Ban Men’s Sports

Cut Costs by Consolidating

Title IX has undeniably helped to level the playing field by ensuring men and women have equal opportunities to participate in sports. Recently, the Biden Administration updated Title IX to ensure that this equality will be based on gender identity rather than biological gender. However, as schools struggle to cut costs while balancing gender equity, a revolutionary idea comes to mind – why have men’s and women’s categories at all?

Passing over the outdated, Neanderthalic nature of binary gender categories, there’s a bottom-line benefit. Though we generally think of college sports as being a cash cow due to the popularity of college football and basketball, the fact is that sports are expensive. In many cases, like soccer, the costs could be cut in half by combining the men’s and women’s teams into one, united soccer team – one that doesn’t presume gender and allows all to compete on an even playing field.

A Modest Alteration

Though this may seem like a radical proposal, men and women already compete at lower levels, such as pee-wee and in rec leagues. It’s not at all uncommon for women in high school to wrestle with the boys. Bringing these same standards to college and professional leagues can help colleges cut costs while eliminating unequal situations like the NCAA weight room.

Furthermore, as Sue Bird points out, women’s sports often lack the same support as men’s sports. Eliminating this categorization will eliminate the stigma imposed on women’s sports by a sexist nation, finally allowing women the same accolades and glory as men. Imagine how much more attention Megan Rapinoe will raise for her causes when she’s finally on the pitch with the likes of Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi.

The future Ballon D’or winner.

The Myth of Disparity

The reasoning behind separating men and women in athletics is that men have a competitive advantage over women. Competitive fairness is the basis of all classifications in sports, be it by skill level, weight, or age. Traditionally, gender has been included due to the same presumption of an innate advantage for men.

However, Biden’s Title IX changes blow this myth out of the water. The arguments supporting an athletic advantage for men are all based on biology – increased muscle mass, higher testosterone levels, etc. However, if you noticed, none of these arguments for competitive fairness are based on identity. Now that the Biden Administration has officially declared these differences either nonexistent or unimportant to competitive fairness, there is no logical reason to separate the genders in athletics – unless you think somebody gains an advantage by changing their name from Betty to Bob.

With the Biden Administration dispelling this myth, women can finally have true equality. Sports can exist in its truest form – all competitors, male and female, will be put on the same field with only the best athletes from the combined group making the final team. I, for one, cannot wait to see Megan Rapinoe tearing it up on the USMWNT or Sue Bird dominate the WNBA.


Governing With Science

The Religion of the Left

Those who demand we ‘govern with science’ understand neither science nor governance. Science is not some magical oracle that craps out solutions you blindly follow like some retarded lemming. Rather, it’s the process one follows in pursuit of information about the world that can then be used to craft solutions. Importantly, it’s a process that requires QUESTIONING EVERYTHING – not blindly deferring to the consensus opinion.

Unfortunately for some, the scientific method involves more than blindly doing whatever this man says.

Furthermore, the information it does provide isn’t some revelation given on Mt. Sinai in final, perfect form. It comes in the form of data that can be misinterpreted by idiots, as proven on a near-daily basis by journalists. Even for those of us with a brain, it’s often difficult to make sense of. It’s not uncommon (or unreasonable) for experts to disagree* on how to interpret a given study’s results. There’s not always a consensus on what’s right and what’s wrong, but even where there is, that’s only step one.

From Science to Solutions

Pretend, for the sake of argument, that we actually have an issue like climate change where there’s broad scientific agreement as to the basic facts. All this tells us is the world is getting warmer due to CO2 emissions – it says nothing about what to do to solve it. Identifying a problem doesn’t necessarily offer solutions. After we have the science, we have to decide how to use it to craft policy solutions to the problem in question.

So, should we just, “Ask the experts”? Hell no. Experts are, by definition and design, very limited in their purview. They are people who know a whole lot about very little. Unfortunately, you can’t govern in siloes. Policies just don’t impact the area in question; rather, their impacts are spread across a variety of fields. Governing is about balancing interests – we’ve seen this in the past year as we’ve prioritized disease control at the expense of economics and education. Listening to an expert in one field often means ignoring experts in another.

