Democracy in Danger

211 Views

There are a lot of memes on Social Media recently stating that President Trump and other Republicans are dangerous to Democracy.

I agree with these memes. And it is a good thing too. Democracy was hated by our Founding Fathers. That is why they gave us a Republic.

Democracy is nothing more than mob rule. The whims of the majority can change like the wind. Democracies don’t last and they are violent in their deaths. A little knowledge of US and World History, untainted by the Left, is the best teacher of these facts. It is a shame it is no longer taught in our schools.

I am glad that President Trump is fighting against Democracy. I support this effort fully. I do not want a Democracy to take hold of the United States, it will be the end of our nation if it does.

Unfortunately we have already had some encroachments of Democracy. At the beginning of the 20th Century, the 17th Amendment was ratified. And for more than a 100 years now we have had this stain of Democracy eating away at our Republic. It is time to stop it. Repeal the 17th Amendment and preserve the Republic and end Democracy.

In Defense of the Iowa Caucuses…Or At Least Some of Them

195 Views

Well, it happened, pretty much as I predicted. The Iowa Caucuses are over, the candidates have moved on, and the Hawkeye State is the center of some controversy because we don’t know who actually won the caucuses on the Democrat side. As a result, the country is looking down at Iowa for being disorganized and incapable of counting beyond ten without taking off our shoes.

But here’s the thing. There were two sets of caucuses going on, not just the one for Democrats. The Republicans had one, too, which was more of a formality than anything else. President Donald Trump won the Iowa Caucuses for the GOP with 97% of the vote. How do I know?

Because the Iowa Republican Party has its shit together.

I’ve participated in the Republican caucuses and observed the Democrat caucuses, so I have an idea of what the internal processes are. The Republicans take their time, but not in excess because they’re there to complete the tasks before them and get out. Democrats, on the other hand, play a game of Red Rover where they try to attract/bully other potential voters to abandon their first choices if they’re not considered viable and add them to the roles of those supporting viable candidates. This process can be quick, and other times it’s more painful than watching the Socialist Socialite trying to explain how gum works.

Last night was the latter on steroids.

And it was made worse thanks to an app developed by the totally non-scary-sounding Shadow Inc. with a website listing none of its board members or leadership and made up of people who worked on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. Then again, given how her campaign turned out, I’m not sure I’d want my name out there on anything. Maybe there’s a Witness Relocation Program for failed Presidential campaign staffers, especially ones that couldn’t even win a rigged election….

Adding to the intrigue is the fact Shadow Inc. is associated with Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who just happens to be one of the Democrats running for President. Let’s not forget what the DNC did to Bernie Sanders in 2016, too, in understanding the magnitude of fuckitude we’re dealing with here. If the DNC were trying to exorcize the demons of 2016, they didn’t do a very good job of it here because these little niggling issues make it look like there is someone or something pulling the strings. I’m not usually one to indulge in conspiracy theories, but let’s just say I’ve made a tidy profit after investing heavily in tinfoil.

So many moving parts, and so many fingers being pointed at the wrong people, namely President Trump, Russia, and Iowa in general. The Iowa Caucuses are run by the Democrats and Republicans, and the President and Russia have nothing to do with the chaos that occurred with the Democrats. Iowa as a whole isn’t to blame, either. Remember, the Republicans didn’t seem to have trouble reporting the outcome, only the Democrats did. (Maybe the non-Democrats in Iowa need a hashtag, #NotAllIowans?) As such, the slings and arrows of outrageous commenters should be pointed not at the entire state, but at the Iowa Democratic Party.

But that can’t and won’t happen, thanks to the Leftist mindset. The Left hates Iowa and Iowans (but, surprisingly, not their votes and money). They consider us to be ignorant hicks lacking in the sophistication that can only come from living on either coast. They see us as a roadblock to progressive success and want us to take a back seat to what they want and what they feel we need. The caucus debacle only helps to make their case.

Or so they think.

