Tag: politics

When Science is Wrong

The Political Weaponization of Science Itself

OK, so we here at The Objective Observer are still on this King Biden divine proclamation to “follow the science”. If you haven’t been paying attention, King Biden‘s proclamation states the following:

“science, facts, and evidence are vital to addressing policy and programmatic issues across the Federal Government monarchy.”

But we have some problems with the ordained king’s proclamation here at The Objective Observer. It’s not that we do not believe in science, but rather that we don’t believe in blindly following the science. But before we get to that, perhaps more importantly, the proclamation as stated is a complete and utter fraud. A more accurate proclamation would read:

“science, facts, and evidence that we agree with and support our pre-determined views are vital to addressing policy and programmatic issues across the Federal Government monarchy.”

As we pointed out in Following the Science, King Biden is cherry picking science that supports his pre-determined views while ignoring other legitimate science that does not. But that’s not how science is supposed to work. Of course, King Biden will justify his approach by pointing to “consensus” science. The problem with this approach, as we have repeatedly pointed out in The Climate Change Heresies, Higgs Bozos, There Are No Climate Change Deniers and even Flying Spaghetti Monster Theory, is that “consensus” science, and in particular “consensus” science in young fields of study, tends to get things wrong. And not just wrong, but spectacularly wrong. Consider that the following have all been “consensus” science until relatively recently:

  • Until the 1890’s consensus science was that atoms were indivisible. The atomic bomb tells us otherwise.
  • Until 1911, consensus science was that atoms adhered to a “plum pudding model” versus a nuclear model. Incorrect, it’s the nuclear model.
  • Prior to Einstein’s general theory of relativity in 1915, a magical “luminiferous aether” was considered by scientific consensus as the medium for the propagation of light. Einstein was actually still trying to work the aether into the theory of relativity as late as 1924.
  • Prior to the 1970’s, the scientific consensus for macro geologic processes was not plate tectonics. Guess what? It’s plate tectonics.
  • Prior to the 1980’s, scientific consensus would tell you that sauropods lived in lakes and that dinosaurs were cold blooded and extinct. We now understand these things to be entirely false.
  • Up until 1982 consensus science was that crystalline solids could only be composed of repeating blocks. This was disproved by the discovery of Quasicrystals.
  • Until May 17th, 1990 the consensus science from the American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization (WHO) classified homosexuality as a “mental illness”. Clearly, that is not the case.

So had King Biden ascended to the throne the first time he tried in 1988, would King Biden have institutionalized homosexuals because he was “following the science”? Aren’t homosexuals lucky that unscientific “buffoons” like Reagan and Bush were ruling instead.

But surely, these are all “old” examples from at least 30 years ago. Surely “modern” science never gets things wrong. Well, actually, it is well understood that science gets things wrong all the time. In fact, a statistician has recently demonstrated that most published research findings are false. And, even more recently we have the following:

That’s right, those last two articles are from January 6th and January 7th, 2021. And yet for at least the last 30 years “consensus” science was that 85% of the universe was made up of “dark matter”. So, if King Biden was planning on basing any policy decisions on dark matter “consensus” science, he would be basing policy on something that likely doesn’t even exist.

The point of all of this is that proclaiming that one’s administration will be based on science, facts and evidence runs the real risk of basing policy on things that are 100% incorrect and wrong. But declaring the monarchy to be “science based” was really never the purpose of that proclamation. The real purpose of that proclamation was to silence critics of King Biden‘s already pre-determined policies which were never really based upon all of the science to begin with. The proclamation is really intended to be used as a cudgel to beat critics of the current monarchy’s policies over the head and brand them “science deniers” the same way climate change proponents denounce critics as “climate change deniers”. And no, the phrasing to evoke the idea of a “Holocaust denier” is no accident. The move is so chilling and diabolical that every scientist in the country should be outraged and crying out at the top of their lungs to denounce that proclamation, denounce the political weaponization of science itself.

Wasn’t Me

With Apologies to Shaggy

We here at The Objective Observer sometimes like to put our thinking caps on and attempt to puzzle out the really hard questions. The latest question we have been pondering is exactly why conservatives and liberals constantly seem to be each other’s throats and find it nigh impossible to have a productive conversation on just about any important policy issue. Well, the good news is that we believe we have cracked the code on this one and it is all thanks to a Shaggy song, It Wasn’t Me.