The Politics Problem

Let’s pretend you have an issue where there’s consensus on the science and the solution – for example, that reducing carbon emissions is the best way to combat global warming**. You still face a couple of problems – notably, the fact that environmental regulations have an economic impact. Politics requires finding a balance between economic sacrifice and environmental protection. How, precisely, you strike this balance and what policies you use to do so are the questions politics is meant to solve. They don’t have answers that can be taken verbatim from some scientific tome.

Furthermore, you need to get everyone on board and compliant. It doesn’t do the US any good to cut carbon emissions if China turns around and increases theirs by an equal amount. The issue presents a ‘free rider’ problem in which every nation has an economic incentive to continue polluting while allowing other nations to bear the brunt of carbon reduction. This problem doesn’t go away by screaming “SCIENCE” repeatedly at the top of your lungs. Even if the science on any given issue is clear, you can always count on politics to screw the solution up.

A Word on Experts

It’s also important to note that these experts don’t come to their conclusions in a vacuum. Most of them work in academic environments – not exactly the most ideological tolerant environments. Experts are people first and foremost – people who want to be accepted by their peers and thought of as experts. Their primary incentive is to preserve their status as an “expert” which usually means supporting the policies and opinions of the powers that be. Furthermore, once an “Alpha-expert” has spoken, any dissenting opinion will be met with ridicule – and possibly demands for the heretic’s job.

Where they aren’t maintaining their status, they’re expanding it. Take Dr. Fauci. A year ago, very few in the country had heard of the man. Since then, he’s become a household name and one of the most influential people in the nation. Do you think he doesn’t like that power, that control? At some point, you have to ask how much of an expert’s advice is designed to increase their own importance, power, and profile as opposed to straightforward advice intended to guide policymakers.

Pictured – a possible confounding factor influencing Dr. Fauci’s advice.

Finally, experts often have direct conflicts. Experts are experts because they work in a certain field – they often have built-in interests. Most military experts come from the military. Environmental experts become environmental experts because they care disproportionately about environmental issues. Hell, teacher’s unions can be considered education experts if you want. The point is not that experts are bad. Rather, it’s that expert advice should be one of a number of factors going into policy decisions rather than something we blindly follow.


None of this is intended to dismiss science’s critical role in the policy-making process or to insult experts (well, maybe some of them). Rather, it’s to put expert advice – often portrayed in the media as edicts sent from above – into perspective. It’s also to argue that ‘govern with science’ essentially means ‘obey without question’ and is used to avoid debate in favor of bullying, insults, and mockery.

*And all this is assuming the study was designed properly and that data has been confirmed through replication – both of which are major issues worthy of their own article

**For the record, population control and reduction is the BEST solution and also demonstrates this political problem – despite its merits, it’s impossible to achieve without massive human rights violations


Bibi, Biden, and the “Defenders of Democracy”

Biden Prioritizes Ideology to Alliances

Like President Obama, the early indications are that the Biden Administration will prioritize its globalist ideology to American national interest. Despite his big talk about renewing America’s commitments to her allies, Biden still hasn’t called one of our closest allies, Israel. With growing anti-Israel sentiment within the Democratic party, his foreign policy appears to be aimed at placating ideologues rather than preserving American interests. This goes doubly since – though he refuses to talk to Israel – he’s chomping at the bits to talk to Iran.

A less reliable ally than the Ayatollah according to the Biden foreign policy
The Death of Sovereignty in the Democratic World?

This also displays a disturbing trend for Western leaders to use their power to pressure voters in other countries. Though the Democrat’s anti-Israel sentiment runs beyond Bibi, I have to believe* that Benny Gantz would have gotten a call. Given the proximity of the next Israeli elections, the message from Biden to Israeli voters seems clear: vote for who I want, or suffer the consequences.

Though we expect anti-democratic nations like Russia and China to put their fingers on the scale in other countries, democracies used to be better than that. Though the right of self-determination dictates that the PEOPLE of each nation ought to decide their nation’s direction, this concept seems to be rejected by globalist leaders. From Obama threatening Brexit voters to Macron blocking Brazil’s OECD entry, globalist leaders are increasingly willing to tell voters in other countries what to do. At this point, polarization and partisanship cross borders.