When you dig a little bit deeper, you see this was a self-fulfilling fuck-up. The Left needed the Iowa Caucuses to fail so they could better make the argument why Iowa shouldn’t take such a prominent role in determining who gets to be the Democrats’ nominee. Just like with Obamacare (with a healthy hat tip to Tammy Bruce for making and inspiriting this same point), the solution to the problem was meant to fail so a larger objective could be achieved. In this case, the Iowa Caucuses served many purposes, including a continuation of the “Russia hacked our elections” narrative that has become gospel to the Left since Hillary Clinton lost. If the Left can repeat the notion our elections aren’t secure, they will cast doubt on whomever wins in 2020 (except, of course, if it’s a Leftist who wins because that only proves we were able to overcome Russian interference). Funny how that works, isn’t it?

Yet, the failures of the Iowa Caucuses only point in one direction, and it points to the party that claims to be smarter and more moral than we are. Oh, and who want us to adopt Medicare For All as a solution to what they think is a health care crisis. If they can’t run a caucus that they control, that makes the best argument for why they shouldn’t be allowed to run anything come November.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

196 Views

Ah, early February. The sun is on the verge of shining. The birds are still wintering in Boca, and the nation’s attention focuses on my home state of Iowa because, for a little while, it becomes the center of the American political universe. Front-runners, also-rans, and never-should-have-been-allowed-to-runs show up in big cities, small towns, and various eateries in an attempt to persuade potential caucusers to support them.

And after the votes are counted, they disappear like Bill Clinton’s pants at a sorority sleepover.

As a native Iowan, I wanted to give a bit of insight into the caucuses, especially from the standpoint of the Left, who aren’t fans of the state or the caucuses in general.

the Iowa Caucuses

What the Left thinks it means – a pointless venture that eliminates potential Presidential candidates before more important states get a chance to vote

What it really means – an excuse to pretend to give a damn about Iowa every 4 years

As a native, I can tell you Iowa isn’t exactly the epicenter of excitement, especially for people who don’t come here on a regular basis. The media tend to treat Iowa like an undiscovered country where they are the ones to make first contact. Coming from people who refer to Iowa as “flyover country,” it’s not surprising. The Left doesn’t like people who aren’t from the upper East Coast or the West Coast, and it comes out in how they try to approach people like me to get statements for their fluff pieces masquerading as hard news.

Once you get beyond the media coverage and the Leftist derision, the Iowa Caucuses are a pretty interesting dichotomy in how the two major parties operate. The Republicans gather in their precincts, hear from supporters of different candidates, hold votes for the candidates, elect delegates to the next level of the party nomination process, maybe vote on planks for the state party platform, verify who will submit the results to the party, and adjourn. The process usually takes an hour or two depending on the contentiousness of the debates, which is to say they’re as contentious as an IBM management meeting. It’s focused, allows for discussion, and efficient.

For the Democrats…let’s just say herding cats is more structured than their process. They get together in a room and gather in groups depending on who they favor. After some candidates are eliminated due to lack of viability, the other groups can persuade the supporters of the “non-viable” candidates to caucus with their candidates. This process can go on for hours because sometimes it can take quite a lot of cajoling to get someone caucusing for a candidate to get him or her to switch teams.

On a side note, I’m surprised that doesn’t cause more chaos given how emotional Leftists get. I mean, if you spent months canvasing for Joe Blow only to have Joe not win the nomination, how likely would you be to put your full support behind one of Joe’s opponents? And on the other side of the equation, how pissed would you be if you did the same for Joe’s opponent and to have to give up a delegate spot to someone who didn’t support your candidate from the jump? (And for the record, this is typically what happens on the Democrat side to secure a “viable” nominee gets proper representation.)

And remember, kids, these are the same people who want the government to provide for us because they think we’re too dumb to look out for ourselves.