Now, of course everyone knows this but It Wasn’t Me is a reggae song by Jamaican-American artist Shaggy from the multi Platinum album Hot Shot. The song reached number one in the United States as well as the UK Singles Chart in 2000. In short, the lyrics tell the tale of a man being caught “red-handed” by his girlfriend while he is having sex with another woman. The man asks his friend for advice and that advice is to simply deny everything, regardless of any and all clear evidence to the contrary, with the phrase “It wasn’t me”. The most memorable bit of the song is perhaps it’s chorus, which goes like this:

But she caught me on the counter
(Wasn’t me)
Saw me banging on the sofa
(Wasn’t me)
I even had her in the shower
(Wasn’t me)
She even caught me on camera
(Wasn’t me)

She saw the marks on my shoulder
(Wasn’t me)
Heard the words that I told her
(Wasn’t me)
Heard the screams getting louder
(Wasn’t me)
She stayed until it was over

OK, clearly this dude is screwed in more ways than one. But how pray tell can a two decades old song by Shaggy help enlighten us as to why conservatives and liberals can’t have a simple, civil conversation you might ask? Well perhaps we watch too much Juan Williams on The Five, but the answer seems rather obvious to us. You see, we can almost always predict Juan’s answers when another one of the hosts lays out something blatantly obvious that the left has done wrong. Invariably, the template of Juan’s response goes something like the following:

“Well, you can talk about xyz if you want to, but the real issue here is…”

or

“I’m not sure I understand your point, but the real issue here is…”

And then Juan invariably goes into some liberal talking point that may or may not be related to the issue at hand or the original point being made. Seriously, you can bank on this format of a response at least once or twice per show.

Now look, we’re not here to pick on poor ol’ Juan. We love Juan. Well, there is one person here who doesn’t but that guy is kind of a jackass anyway. The rest of us feel that Juan has the absolute most gigantic balls of any Democrat by far because he will actually go on a show dominated by four other conservatives, at least two of whom pull absolutely zero punches, and hold his own. So, mad respect Juan.

Watching this tactic by Juan got us thinking though and we started watching more closely to news and opinion delivered by MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, you name it. And everywhere we turned and watched we couldn’t find a single instance of any Democrat ever admitting fault for anything, or even admitting that one single member said or did anything wrong. It was incredible. Like some kind of herd or pack mentality or perhaps even a genetically bred inability to admit anything even resembling a mistake. And before you go flying off the handle about The Objective Observer beating up on poor liberals, we absolutely understand that conservatives also deflect and all that. But it’s the frequency and consistency with which Democrats engage in this behavior that is the difference. It’s staggering. Democrats and liberals literally will not concede a single point no matter how much anyone stares at them “buck naked…on the bathroom floor”.

So, what is the point of all this, what can we learn? Well, what we have learned is that dumbass conservatives need to stop thinking that they are going to win an argument or make a point by mentioning something wrong that liberals have done or think that highlighting some kind of hypocrisy on the left is going to score them points or something. Because, frankly, it’s not going to do them a damn bit of good or help make the two sides see eye-to-eye. You simply can’t shame the shameless.

Perhaps Shaggy said it best:

They caught us lying to FISA
(Wasn’t me)
Saw us spying on Trump y’all
(Wasn’t me)
Stolen election by Russia
(Wasn’t me)
Impeached over a phone call
(Wasn’t me)

Killing nursing home patients
(Wasn’t me)
Loot and riot in the street
(Wasn’t me)
No cabinet posts for Asians
(Wasn’t me)
Erasing women complete

Filibuster First Strike

Who Went “Nuclear” First?

There has been a tremendous amount of drama of late regarding the power of the filibuster in the Senate and whether Democrats should invoke the “nuclear option” ending the filibuster. Even Twitter has been blowing up around phrases like “Merrick Garland” where a tremendous amount of vitriol is directed at Senator Mitch McConnell while also mentioning the filibuster, cloture, nuclear option, etc.. Now, if you are having trouble connecting the dots between all of this, fear not, just read on and all will be explained.