The “Defenders of Democracy”

For better or worse, politics is now international and can be divided (generally) into three lanes – right, center, and left. The right is what it’s always been – nationalists bent on preserving their nation’s sovereignty and security, albeit with varying degrees of authoritarianism. The left is primarily** represented by the Chinese Communist Party and its various puppets and consists of those who organize around a central ideology and use totalitarian means to enforce it. The center consists of our great ‘defenders of democracy’ – globalists looking to centralize power in bureaucratic institutions.

The problem with the center is epitomized by Time’s “cabal” – they only defend democracy when it produces the results they want. Unfortunately, true democracy means following the will of the people, not manipulating or bullying the people into doing what the elites want. Behind the window-dressing of “defending democracy” lies an entrenched elite that behaves like the nobles of old – enveloping us peons in red-tape, controlling information and what we’re allowed to say, and stopping at nothing to preserve their stranglehold on power.

COVID and Control

Nowhere is this desire to institutionalize and control the population more clearly seen than in the establishment’s response to COVID. What started as “flatten the curve” and “fifteen days to stop the spread” has been extended indefinitely as people in power realized the control they could exercise on everyday citizens. Increasingly, these petty neo-nobles rushed to out-do one another, with each bureaucrat and elected official focused primarily on establishing dominance within their fiefdom through micro-regulations which they didn’t hesitate to flaunt.

It’s no small point that, once we were locked up, these same elites had almost total control of our access to information. Through the election, the center demanded more and more stringent lockdowns; at the same time, Twitter and Facebook became more and more aggressive in shutting down information that didn’t gel with the worldviews of their progressive employees while ignoring excesses and abuses from their own side.

This double standard goes against the very core of the democratic principles they purport to defend. Indeed, it reveals the true goal of the globalists – to create, through regulations, institutionalism, and censorship – a new nobility that preserves their power against the will of the people and the possibility the voters might not do what they want. In the end, it isn’t democracy Time’s “cabal” was defending – it’s oligarchy.

*To be fair, with no evidence but my gut

**American progressives also fall notably in this lane


Decoupling American Nationalism from Trump

Dems are Obsessed With Trump

Since the election of Donald Trump, the Democrats have tried relentlessly to tie the entire GOP to their President. There are a couple of reasons for this, not the least of which is that a good portion of the GOP has become nothing more than a cult of personality surrounding the (now former) President. Additionally, with Trump being consistently unpopular in the polls, it was a sound political strategy. Finally is the fact that – while a President is in office – his party is inextricably linked with him, for better or worse*.

Now that he’s gone, the link is weaker and no longer unavoidable. Naturally, the Democrats will continue to obsess with him – it’s a convenient line of attack, especially given divisions in the GOP. It also allows the far-left to create the division needed for them to ram through their agenda on party lines. However, as Liz Cheney’s impeachment vote and subsequent retention of her leadership role demonstrate, it is no longer reality. It’s very possible to be fully Republican without being fully pro-Trump.

Don’t Exile, but Don’t Defer

The myth being pushed by the media – and helped along by those like Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene – is that the Republican party is nothing more than a cult of personality surrounding Trump. This is partly propaganda, partly cloistered ignorance, and partly an attempt to force Republicans to choose between a difficult dichotomy – exile Trump completely or be nothing more than his lackeys.

However, there’s another way. With Trump out of office, there’s little to hold Republicans back from calling out Trump’s worst impulses while accepting him as part of a coalition. Trump has some notable accomplishments despite the media’s attempts to bury them, and most of his policies didn’t differ much from what any other Republican president would have done. A big-tent party – i.e., one with enough popular support to win elections – definitely has enough room for a cantankerous former President. Though we should ignore the ‘bully left’s’ demands to treat the former President as a pariah, we should not blindly support Trump’s more unsavory excesses.

Don’t Defend; Attack

Twice, the GOP has been forced to defend Trump from House impeachments. With no threat of removal from office this time around, I’d avoid giving in to the temptation to defend Trump. Whether or not Trump’s actions are impeachable or even illegal is largely irrelevant – people’s opinions of the former President and his actions are baked in and unlikely to change. Rather than focus on defense, then, it would be more prudent for conservatives to prosecute the prosecutors.