Underneath the shaking hands and kissing babies is a media whose job it is to cover the campaign for people outside of Iowa. And make no mistake, I would say most of the media folks hate being here. Granted, when they come here it’s usually cold, windy, and snowy, so it’s hard to put our best foot forward without getting frostbite. Even so, with the kind of attitude Leftists give off, it’s not unusual for Iowans to still be friendly and genuine. That can be off-putting for someone who is used to having to be wary of people who will stab them in the back, figurative and possibly literally. This happened to a friend of mine from New York City who came to cover the Iowa Caucuses for a website I used to run many many years ago and she was struck by how nice everyone was. And before you knew it, she and her husband moved to St. Louis and are now enjoying the Midwest niceness.

Maybe that’s why the media think we’re uneducated rubes. In their cynical minds, no one can be that honest about their intentions, so it’s obvious we’re the defective ones and we need the Left to tell us what to think and do because that’s what they do! But here’s the thing: Iowans are what we are and we’re smarter than you think. Granted, it can be argued the Democrats’ caucus structure proves otherwise, but that’s the outlier here.

Along with the condescending Leftist attitude, there’s an idea in Leftist circles that the Iowa Caucuses shouldn’t be first in the nation because it prevents bigger states like California from voting for who they want when it gets to be their turn. They also mention Iowa is mostly white and doesn’t represent the diversity of the country, so naturally Iowa isn’t a good place to start a Presidential campaign. Try telling that to campaign financiers. For all of its faults, Iowa has media markets that are far cheaper than the media markets just in one community. And, if you really think about it, the sheer expense of running a single 30 second ad on a TV station in, say, Los Angeles would prevent other states from voting for who they want because it would knock out or prevent lower-tier candidates from getting votes.

Funny how the Left doesn’t think about that, isn’t it?

This year, the Iowa Caucuses are going to be a chance for Democrats to showcase their clown car of candidates, while the Republicans should be able to go home early. And after the confetti and the parties, the campaigns and media move towards New Hampshire and Iowa becomes a political afterthought until Election Night.

And you know…that’s the way we like it.

No Party for an Old Man

209 Views

As the 2020 Presidential election crawls towards the Iowa Caucuses, I’ve been watching various candidates on both sides of the aisle looking for one I could support without reservation and…I’m coming up empty. Don’t get me wrong. There are candidates I’m paying attention to, but too few of them actually have enough of what I’m looking for to earn my vote.

Since 2008, I’ve made it a point to vote for a person instead of a party because the latter leads to the kind of political gang warfare that make the Crips and the Bloods look like a Mennonite church picnic. I’m to a point where I don’t particularly care for Democrats or Republicans because they’re both out to screw us, just with different means and different colored ties. These days picking a candidate from both major parties is like determining what kind of shit sandwich you want.

Having said that, I have been paying attention to Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Buttigieg, and Marianne Williamson for the same reason: they are running mostly positive campaigns. They may call out the other candidates’ positions from time to time (Kamala Harris still has marks from when Ms. Gabbard pimp-slapped her at a debate a few months ago) and call out President Donald Trump’s positions, but they’re running mostly on a positive message. The other candidates in the Democrat Clown Car are too busy repeating the same lines, using the same tired campaign tricks, and comparing themselves to Trump to bother with articulating what their positive vision of the country under their presumed leadership would be. And, no, Senator Elizabeth Warren, saying “I have a plan for that” doesn’t count as actually having a vision.

On the Republican side, there’s President Trump and…a couple of other guys who are running unintentional stealth campaigns. At this point, I’m wondering whether the Republicans challenging Trump are in the federal Witness Relocation Program living under assumed names. Also, there are other potential candidates speaking in hushed tones about challenging the President because…they think he’s an embarrassment to the country and the GOP. In other words, they’re Republicans running on the same platform as the majority of Democrat Presidential candidates.

And that’s where I get off this roller coaster. Running for President because you don’t like the guy currently in the position isn’t enough for me anymore. Yes, I know if we elect a Democrat bad things are going to happen in the judiciary system, but given some of the court rulings I’ve seen recently, I’m not sure electing a Democrat will improve the situation any. Ditto with keeping a Republican in the White House. At this point, I’m looking for a candidate who can articulate a vision for America post-Trump and come up with some actual ideas that I can support. And, if you really want to wow me, be civil about it. I get called a Never Trumper by Trump fans because I don’t think everything he does is amazing, and I get called all sorts of other names from the other side of the aisle because I’m an aging white man who doesn’t think the Left has any answers that don’t involve stupid ideas that haven’t ever worked or marching on Washington, DC, wearing a Halloween costume that would get you kicked out of most bars.