OK, let’s get the historical basics out of the the way. The filibuster is a tradition, mechanism, rule or whatever in the Senate that preserves the minority party’s voice. Basically it means that any single Senator can essentially block a piece of legislation ala Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

Another word that is relevant here, cloture. The concept of cloture was adopted by the Senate about 100 years ago in order to reign in the absolute, unbridled power of individual Senators who might wield the filibuster with wild abandon. Cloture originally required 2/3rds of Senators to vote to end debate although today the required ratio is 3/5ths of Senators, or 60 votes given that today there are 100 Senators. Yes, the math works.

It is important to note here that the Constitution itself says nothing about the filibuster or cloture. The filibuster and cloture are simply traditions and rules of the Senate and have proven over the years to be an important reason why the Senate has fulfilled its originally intended role as the more deliberate, reasoned and thoughtful chamber of Congress. Yes, the filibuster/cloture has been used in regrettable instances but it is the Senate, and specifically the filibuster/cloture, that has prevented wild swings in American law and policies depending upon the whims of who is in power. As a legislative mechanism to promote debate in order to preserve American liberties and way of life, the filibuster/cloture has no equal.

OK, almost up to speed. Let’s flip back to the present. With Democrats having control of the presidency and both chambers of Congress, there are those individuals that see this as a historic opportunity for Democrats to push through certain long standing legislative goals. And these individuals are pretty passionate about said legislative goals. Goals some might characterize as “radical”. However, the razor thin “majority” in the Senate means that there has to be bi-partisanship, otherwise the legislation will not survive cloture and the filibuster.

So, what are you to do when you can’t get 60 votes? Get 51 votes instead. You see, Senate rules can be changed by a simple majority vote and these rules changes are not subject to cloture/filibuster. Changing the Senate rules in this manner is often referred to as the “nuclear option”. By changing the Senate rules in order to effectively eliminate cloture and the filibuster all together, Democrats could get their entire legislative agenda pushed through the Senate with zero bi-partisanship. This is actually kind of how Obamacare came to be, along a strict, partisan vote facilitated through a similar but different “trick” called “reconciliation”, but that’s for another article.

OK, so with the Senate split evenly at 50/50, Democrats and Republicans, Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer have been locked in a power struggle over the control of the Senate and the Senate rules. Long story short, Mitch McConnell recently won a major victory in that battle when at least two Democratic Senators stated unequivocally that they would not support ending cloture and the filibuster in the Senate. So, this kind of dashes the hopes of all of those very passionate people that wanted to get their legislative agenda and goals pushed through.

But how the hell does Merrick Garland figure into all of this you might ask? OK, let’s see if we can succinctly explain all that in a rational way. You see, to those rather vocal and passionate Democrats, Mitch McConnell’s insistence in preserving the filibuster is utter hypocrisy. The reason is that Mitch McConnell used the “nuclear option” to get, what many view to be conservative, Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barret confirmed to the Supreme Court. Mitch McConnell changed the Senate rules to eliminate cloture and thus the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, allowing a simple majority vote to confirm Neil Gorsuch. This pissed certain parties off to no end, namely those rather vocal and passionate Democrats. And this is how Merrick Garland comes into the picture. Mitch McConnell and the Republican controlled Senate at the time famously refused to hold a confirmation hearing for Merrick Garland, former President Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court. This also pissed off those rather vocal and passionate Democrats off to no end.

Now, the evidence seems pretty clear. To any objective observer, Mitch McConnell is clearly a hypocrite, the bad guy and to blame for all of the drama over the current Senate rules regarding cloture and the filibuster. Mitch McConnell didn’t allow a vote on Merrick Garland and then turns around and goes nuclear to confirm Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barret. And that is exactly what we here at The Objective Observer would be saying except, oh yes there is an except, except that this is not the entire story. Wait…there’s more!

You see, it was actually then Senate majority leader and Democrat Harry Reid who in 2013 first invoked the nuclear option, changing the rules so that only a simple majority was required in order to confirm cabinet positions and federal court judges. At the time, Republicans warned Democrats that this would come back to bite them in the ass. And so it has. But, vocal and passionate people tend to ignore and forget small little facts like that.