Trump’s culpability aside, the conduct of both impeachment demonstrates a clear abuse of power. The first time Democrats accused him of holding Ukraine hostage for political purposes. He might have – we don’t know because they never bothered to investigate, instead preferring a rushed impeachment process that satisfied their establishment supporters. This time, he called on his supporters to hit the streets, something Democrats have been doing all along, sometimes much more aggressively. Instead of defending Trump’s conduct, the GOP would be smart to focus on the hypocrisy of this particular prosecution.

Policies, not Personalities

Moving forward, Republicans – and all Americans – should demand that politicians focus on policies, not personalities. The past four years have been dominated by a high-school level of pettiness between Trump and those who sought to bring him down**. Any policy conversations have taken a back seat to the constant hysteria around the President’s conduct, and he keeps inviting more hysteria. While it’s true that tech and the media helped protect Biden from scrutiny, Trump helped them do it by refusing to step out of the spotlight for even a moment.

This reality-TV version of politics is destructive for our nation, and the Democrats show no signs of changing the tone. If anything, between the impeachment and the non-stop accusations of white supremacy, they’re doubling down on their humiliation tactics. Furthermore, part of their motivation for doing so stems from their threadbare majority and substantial policy differences within the party.

Americans are (or should be) hungry for mature leadership. Within two weeks of rule, the Democrats have shown themselves incapable, preferring to focus on punishing political adversaries and pushing patronage to their supporters in a party-line vote rather than attempt their campaign-promised “unity”. Republicans should focus on the radical agenda of the left and how our agenda contrasts rather than getting dragged into the name-calling back-and-forth the Squad uses to hide their radicalism.

America, not Trump

Something always missing from the media’s coverage is that Trumpism was more about the person next to you in the rally than the man on stage. It’s the sense of community and kinship that many Americans have (or used to have) despite our differences. It’s the willingness to focus on pride in one’s nation instead of PRIDE in where one sticks one’s dick. That was the appeal, but that appeal lies in America and its principles, not a brand name. Trump took the undercurrent of American nationalism and rode it straight to the White House; even with Trump gone, Americanism lives on.

This is where our focus should be moving forward. The American spirit is not the property of any one man and it can’t be branded. We need to build a broad, big-tent party around what really matters to us – God and country. We’ve seen the hatred and intolerance of those who harass diners and throw Molotov cocktails while chanting ‘Love Trumps Hate’. We’ve seen how the Squad has focused on purging the Democrats, attacking anyone who digresses from their progressivism even a minutia. We should counter with a party willing to accept policy differences among anyone dedicated to our common principles. This party must be big enough for both the former President and his detractors, as well as anyone willing to put their nation before themselves.

*The rocky relationship between Trump and McConnell demonstrates a pragmatic politician dealing with this reality.

**Particularly Pelosi. Last time I checked, mature politicians don’t rip up speeches like indignant children.


Let Americans Unite In Anger

Both sides have been lied to – and both should be furious

As we hope for an Inauguration Day unmarred by violence following the disgrace that was the Capitol Hill riot (or four years of unifying, magical, and totally acceptable BLM/anti-Trump riots), there is one thing all Americans have in common – we’re all assholes. We must be. There’s no other way our political (or tech/media) class would treat us this way.

Let’s look at the facts. What’s obvious to everyone with a brain – whether Republican or Democrat – is that both sides have been jerked around and lied to constantly. All you have to do is compare Brennan’s public statements to his Congressional testimony and the game is clear – hide behind a high-ranking security clearance to lie in public, promising your partisans a ‘smoking gun’ that doesn’t exist. Remember when John Bolton was going to be the savior of the impeachment? Where in his memoirs was that ‘smoking gun’ Brad Pitt was so sure he would have produced?

However, it’s not exactly like the Republicans can claim a moral high-ground. President Trump’s tenuous relationship with the truth aside, right-wing drum-beaters like Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani have been promising Trump supporters that they know the election was stolen. Of course, they constantly balked at producing the evidence, as it was never really the right time for them* to present it. This all culminated in the disaster that was January 6th as both sides talked themselves into believing that their cause was just and their opponents were traitors/racists, respectively.