So, where do I go from here? Who can I trust to protect my interests? I’ve narrowed it down to two: God, and myself. And, trust me, I am waaaaaaay down the list from God. I’m at an age where I pretty much want to be left alone, and neither the Left nor the Right are willing to do that right now. Granted, the Right is less likely to be as invasive than a gynecologist moonlighting as a TSA agent, but they’re still okay with some personal intrusions when it suits their aims. And today’s Leftist is only one step removed from being Gladys Kravitz from “Bewitched” (and still six degrees away from Kevin Bacon).

Remember the shit sandwich I referenced earlier?

So, for the time being, I will remain unaffiliated because neither major party wants to build up this country. They would prefer to tear down the other side so they appear better by comparison. I will continue to look for good people who want to do good in the world, and if one doesn’t appear, I will vote my conscience…and vote for my dog.



Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

180 Views

One of the most interesting perspectives in politics today is watching people get bent out of shape over ultimately trivial matters, only to turn around and excuse it when someone on their side of the argument does it. This phenomenon has a name: hypocrisy. But Leftists have given it another name: tribalism. And as you might expect, tribalism isn’t a good thing to them.

In today’s team-based political mentality, tribalism isn’t unusual. If you’re a Republican, you want Republicans to win. If you’re a Democrat, you want Democrats to win. So, why is it now frowned upon by the Left? Let’s find out!

tribalism

What the Left thinks it means – Republicans and conservatives simple-mindedly believing the same things, promoting the same ideas, and quoting the same sources to promote their ideology

What it really means – substituting party line thinking for actual thought

Sociologists (or at least the ones I could stay awake listening to) have long stated humans have an inborn desire to be part of and accepted by a group. That sense of belonging is fine and all, but it can lead to another phenomenon called “groupthink.” Basically, that’s when you go along with the crowd because you want to continue fitting in, even if what the crowd says absolutely sucks. I call it the Sanjaya Effect. “American Idol” fans know who I’m talking about, and for once it’s not Shaft. (And, yes, we can dig it.) The Sanjaya Effect made millions of people vote for an okay singer because everyone else they knew was doing it.

And that’s where tribalism comes into play. Once we become invested in a group, we want to defend it against those who would mean it harm. This plays out in our minds in several ways, ranging from the logical (protect the clan) to the social (more people will like me) to the personal (I feel good about myself) to the sexual (chicks dig it). In a political framework, the same concepts apply (defend our ideology, more people will like me, I’ll get noticed and appreciated, chicks dig it). At its core, tribalism is primitive and driven by instinct and/or emotion.

Which begs the question of why the Left would be against tribalism, given the emotional spectrum is their playground. The answer, oddly enough, involves their feelings of self-worth. Leftists always like to think they’re the smartest people in the room and are above the kind of visceral reactions they claim to see from the Right. That gives them a blind spot when it comes to looking at what they do on a regular basis.

Here’s a prime example. Recently on MSNBC, host Nicole Wallace said, “There isn’t a strain of racism on the left.” Ah, but that ignores a litany of blatant and covert racism, mainly blaming whites for all the evil in the world. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t maligning a group of people based on skin color…racism? Why, yes…yes it is!

To make the claim the Left has no racism while finding racism under every rock on the Right is pure tribalism, not to mention utterly delusional. Granted, it was said on MSNBC, which is pretty much Tribalism Central on the Left, but the point remains. The fact Wallace couldn’t find a single racist in a group where race is one of their primary talking points shows one of the major dangers of tribalism: it forces you to rationalize behavior you wouldn’t stand for normally because of who acted. Maybe I’m just old fashioned (or just old for that matter), but I grew up believing wrong is wrong, no matter who does it. The Ku Klux Klan is just as racist as the Black Panthers, white nationalists are just as bad as black separatists, and the Westboro Baptist Church and radical members of the gay rights movement are singing from the same hymnals. They just don’t know it yet because of tribalism.