Looking at this objectively, everybody is in the wrong here. We don’t agree with what Harry Reid did and we don’t agree with what Mitch McConnell did. But who is ultimately to blame for all of this? Is it Democrats? Is it Republicans? Mitch McConnell? Harry Reid? Hell, if we go back far enough to 1806, we could even blame Aaron Burr, a Democratic-Republican; oh the irony, who suggested the original Senate rules change that ended up allowing the filibuster.

Luckily the true and proper villain in all of this is rather obvious if you really think about it. And that villain is…

Georgia.

That’s right, Georgia. You see, it is these Georgia yahoos that, despite all odds, gave us this 50/50 split in the Senate by electing both Georgia Democratic candidates to the Senate in a special election. Note that the probability of this was only 25%. If either one of the Georgia Republican candidates for the Senate or both of the Republican candidates for the Senate had been elected, we wouldn’t be in this mess to begin with. So, in conclusion, let’s stop this incessant partisan squabbling and bickering and just all agree to mad hate on Georgia because, ultimately, they’re the idiots that created this whole mess in the first place…

What is Free Speech?

Twitter, the New “Hope”

Given the Orwellian thought police tactics employed by Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook and Twitter, discussions about free speech are all the rage these days. And there will likely be repercussions. Like Twitter perhaps having to take down the unofficial motto in their San Francisco office that reads “Defend and respect the user’s voice”. Whoops! And maybe Apple changing their motto to “Think Different…But Not Too Different from Us”. And Google, “Don’t Be Evil, Unless it’s to People We Don’t Like”.

Sure, we all know that there are limits to free speech in America. The First Amendment does not cover private institutions and all that. And you can’t just go around “shouting fire in a crowded theater”. Except that, well, you can actually…more on that later. The point here is that there are limits people. But, what exactly are those limits? Who decides the boundaries? And who passes judgement over what falls outside those boundaries? Is there a four judge panel like on The Masked Singer? Does the audience get to vote?

Now, these are all extremely interesting questions to ask in a country where it became eminently clear during the Bill Clinton years that we can’t even agree on the meaning of the word “is” for Christ’s sake. If we need a special counsel, scores of lawyers and months of testimony to determine the meaning of the word “is”, how in the world are people able to make any decisions about what is “threatening” or “misleading” or “hateful” or…or…or any of it?

And while we are on the topic, let’s be absolutely crystal clear about one extremely important thing. Somebody smoked that cigar…right, are we right? And that’s just, well, that’s just gross. But why doesn’t anyone ever discuss this? We need absolute clarity on this topic!

Was it Bill? Was he all like dragging that cigar across his nose while inhaling deeply and then lighting that puppy up? Because then that’s like both creepy and gross all at the same time. Or was it more like a romcom kind of thing? Bill is talking to Hillary in the Oval office, and Hillary is trying to refer to something on a white board and picks up the cigar as a pointer. Then she starts talking with her hands and waving the cigar around. And Bill is like all nervous and he’s trying to stealthily sneak the cigar out of her hand, but every time he’s close, she moves. And then Hillary fires that cigar up and is like sniff…sniff. “Bill this cigar smells bad.” states Hillary. “Well yes dear, but you always say all cigars smell bad” responds Bill nervously. “Yes but, sniff…sniff, this one reeks!” Hillary exclaims while sniffing her armpits and turning around, trying to find the source of the smell. And then, Hillary turns back around to face Bill and Bill is standing there holding a freshly opened can of sardines. “Sardine, dear?” Bill asks sheepishly. Cue laugh track and commercial.

All we’re saying is that somebody smoked that cigar. If somebody hadn’t smoked it, then that cigar would be in the Smithsonian along with that blue dress. Right? But it isn’t…so somebody smoked it. That’s it. That’s all we’re saying. We’re all in agreement? OK.

Anyway, getting back on topic, the entire point of all of this is that this whole cigar business gives us nightmares and keeps us up at night. What if it’s still out there? And you like buy it at a garage sale or something and then, and then, oh, it’s too gross to even think about! OK, no, damnit, that’s…that’s not the point. Deep breaths. Inhale…exhale. OK, the point is that if we can’t even agree on something simple like the meaning of a word like “is” how in the world can we expect that censorship could ever be applied equally and fairly?