But, remember, rioting is only bad when Republicans do it. When Democrats do it, it’s inspiring, productive, and unifying.

Pockets of Partisanship

Of course, some people eat this crap up. For those in the Samantha Bee/Don Lemon crowd, the belief that your side is pure and perfect while the other side is irredeemably corrupt and evil is more important than the truth. After all, this not only soothes their egos, it allows them to justify crackdowns and cancel culture to eliminate their political adversaries.

Likewise, on the right, there is plenty of anger; and where there’s anger, there are con artists ready to exploit it. It may be difficult to accept an election as ‘open and honest’ when the media and tech industries conspired to hide the winning candidate in a bunker and bury any negatives about him, but it’s pretty clear at this point that, when the American people cast their votes, the majority did so for Joe Biden rather than Donald Trump. The faster Republicans of all shades accept and acknowledge this fact instead of coddling those unwilling to accept it, the faster the party and the country can move on.

Unfortunately, these are the types of people we allow to control the debate. They talk the loudest, berate those who disagree, and shout down dissenting voices. The Catch-22 of it all is that these types of individuals can only be disarmed from within their own party, and they are generally useful to their partisans. In addition to the crucial ‘ego-salving’ they provide by reassuring partisans of their righteousness, they also play a critical role in the political process: firing up the base. With both bases plenty fired-up as it is, it’s imperative that moderates (or simply reasonable people) in both parties prepare to attack the hardline partisans with the same fury they unleash on others.

Unity Behind Transparency

Neither unity nor transparency is in the interests of the political class. Though I suspect Pelosi’s rush to impeach a second-time reveals more about the high-school level pettiness of our political class, it underlies an important point – this type of partisanship is popular among the people who elect her and empower. The merits of Impeachment 2.0 aside, many (if not most) representatives come from districts where they’re more likely to lose in a primary than a general election. Thus, our politicians want us angry at each other so we don’t take our entirely justified anger out on its rightful target – them.

If there’s going to be unity or even peace moving forward, this is what must unite Americans – anger at being exploited for political profit from politicians WITHIN THEIR OWN PARTY. We have to reject an ‘all-or-nothing’ approach to politics in which both parties allow the opposition to become so demonized that they overlook the flaws in their own party. This means Republicans rejecting calls from those like Matt Gaetz to purge the party of anyone insufficiently pro-Trump as well as progressives pushing back against tech censorship and the ‘cancel culture’ tendency to dismiss anyone insufficiently far to the left as racist/homophobic/whatever.

Pretty Words Plus Policies

Naturally, it’s easy to dismiss this as ‘pie-in-the-sky’ idealism. It’s pretty easy to talk about bipartisanship, but if we’re putting our cards on the table, I have no intention of being anything but livid about BLM riots and tech censorship. I don’t expect Democrats to ever consider Donald Trump anything but a disgusting piece of trash. Pretty words don’t mean much – popular policies, on the other hand, have the potential to bring unity to action.

The most obvious one is transparency. As I alluded to above, both sides have played ‘hide the smoking gun’, using references to ‘classified information’ and secret hearings to mislead the public. Americans should start demanding more accountability from their politicians – if you have the goods, present them. If it’s information that truly does need to remain classified, keep your mouth shut. Though a lot of this rests on public advocacy to hold the politicians’ feet to the fire, a new sunshine law and/or revised ethical guidelines couldn’t hurt.

Another area of agreement is breaking up big tech. Conservatives resent big tech’s Orwellian attempts to control the flow of information, and we’ve already seen progressive starlets like Elizabeth Warren propose regulations in this area. Hell, AOC literally chased Amazon out of her city. Though the differing interests of business regulation versus the preservation of free speech may make negotiating the final bill difficult, it provides a rare opportunity for the Biden Administration to begin with a bipartisan policy win**.

*Also, they didn’t actually have it.

**At least, it will be considerably less divisive than beginning with Obamacare like the last two administrations.


Prepare for America’s Decade of Humiliation

The Morning After

Despite Trump’s loss, the tightness of the race led a variety of elites to wonder – how could this happen again? How could a significant portion of the electorate vote for someone that they had spent four years labeling racist? Any person with an iota of intelligence or self-awareness might be inclined to examine their own role in this national fiasco. Luckily, our elites can simply blame racism, avoiding the unthinkable – that maybe, just maybe, their arrogance, pettiness, and narcissism has something to do with the problem.