I will admit I used to be tribalistic when I was younger, mainly because I was young, immature, and a dumbass a good chunk of the time. Eventually, I got to a point where I couldn’t keep justifying bad behavior on one side while blasting it on the other. I’d rather be hated for being honest than loved for being dishonest. I’ve seen too many otherwise good people get caught up in the moment and go along to get along without considering there might be a different course to take. There’s a rule of thumb I live by: if it doesn’t feel right, it’s not right, and you have no obligation to ignore your instincts because everyone else decides to do what you feel is wrong. You do, however, have an obligation to yourself to be an individual, think freely, speak freely, and above all else live the life you want to live irrespective of the whims of the crowd. If they aren’t paying your bills, they have no say in your life unless you let them.

So, reject tribalism when you can. Question authority, even the authority you trust. Reevaluate your ideas and arguments to make sure you’re getting the full picture, and don’t be afraid to adjust them as needed. The worst that will happen is you come away with a broader perspective and maybe make a friend or two along the way.

Plus, you won’t be stuck with a whataboutism defense. But more on that another time…

Shut Up About the Shutdown

174 Views

As we enter another week of the government shutdown, I’ve noticed more and more talk about it and its potential impact to our economy and to the furloughed government workers and service members and their families. Since we haven’t devolved into Thunderdome yet, I’m thinking we’re doing okay, but the media seem ultra concerned about the shutdown as though we’re one story away from total anarchy.

As both a freedom-loving individual and a lower middle class wage earner, I see both sides of the equation. On the one hand, living paycheck to paycheck is subsistence, not living. On the other hand, not having government worm its way into my life (and my wallet) as much is a good thing. Somewhere in between, there is a happy medium.

But since we have toddlers in Congress, we can’t have that. Republicans blame Democrats for not agreeing to $5 billion to fund a wall/barrier/fence/garden wall that President Donald Trump wants. Democrats blame Republicans for not doing anything about it when they had control of the House and Senate. Trump is blaming Democrats for not wanting to come to the table about the wall, after saying he would take full responsibility for shutting down the government.

Is anyone else tired of the shutdown talk?

Yes, I see the irony of writing a blog post talking about not wanting to talk about the shutdown, but the point is still the same. People are tired of the back and forth between sides that don’t want to be the first to blink. Take ideology off the table for a moment, folks, and look at what the core of the matter is. It’s not national security. It’s not amnesty. It’s not separating families or curtailing crimes committed by illegal immigrants. It’s not an allegedly racist President wanting to stroke his ego or a Congress whose approval ratings are lower than a snail’s belt buckle.

It’s about a wall. Period.

All of this macho posturing over a damn wall that won’t mean a thing unless there’s real change in the way we address illegal immigration. And, spoiler alert, only one side of this shutdown debacle is even talking about matters beyond a wall, and rarely at that. Meanwhile, the other side has members who want ICE abolished because reasons. Actually, they want ICE abolished because doing so allows more illegals into the country…to vote for Leftist candidates.

Put simply, the wall is a metaphor for the political aspirations of two sides who really don’t give a damn about us, but they care enough to shill for our votes and take our campaign donations. It’s political theater where you pay out the nose for a bag of popcorn and watch the crappiness play out. Wait. That’s the current movie-going experience. Nevermind!

You know what might stop the posturing and jockeying for position? If we stop paying attention to it. Fire doesn’t last if it’s deprived of oxygen, and so do political shenanigans like the shutdown/wall controversy. There are a lot better things out there to be spending time on than rehashing the same tired arguments about why we need/don’t need a wall. Like, and I’m just throwing this out there, reading a thoughtful, occasionally humorous, and well-written blog like mine. You know, if you’re into that kind of thing…

A Year to Dismember

178 Views

The Chinese uses animals for their calendars to mark the different years in their cycles, such as the year of my birth, the Year of the Cock. (But I always seem to write the Year of the Boar on my checks.) Sometimes the media bestow a title upon a year, such as the Year of the Woman. In these traditions, I am starting off 2019 by christening it…the Year of Bad Decisions.