Twitter actually has seemingly crystal clear rules around this kind of thing. For example, Twitter’s rules page, which is not exactly easy to find, states the following about “authenticity”:

Civic Integrity: You may not use Twitter’s services for the purpose of manipulating or interfering in elections or other civic processes. This includes posting or sharing content that may suppress participation or mislead people about when, where, or how to participate in a civic process.

Twitter obviously adhered to this rule and policy then when it permanently banned a sitting President of the United States over…wait…over exactly what tweet now? The tweet that got Trump banned was this:

“To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

Regarding this particular tweet getting Trump banned, for life, Twitter stated that the tweet about skipping the inauguration was “further confirmation that the election was not legitimate.”

Except, “is” is actually the third person singular present of “be”. So how can Twitter be so certain that tweet means what they think it means? What is the real meaning of “be going” in that tweet? Perplexing to say the least. Regardless, to any objective observer, Twitter, that’s a bit of a stretch. Clearly though, Twitter exercises these rules universally and with absolute uniformity, right?

So, this individual still has his Twitter account even though it calls into question an election? Even though Twitter’s rules state:

Misleading information about outcomes 

We will label or remove false or misleading information intended to undermine public confidence in an election or other civic process.

The post is clearly in violation of Twitter’s rules as it is clearly undermining confidence in an election, two elections in fact. But the post is still up on the site and that individual doesn’t have a permanent ban from Twitter.

But what are some of Twitter’s other rules around speech?

Violence: You may not threaten violence against an individual or a group of people. We also prohibit the glorification of violence.

Other than the problematic definition of the word “may”, this seems pretty clear. Is “may” referring to permission, possibility, general truths, accepting of a different opinion, a month? Without a special counsel, we might never know the answer. For now, let’s take it at face value and let’s just pull up Twitter and see how they are doing here and, oh…oh my…#fail

OK, OK, to be fair and objective, these folks are just hoping about stuff, not actually technically threating violence? Maybe? None of this is glorifying violence? We guess? So if Trump had tweeted “I hope people storm the Capitol” then he would not have been banned??? But, you know, not be going to the Inauguration. Boom! Over and done. Apparently the real lesson here is that if you want to spew violent hate speech on Twitter, just use the word “hope” somewhere in your tweet.

By the by, it certainly would be an interesting experiment to see what does or does not get banned on Twitter regarding the upcoming Inauguration because; you know, unfortunately it seems like something is going down on that day. Not that we are encouraging any violence or anything of the sort, but when Washington DC looks like a Pyongyang military parade? Something…something’s up. We’d love to be the optimistic observer, but; well, it doesn’t look too good right now.

So, anyway, here would be our predictions for hypothetical tweets on Inauguration day and how Twitter would “treat those tweets”, try saying that five times fast. We have also included Twitter’s likely reasoning based upon their rules and past performance.

“I will not be going to riot in Washington DC today” – Banned – Twitter moderator comment: “Provides misleading information about how to participate in an event. Not going my ass, every one of those deplorable MAGA hicks is going to be there!“.

“I hope the military kills every last Trump supporter in the city today” – Approved, Twitter moderator comment: “Hoping that something occurs is not a threat or threatening.”

“I hope people storm the Capitol again” – Banned, Twitter moderator comment: “Obviously threatening.”

“It is righteous for Democrats, to immediately murder, behead and dismember all Republicans” – Approved, Twitter moderator comment: “The meaning of the word ‘is” cannot be determined”.

Man, there are a lot of angry, messed-up people on/at Twitter. Those tweets are awful. Shame on you Twitter.

Unifivision

Does Everyone Really Want Unity?

In the wake of the Capitol Hill riot there has been plenty of the obvious platitudes thrown around by all sides and the predictable calls for unity. But is unity what everyone really wants? Because, to an objective observer, it seems like exactly the opposite, that everyone is simply paying lip service to “unification” while actually taking actions to promote “division”. And let’s be clear for a moment about the definition for unification. Unification in the sense used here is when two opposing sides find common ground and work together to get things done.