Let’s be clear – Trump was always meant to be a disruptor. He was elected because a significant portion of Americans thought the establishment needed a shakeup – the bureaucrats were too entrenched, the media was too arrogant and self-obsessed, and the politicians were too corrupt. Whether Trump himself fell into these same categories was largely irrelevant. Sometimes, the best way to clear out the rats is to send in a snake. At any rate, he was pissing off the right people. For many, Trump served the same purpose as a primal scream and, if our elite classes were smart, they would have taken the hint.

At this point, it’s hard to argue the disruption worked. For better or worse, America will never be the same. Whether we move forward or collapse into racially-motivated infighting remains to be seen, but it’s clear which way the majority party will move things. With the Democrats in charge and corporate America largely on board, prepare to be served a big plate of racial self-flagellation.

Pictured- Black Oppression in America (i.e. a man who complains about white privilege to trailer-trash before taking a private jet to check in on his sweatshops and cheer the murder of Muslims in China)

Racial Self-Flagellation

America is now ruled by a party that hates it – in particular, a party that maintains power through racially-extortionist rhetoric and intersectional majoritarianism. Expect the next two to four years to consist of nonstop racial self-flagellation sponsored by corporate America in partnership with our political class. The instinct to put everything in racial terms has already begun with complaints of a double-standard for the Capitol Hill riots – ironic since Republicans immediately condemned the riots whereas Democratic politicians aided, abetted, and cheer-led four years of BLM and anti-Kavanaugh riots.

It’s hard to blame these cloistered, ivory-tower elites for riding the horse that got them there – after all, Kamala Harris is the Vice President explicitly because she is black and a woman*. Ilhan Omar has made quite a life for herself after fleeing Somalia by preaching about what a racist shithole the country that took her in and elected her to Congress is. As for LeBron James, Mark Cuban, and the rest of corporate America, focusing on racism in America comfortably allows them to keep playing the racial justice card while actively running cover for racial persecutions in China, maintaining both their public image as good guys and their fragile egos.

Racism and its continuing existence in American life are also critical to leftist elites in another way. Over the past four years – most notably the past year – cancel culture has emerged as elites in media, tech, and academia crackdown on those diverging from the hard left line. Racism is the cover used by powerful progressives like Jack Dorsey to punish or silence those deemed insufficiently progressive – it’s akin to calling someone a ‘communist’ in 1950s Hollywood. After that, the evidence is moot as the antiracist mob rears its ugly head.

Anti-American Unity

It’s also important to point out the Democrats have a razor-thin majority and relatively major differences in both policy and tactics – ranging from Manchin’s calls for a new bipartisanship to Pelosi’s personal pettiness to AOC’s calls to purge anyone with a right-of-center view from public life. The policy debates don’t look much better. For the past four years, what has united the Democrats has been their collective hysteria over a fat orange guy. With Trump gone, where are the Democrats to find a common enemy to unite them?

The answer is anti-racism. Of course, if you peel back the layers of anti-racism, you’ll find it’s little more than anti-Americanism and anti-white racism. The entire gospel of anti-racism is that America – particularly white America – is an inherently racist nation that must constantly self-flagellate for its original sin of racism. Opinions are only worth as much as the oppression points of the person expressing them.

We are so racist that we can’t even see our racism – that’s why they never have to point to overtly racist acts, they can simply claim white privilege or accuse their targets of using ‘dog whistle’ rhetoric. The nice thing about dog whistles is that you can always SAY someone you dislike is using one since, by definition, they can’t be heard outside the intended audience. Anyone not hearing the dog whistles or not checking their white privilege simply isn’t as enlightened or intelligent as the anti-racist educating them – and, of course, anyone wondering whether the racism in question actually exists is a racist who needs to be canceled.