I came up with this idea after reading a piece on Twitchy about a pro-choice activist writing a children’s book about abortion to be released in 2020, and then posting a video about it on her Twitter feed. You read that right. Someone wrote a children’s book about abortion. Talk about not knowing your target audience!

Some might be saying “But that’s just one person on Twitter. Surely not everyone on it can be that misguided.” I assure you not everyone on Twitter is that tone deaf, but there are enough on both sides of the political spectrum to justify my boycott. As I’ve said, I won’t join Twitter because there are too many twits on it.

And when I think of something with too many twits, I think of Congress. Funny how that works out, huh? Anyway, Democrats take back control of the House of Representatives for the first time since 2011, and one of their first orders of business will be promoting Nancy Pelosi to Speaker of the House again. And what a bang-up job she did last time! This time will be different because Pelosi will be butting heads with a Republican Presi…oh, wait. She did that last time and was booted out of the Speakership within 4 years. Not to mention, she now has a whole caucus of Leftists to her Left who think she’s a corporate sell-out. And guess who is demanding the loudest for House Democrats to investigate President Donald Trump for everything short of jaywalking.

On the other side of the aisle, Republicans, especially those loyal to the President, are experiencing their own issues with bad decisions. Supporting higher tariffs, not addressing some of the major issues with the wall while settling on metaphors above literal concrete, and not speaking out when Trump says or does something stupid (often on the aforementioned den of stupidity known as Twitter) while attacking those who do have left the Right on shaky ground. At a time when party unity is imperative and after a preventable loss of the House, Republicans are too busy trying to placate the President and his supporters (thus trying to get reelected) to take a hard look at the possible reasons why they lost the House in the first place. Spoiler Alert: it might be because Trump spends more time Tweeting than leading. And with the possibility/probability/guaran-damn-tee Democrats will be investigating Trump and calling out Republicans for standing with the President, there may be a shortage of popcorn in the DC area and both coasts.

Outside of politics, the media, activist groups, and celebrities keep making bad decisions. This begs the question of what these bad decisions have in common. The answer: a lack of a filter. In recent years, people have decided to go with their gut instincts before posting anything online or going to the press with it. However, these decisions to go public are often met with scorn and ridicule because they’re planned out about as well as a murder mystery written by Kathy Griffin, last year’s recipient of the Dumbest Idea Yet Award. With a little thought, many of these bad ideas might never have seen the light of day, which is both good and bad. It’s good because then we wouldn’t have to suffer through the half-hearted apologies and twisted explanations of why the idea wasn’t that bad. On the other hand, it’s bad because it would deprive us of something to laugh at. Speaking personally, though, I encourage people to think before they speak or act because once that genie is out of the bottle in today’s media, it’s impossible to put it back in.

Failing that, invest heavily in popcorn because that industry is about to…pop.

I’ll see myself out.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

157 Views

Welcome back! I hope you all had a wonderful Christmas full of merriment and joy (or failing that a lot of cool presents). Right around Christmas, our friends on the Left were lamenting that some of our fellow citizens weren’t going to have a Merry Christmas because that mean ole Donald Trump and the Republicans in Congress demanded a border wall and would allow the government to shut down if the wall wasn’t funded. Yes, everyone from our military to Memaw and Pepaw were going to feel the pinch of Republican greed, all for a wall nobody wants or needs. If the shutdown lasted more than a few hours, America would be turned into a post-apocalyptic hellscape where cannibalism, anarchy, and (God forbid) another season of the “Murphy Brown” reboot would be on the air.