First, it is difficult for any objective observer to view Democratic actions over the last four years as promoting anything but division. The liberal “Resist” movement was founded on January 19th, 2017, the day before Trump was inaugurated as President of the United States. Basically, the sole and specific goal of the “Resist” movement was to obstruct any and all of Trump’s policy objectives.

Now, granted; on the whole, the Resist movement was a complete and abject failure. Trump pushed through nearly all of his policy objectives during his four year term as President. This includes his goal of building a border wall. After all, over 450 miles of the border wall are built with another 200+ miles currently under construction. Trump also successfully reshaped the federal judiciary, appointing a jaw dropping three Supreme Court justices and 220 federal, lifetime appointed judges overall. Trump also created the first new United States military branch since 1947, Space Force. Trump succeeded in passing major tax cuts and reform as well as the first major criminal justice reform in long, long time with the First Step Act. Then there is Trump’s successful war on terror in defeating the ISIS caliphate and killing Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. In addition, Trump was successful in mustering the government and private sector companies to create a COVID-19 vaccine within months, something everyone predicted would take years. And the economy, despite the hardships brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, by many measures is still doing quite well. For example, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is nearly 31 million, versus just shy of 20 million when Trump took office. Furthermore, Trump made major foreign policy strides with new trade agreements between Canada and Mexico, reframed U.S. Chinese relations, moved the United States Israeli embassy to Jerusalem and brokered numerous middle east peace agreements. Finally, Trump was also extremely successful in slashing over $16 billion in federal regulations, another core policy objective.

Regardless of the failure of the Resist movement, however, the movement still existed (exists). There is little question that Democrats in Congress and elsewhere did everything in their power to spread division and obstruct. This divisiveness and obstructionism only increased once Democrats took control of the House of Representatives. To an objective observer, these actions do not seem like the actions of individuals interested in true unification but rather division. This is perhaps most evident in the Democratic efforts to obstruct Covid-19 relief efforts, which could perhaps be characterized as purposefully damaging the U.S. economy and hurting Americans solely for political gain. Furthermore, calls from these same individuals now for “unity” really come across as “Now that we are in power you need to shut-up and fall in line or else”. That’s not the kind of unification we here at The Objective Observer are talking about though. Sure, in a dictatorship, everyone is “unified” in fear but that’s not “unification”.

This penchant for division continues to this day with the second impeachment of Trump. As more and more information comes out about the events of that day, such as John Sullivan, a liberal activist, inciting violence at the Capitol; the extreme rush towards impeachment, without witnesses or testimony, comes across to an objective observer as purely political and divisive. Quite the opposite of the lip service paid towards “unity”.

On the opposite side, Republicans do not seem all that interested in true unification either. The recent, continuing complaints against the election of Biden are perhaps all the evidence required. And, to an objective observer, it is hard not to think that there is an element of payback here. To an objective observer it strikes one as Trump exacting revenge for the bold and unprecedented attempts by Democrats to delegitimize Trump’s presidency through the Russia Collusion Hoax and a half-baked attempt at impeachment over a phone call with another world leader. Regardless of the truth, many Americans will similarly never accept Biden as a legitimate president and cling to what is sure to become known as the Election Collusion Hoax. OK, we just made that up. But regardless, tit for tat as it were.

At the end of the day, it seems like it is this revenge narrative that will likely take center stage despite the calls for “unity”. After all, 75 million American’s voted for Trump for president, a staggering number. It is quite likely that these 75 million Americans were paying attention to the extreme lengths the Democrats went in order to intentionally; and possibly criminally depending on the outcome of the Durham report, delegitimize, vilify and obstruct a legitimately elected sitting President of the United States. Hence, it is almost just as certain that these 75 million Americans are going to accept and return in kind this precedent set by Democrats with regards to how to treat a legitimately elected President of the United States that you do not agree with.

If Republicans turn to the same tactics used by Democrats for the last four years, can anyone really blame them or claim the moral high ground? Likely not. More alarmingly for Republican lawmakers, there is the likely possibility of revolt within the party if Republican lawmakers are seen as cooperating with Democrats. With near certainty, those Republicans seen as cooperating with Democrats will be viewed as out and out traitors within the party to the vast majority of those 75 million Trump voters. After all, Trump still maintains a 60% approval rating among Republicans. Those voters likely want revenge for the last four years of what they might understandably view as mistreatment of their President. So, unification? Not likely.