Therefore, over the next two to four years, expect the racialized rhetoric of the Omars and AOCs to take center-stage. Corporations have learned that they can use BLM messaging to simultaneously play to the racial justice crowd while humiliating ordinary Americans into overlooking their support for the Uyghur genocide/sweatshops/general sleaziness. As the Democrats fail to deliver on any appreciable policy initiatives, look to them to fall back onto the horse that got them there – racially browbeating Americans into submission.

*Sadly, whether or not Harris is qualified is irrelevant – you don’t get to say a job MUST be filled by a black woman and then cry racism when someone points out that those were the criteria used.


Post-Election Wrap Up

Rather than any coherent point, this is a smattering of random thoughts about the election as the smoke clears and both sides begin repositioning for the next battle. It’s actually fitting since there really doesn’t seem to be any resounding, central takeaway from the election overall. However, since there was a before, this is the after.

An Ode to Susan Collins

Susan Collins might be my favorite senator. I don’t always agree with her votes, but she seems to be one of the (if not the) only senators to vote her conscience instead of what her party leaders tell her – you know, the basic job of a Senator. Her willingness to buck the mob – and, seemingly, seal her political defeat – during the Kavanaugh hearing was a rare political act of courage.

The fact that she outperformed Trump by eighteen – winning by nine while Trump lost by nine – is a beacon of hope for all those who wish to see patriotism overcome partisanship and proof that a Senator with courage and conviction can overcome the toxicity of modern American politics.

In short, Susan Collins is a true feminist icon*.

Pictured: Not a feminist (under feminism, women aren’t allowed to choose their own political affiliation).

*Or would be, if feminism allowed women to think for themselves instead of demanding compliance to a very narrow range of ideological beliefs (see, e.g., J.K. Rowlings).

Did GA Split Its Vote?

One of the more interesting results came out of GA. Trump’s loss (I’m assuming the chalk will hold) comes as a surprise, but it wasn’t totally unforeseeable. What is really surprising about the results is that GA seems to have split its Presidential and Senate votes.

Though both Senate races are heading for runoffs, Perdue led Ossoff by 1.75%; Trump lost by 0.3%. Moving to vote totals, Perdue and Trump basically mirror each other, but Biden garnered 2,471,906 votes* to Ossoff’s 2,371,000, meaning 100,000 votes were cast for Biden but not Ossoff.

What’s the reason for this discrepancy? It’s easy to see in places like Maine or WV (more on Manchin next) where a Senator distinguishes a brand separate from their party, but I have no reason to think Perdue should dramatically outperform the party. The presence of Libertarian Shane Hazel certainly made a difference, but the conventional wisdom is that Libertarians draw more from Republicans than Democrats; presumably, his presence kept Perdue from breaking fifty instead of contributing to his margin over Ossoff.

* As of this writing.

Manchin Makes GA Irrelevant

Obviously, not really. However, Manchin’s nixing of Democratic plans to nix the filibuster makes the stakes significantly less vital. If the Democrats sweep GA, they will have exactly fifty seats, meaning they need to hold their whole caucus together. If Manchin won’t help end the filibuster, Chuck Schumer’s stuck with it.

Interestingly, this makes Manchin’s corresponding comment on court-packing irrelevant. As long as the Republicans have the filibuster, the Democrats can’t pack the court. The filibuster is key to disrupting any other ambitious, far-left projects, which means Republicans blocking things in the Senate is their bargaining chip for the next two years regardless of the GA outcome.

Of course, there are a variety of other reasons the GA specials matter. Control of committees, in particular, will allow Republicans to continue to investigate the abuses of the Obama Administration, in particular their weaponization and partisan-ization of the FBI and DOJ. It will also allow the Republicans to keep the most contemptible Democrats (*cough* Susan Rice *cough*) out of positions of power where they can do even more damage.


Election Final Call

Weekend at Biden’s Pays Off

Given Biden’s big and remarkably consistent polling lead, the conventional wisdom is that Biden is a heavy favorite going into the final weekend. Given what happened in 2016, and how much people hate Trump (hint: it’s a lot), it’s not surprising that people are nervous about trusting the polls. There are reasons to be skeptical; first, let’s start with the reason Biden’s polling lead is more trustworthy than Clinton’s was.