Thankfully, none of that happened, but one has to wonder about the Left’s concern over whether the government shut down. And I might just have the answer. Or at least, I can ramble for a few hundred words and sound like I have the answer.

government shutdown

What the Left thinks it means – a horrible condition that threatens the very fabric of our country

What it really means – the best possible example for why small government works best

If you paid no attention to the media around Christmas, count your blessings. And you wouldn’t have known there was a government shutdown threatened or going on. That’s because government shutdowns typically don’t affect that many people outside of the government. The mail still came more or less on time. Gas prices didn’t skyrocket. Our lives were pretty much untouched.

But that doesn’t make for a good story. So, every good Leftist does what he/she/it does in a situation like this: stir up as much fear as he/she/it can. Usually, this tactic works because the party that is deemed responsible for the shutdown (i.e. Republicans) gets lambasted, which causes them to cave in under public opinion. Then, government gets funded and Leftists are happy until, well, they get outraged about something else, which is usually within microseconds.

So, why all the fear-mongering? The Left derives a lot of its power from government. They need to since their ideas tend to suck more than a Dyson being operated by Michael Bay at the center of a black hole. Once they have the force of government behind them, though, their ideas are the best things out there, mainly because they tend to be the only things they allow to be released. Strip the force of government away, and the Left has to argue the merits of their ideas, which turns out about as well as any Michael Bay movie.

Along with this is the fear the Left has that people will realize how little government they actually need in their lives. When you really think about the government shutdowns we’ve had in the past 20 years or so, the country got along pretty well without our “leaders” in Washington telling us what to do. Some parts of our lives, such as national defense and road construction, do need to have state and federal government involvement. As cool as it would be to own a fleet of warships, the maintenance costs are a bit on the hefty side. Ditto with the cost of training and maintaining police and fire departments. But a lot of what the federal government does either impedes innovation, causes unnecessary hoops to jump through for simple tasks, or duplicates work. Or, in some cases, does all three simultaneously, showing a level of government efficiency that boggles the mind and breaks my Irony Meter.

This brings us to a logical question: why are there government shutdowns in the first place? You can thank both major parties for that. Since 2007, Congress has not submitted an actual budget for the President to sign. Instead, the House and Senate have been passing Continuing Resolutions in lieu of an actual budget in order to keep the government’s doors open. Each one is only good for a certain amount of time, so unless they get approved repeatedly the government shuts down. Funny that an entity that thinks $400 is a reasonable price for a hammer would be that bad with money…

The Continuing Resolution also makes things easier for Congress. With a budget, Congress has to spend money in the ways outlined in the budget, so additional expenditures require additional work, and they’re already pushing themselves, what with only working about half the week, if that. With a Continuing Resolution, however, there aren’t as many restrictions. Basically, it’s the government blackmailing itself to pay for stuff. So, instead of having to allocate funds so every member of Congress gets a pony or propose a spending bill that allows Congress to buy a pony for each member, the Continuing Resolution gets the job done in a fraction of the time, which leaves Congress more time to…do nothing.

This is the point in my Leftist Lexicon blog where I try to offer up a suggestion of what we can do to fix the situation. Unfortunately, short of a wholesale purging of the House and Senate, there isn’t much we can do. We’re stuck with the bozos in office until they’re up for reelection, and Helen Keller was a better listener than the majority of Congresscritters out there. However, there is one thing we can do: enjoy our freedom from government while it lasts. Eventually, a Continuing Resolution will get passed and government will get back to making our lives more difficult and frustrating than they need to be.

So, Happy New Year!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

160 Views

The Resistance is active again. In between calling President Donald Trump a racist because feefees and filling social media with hashtags and talking points, they’re telling us to vote in the midterm elections. And with all the campaign literature clogging up our mailboxes, who knew there was an election coming up?

But this isn’t just any midterm election. This is the one that could mean the difference between saving our country and an existence that would make “The Handmaid’s Tale” look like a Norman Rockwell lithograph. The Resistance even adopted a slogan: Vote like your life depends on it because it does. Let’s see…breathing, food, shelter…nope, don’t see voting as a fundamental need.

