices they approve are of the controlled opposition variety. Look at the Republicans and former Republicans on MSNBC’s payroll.
Joe Scarborough
Michael Steele
Nicolle Wallace
Charlie Sykes
Steve Schmidt
Along with guests like Liz Cheney, George Conway, and Adam Kinzinger, it’s pretty clear who MSNBC trusts as “real Republicans”: people who are anti-Trump and marginally Republican. Although it can be argued the GOP is the Party of Trump thanks to his daughter-in-law Lara Trump becoming RNC Co-Chair and subsequent house cleaning within the RNC, the point is there are more Republicans than just the anti-Trumpers out there, and MSNBC is doing a disservice to its viewing public by ignoring or “otherizing” them.
Then again, maybe that’s the point.
The idea behind controlled opposition is to give the illusion of a counterbalance to the prevailing powers that be while secretly knowing this counterbalance is working for the powers that be. From a media perspective, this allows news networks to put on people from opposing political parties to make the reporting/commentary look and sound balanced. But if you can reasonably predict what the opposition is going to say and do…it’s not really opposition. Fox News does the same thing with its Left-leaning commentators, so it’s not just a Leftist activity.
How NBC News gets looped into this is when they perpetuate the “otherizing” of Republicans, particularly pro-Trump Republicans. MSNBC does most of the heavy lifting here, but NBC isn’t shy about helping out when necessary. They just aren’t as rabidly partisan in appearance.
At least, they weren’t until McDaniel was hired. “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd ripped into NBC for hiring her…and he did it on-air. That act alone showed me NBC and MSNBC are no longer variations on a theme; they’re the same fucking song.
And it’s being sung by the same Leftist lunatics.
To watch NBC’s history go up in a fireball that would make the Hindenburg look like a wet sparkler is sad to an old school journalism fan like your humble correspondent, but it’s a self-inflicted injury. The people who made the decision to have both NBC and MSNBC go so far left they see Karl Marx as a poseur created this environment where someone who allowed Donald Trump some leeway is not worthy of hearing from, in spite of the fact this woman ran (albeit poorly) one of the two major political parties in America. To someone like me, that’s not just doing a disservice to McDaniel, but to anyone who watches NBC or MSNBC.
Yes, I know Michael Steele was a former RNC Chair, but he’s been out of power long enough that his perspectives may be obsolete. McDaniel is fresh out of the position, so her insight on the party right now and how Trump has operated as a Republican candidate should be highly valued. Especially going into a Presidential election where Donald Trump is the presumptive fucking Republican candidate.
But, best not to offend Leftist fee-fees in the name of actual political and newsworthy commentary, right? You keep that hugbox alive, dammit!
At this point, there is no coming back for NBC. The Faustian deal they made by joining MSNBC on the lunatic fringe can’t be undone, and the Ronna McDaniel hiring/firing only shows how close to the cliff’s edge they are. It’s gotten so bad Republicans are thinking about limiting NBC’s access to the Republican National Convention this year. If they go through with it (and with more Trump loyalists at the helm, they might), that’s going to hit both NBC and MSNBC right in the pocketbook.
Fucking brilliant.
I’m sure they’re working on their bullshit excuse to claim victimhood status, but it’s just that: bullshit. They made this bed and now they’re going to lie about it. And I will be here to laugh as they get frozen out of one of the biggest stories of the year, all because their fee-fees couldn’t handle a Partially-Trump Republican.
Children’s Crusade
There are a few reasons I have held off from talking about the Nex Benedict suicide, but the biggest one is because I wanted to get the facts straight in my own head before committing keyboard to blog site. This caution has come from years of watching early narratives taken as gospel getting blown out by facts that took a while to come forward. Even then, you can’t always count on the facts to get equal or even equitable treatment as the early, more salacious details.
Unfortunately, the Nex Benedict story falls into this category. As time and observant people went along, the initial story about Benedict’s death changed more than the TV channels with me in control of the remote. That’s when I start looking more closely at the details. Not only is it a good way to get a grasp on what happened, but it can reveal angles that haven’t been touched on yet.
And I came across a real doozy.
The LGBTQIA2XGLORIAGLOOOOORIAAAAA community had a lot riding on this story as a means to garner support/sympathy/unwavering positive media attention for the cause, even if it meant they had to lie about it. (Spoiler Alert: they did, and are still lying as we speak…or as I write and you read.) What they banked on more than the lies was the fact Nex was a cute kid, almost childlike in appearance. Draw whatever conclusions you want, but I want you to think about the power in the image of a young person involved in a personal tragedy. It’s pretty damn powerful.
And it works over and over again.
Trayvon Martin, David Hogg, Greta Thunberg, Tawana Brawley, all of these young people and many more have been used by Leftists to perpetuate an ideological goal because of their age, actual or apparent. Adults have this internal need to protect younger generations or feel for them when they deal with problems we feel they shouldn’t have to address. Leftists know this and use that to play us for suckers. Any time the Left wants to get us to back a piece of legislation or adopt one of their stupid ideas, bring out the kids!
After all, one of their favorite lines is “think about the children.”
That is, unless the children don’t agree with the Left’s agenda or if it’s more beneficial to use them as a punching bag. Just ask Kyle Kashuv, Nicholas Sandmann, Kyle Rittenhouse, and Riley Gaines. And they should have plenty of time since the Left isn’t knocking down their doors for interviews.
But they’ll spend all sorts of time lying about Nex Benedict’s death to blame transphobia, LibsOfTikTok, the GOP, Donald Trump, the 1993 Denver Broncos, or anyone/anything else that is the go-to for blame these days. Even though Benedict’s death has been ruled a suicide, it’s still because of the aforementioned things because Leftists say so.
One thing Leftists aren’t so quick to talk about, though, is why they see children and teenagers as ideological pawns. This isn’t to say the Right doesn’t do the same thing, but the Left has a longer and more prolific history of using children as the swords and shields for their crusades. And as long as it keeps working, the Left will keep using kids with zero fucks given as to whether it’s a good or ethical idea.
To any Leftists reading this, it’s not good, nor ethical. The ends don’t justify the means, especially if those ends are as a result of the end of a human life. You can hate whomever you want, but it doesn’t change the fact you’re using a dead trans youth to achieve an end that youth will never see and has zero input on participation. If you care so damn much about Nex Benedict, you would leave this situation alone. Since it’s clear you don’t, I’m pretty sure this story will fade into our collective memories and dragged out once or twice a year to “remember” Benedict. You’ve turned a trans youth’s life into a commodity to be discarded once it’s no longer useful.
For that, you’ve earned a hearty and well deserved Fuck You. Enjoy it.