We could know soon enough regarding how Republicans handle the second impeachment of Trump. If the Republicans mimic the Democratic Resist movement, then they could legitimately decide not to do anything with regards to legislation until Nancy Pelosi hands the impeachment papers over to the Senate. They could then legitimately refuse to take up any legislation until the impeachment trial is completed. Further, Republicans could then drag the impeachment trial out for as long as possible. The impeachment of Andrew Johnson took 92 days from start to finish. It is likely that Republicans, if they were so inclined, could easily reach this mark or exceed it, meaning that Biden’s first 100 days, or more, in office would be effectively neutered. Then and only then would the subject of cabinet positions come up, which Republicans could then seek to delay and thwart. Biden could possibly spend the first year of his presidency accomplishing absolutely nothing at all other than getting his cabinet in place.

In the end, we will simply have to wait and see if everyone truly wants unification or continues to sow and spread division. We likely will not have to wait long.

What it Means to be Black

With Apologies to Jesse Jackson

So, there’s this South Park episode from 13 years ago called With Apologies to Jesse Jackson. Like most South Park, it’s fairly hilarious. This one explores the use of the word “nigger”. The premise being that if there were a word as hateful and vile that applied only to white people that white people would make it illegal. I won’t belabor the plot here, you can read about that on Wikipedia. However, the episode ends with Stan telling Token, regarding the use of the racial slur, “I get it now, I don’t get it”. In other words, Stan being white will never understand how it feels for Token, who is black, to have that word used against him.

This is how I have always felt about being black. Myself being white, I have always firmly believed that short of doing a John Howard Griffin or a Ray Sprigle, I would never possibly understand what it is like to be black in America. In fact, we white people are told exactly this on a regular basis. But now, thanks to the ridiculous levels of hyperbole and insanity in American politics I can finally say “I get it”. I finally, finally understand how it feels to be a black person in America. Let me explain.

One of the core tenants of why white people cannot understand the black experience is that white people will never know the furtive looks, barely masked fear and white people crossing the street as a black individual walks down the sidewalk. However, now as a Trump supporter, I totally feel those looks and get those reactions. As I walk down the street bare chested and tatted up, with my great furry horned helmet on and my face painted red white and blue, I experience the same furtive looks, barely masked fear and people crossing the street in front of me. And all of this for no other reason than the fact that I am a Trump supporter. Solely because of my politics…

Similarly, blacks point out that white people cannot possibly understand the black experience regarding the harassment by cops when they are simply driving their car and minding their own business. But now I experience this as well, simply because the police profile me based upon my MAGA bumper stickers. I am constantly pulled over, berated and cited by police now. I have never been pulled over so much in all my life since I announced my politics to the world by putting all of those MAGA bumper stickers over nearly every square inch of the windows of my car…

I also now understand the outrage that blacks feel regarding how society and law enforcement treat black people versus white people. Black people are treated far worse. Blacks are arrested more and given longer prison sentences than whites. I finally understand this and get the outrage. While armed liberals rioted, burned down buildings, looted and murdered people, “autonomous zones” were setup in cities for them and they were even allowed to occupy a police precinct. But, if you are a conservative and try to walk, unarmed, through a broken window, you are immediately shot and killed. The shooting of an unarmed conservative, it makes me want to protest and exclaim “Conservative Lives Matter!”. I finally understand the outrage.

Finally, I truly get and understand how blacks feel about systemic racism, the feeling that the entire system itself has been rigged against them. Rooted in a politically biased foundation, systemic political bias against conservatives today is composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent biased institutions, media, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors that give an unjust amount of resources, rights, and power to liberals while denying them to people of a conservative nature. It all makes total sense now. The levers of power between politics, Hollywood, universities, the media and big tech are all systemically aligned against conservatives. Finally, I get it.

So, if nothing else, I can thank 2021 for finally showing me what it is like to be black. I can now fully understand and appreciate what it is like to be the reviled minority underclass in America. And boy does it suck.