What is it about Election 2018 that has the Left hyperventilating more than a claustrophobe trying to get out of a paper bag while breathing into a smaller bag to try to fight off a panic attack? Good thing we have a blogger who can shed some light into this. But since she’s out of town, they’re letting me take a crack at it.

Election 2018

What the Left thinks it means – the most important election in history, but only if Democrats win

What it really means – a repeat of past midterm elections, just with more Leftist freakouts

After not being able to impeach the President or even make him look even the slightest bit like the evil fascist warmonger they’ve tried to make him out to be, the Left has put a lot of focus on the midterm elections. In doing so, they have tried to keep spirits high by predicting a “blue wave” and avoided talking about party mistakes and candidate scandals. And to be fair, it’s not like the Democrats have a member of the Democratic National Committee who is accused of assaulting a woman, right?

Okay, scratch that.

The Left has put most of their electoral eggs in the 2018 midterm basket because they feel they have no other way to stop Trump. They’ve tried yelling at us, calling Trump supporters horrible names, attempting to assault and/or kill Republicans, and generally dismissing voters not like them as dumber than Forrest Gump on a five year binge on old school NyQuil. You know the kind I’m talking about. The NyQuil with enough alcohol in it to drop a rhino while clearing up its sinuses.

Anyway, the Left’s attempts to persuade people not already on their side to join up haven’t worked well. Maybe it’s, oh I don’t know, the fact you treat us like crap? Just thinking outside the ballot box here, kids. So, after over 2 years of taking the same approach to attracting potential voters, the Left has gone into overdrive to try to persuade people to vote for their candidates. And, in a clear sign they’ve learned from past mistakes, they’re doing the same thing they did for the past 2+ years…only louder.

The Left says they need to win the midterm elections to ensure Trump is kept in check and to try to reverse the horrible things he’s done, like…tax cuts that benefitted a vast majority of people? Well, they haven’t really ironed out all the details yet, but by Election Day, I’m sure they’ll have something…

The real reason I think the Left is obsessed with the midterm elections is because they’ve been out of power for a while, and they don’t like it. Remember how Democrats acted in 2007 after they took back the House from Republicans? They acted like they were going to be in power for a long time, and the election of Barack Obama in 2008 only fed into that idea. Well, apparently a long time only lasts 4 years in Leftist time because Republicans took back control of the House in 2011. Shortly after that, the Senate went Republican and left all the rules former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made to come back and haunt the Senate Democrats. What can I say, Mr. Reid? Mitch McConnell warned you.

Now with Donald Trump sitting in the White House and the prospect of conservative Supreme Court Justices looming on the horizon, the Left have a perfect storm of impotence on their hands. They’ve let power slip out of their hands and they’re willing to do anything to get it back, including actions they would have decried if Trump and the GOP had done them.

We’ve spent a lot of time in this blog entry on the Left, but the question remains: how important are the 2018 midterm elections? To political junkies on both sides of the political aisle, they’re pretty important. To average folks like you and me? Not so much. In the end, one group is trying to take jobs from another group because the first group says they can do the jobs better since the other group is a bunch of dunderheads with IQs somewhere in the neighborhood of toe jam. And the other group is trying to prevent the first group from taking power because they are doing the best they can while the first group is slightly smarter than bread mold. How convincing these arguments are depends on who listens to and believes them.

I may follow politics like I do professional football, but I don’t think any politician is going to have that much direct impact on our lives. In groups, yes, but individually, no. I look at it this way. Most of the time, these folks don’t bother to contact me when they’re about to vote on legislation, so I don’t bother to consult them when it’s time for me to vote. If they come around, I’ll listen to them and consider their viewpoints. Otherwise, I’m fine voting for whomever I feel will do the best job.

That’s why I’m voting for my dog, Chico.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

188 Views

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

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

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

#VoteThemOut

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

What it really means – a hashtag that will accomplish nothing

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

Blather. Rinse. Repeat.

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

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

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

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

And, yes, I’m being sarcastic here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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