This is a picture of a cat (named Topi, apparently) in a box. I was going to use the image spot to take a snarky shot at 50 Cent/Chelsea Handler, but I think we all need a cat in a box right now.

First Past the Post, Bitch

It’s basically in the title. The goal of an election is to get more votes than your opponent; once you’re at 50%, the game’s over. That’s the plateau Biden has consistently exceeded (in national polls) that Clinton never got to. Additionally, there are fewer undecided voters (hence, fewer opportunities to close the gap) than in 2016. Finally, Biden isn’t the lesser of two evils the way Hillary was – people legitimately like him as a person. These are all reasons to take the polls at face value.

Additionally, there’s a “once-bitten, twice-shy” effect. People, especially those suffering from TDS, were so traumatized in 2016 it’s going to take them a while to trust again. However, Biden looks like a steady bet – given an objective reading of the available data.

The Underdog Candidate

First off, the obvious. Ninety percent is not one hundred percent. Even under the statistical models, Trump has a chance. It’s a small chance, but people tend to take an overly deterministic view of things, i.e., Biden’s a heavy favorite, so he’ll win. Here’s an analogy that will make things clearer, at least for sports fans.

Biden’s chance of winning the election on Tuesday is about the same as the chance the Tampa Bay Buccaneers will beat the New York (football) Giants the night before on MNF. Now, nobody with a brain would bet even money on the Giants – they’re two-touchdown underdogs. However, it certainly isn’t unrealistic that the Giants could pull the upset. The same basic logic applies to the election – Trump’s an underdog, but not out*.

*To be fair, I haven’t heard anyone argue he CAN’T win.

Trump’s Cards

Though I take no issue with the interpretation of the available data, I do wonder about the quality of the data itself. I’ll pass over previously discussed ponderings about whether conservatives have simply blocked off pollsters. However, there are a few additional reasons to suspect we may, in fact, be in for a bigger polling miss than 2016.

First, we’ve seen a surge in voter registration for Republicans, particularly in key states. Though this isn’t a sure sign of momentum, it is a good sign. Furthermore, new voters would be less likely to have been polled. Pollsters make assumptions about how the electorate will look – a considerably more Republican electorate than anticipated would help contribute to the magnitude of polling miss required for a Trump win.

Likewise, we’ve seen unprecedented outreach from the Trump campaign to African-American voters. Though I’m not seeing a whole lot of (non-anecdotal) evidence this is paying off, remember the “shy” Trump voter. I don’t think the “shy” Trump voter played a role in the 2016 miscall; however, I think the blowback black Trump backers face may be severe enough that it plays a role for this demographic – especially since the very act of polling them would prime their racial identity. Considering the difficulties in polling African-Americans in general, I’m not sure a pro-Trump movement among this segment of the population would be properly picked up by the polls.

Final Call

The pollsters say Biden is around ninety percent; the betting markets are closer to a two to one advantage. I think the betting markets, for a variety of reasons I won’t get into now, are overestimating Trump’s chances and are overly dismissive of polls. However, given the reason listed above along with the increasingly Orwellian behavior of the media/tech industry*, I think there are more reasons than usual to be skeptical.

Biden’s the clear favorite; however, I think the chances are closer to 75% than 90%, given the unreliability of the data available.

*Of which pollsters are a part


Critical Race Theory, Trump, BLM, and the Politics of Humiliation

Hearing Without Listening

Thomas Friedman recently wrote an article that epitomizes the aloofness of the cloistered elites in their ivory towers. The article (worth the read) does an excellent job detailing the humiliation and rage from Trump supporters without quite getting it. Joe Biden can’t reach out to Trump voters any more than Clinton could with overtures to Republicans like myself. Biden can’t reach out for Trump supporters because Biden isn’t the problem. Thomas Friedman is the problem.

Maybe not Thomas Friedman, personally. He seems like a decent enough fellow. Besides, just look at that face – how can you hate that face?

Photo by Charles Haynes, from Wikimedia Commons

It’s His People, Stupid

Even if you assume Biden is at full mental capacity, he’s shown no willingness to stand up to the radicals in his own party. He secured the nomination by adopting large portions of Sanders’s platform and picked a vice president based primarily on race and gender. Biden, in his prime, was a loyal party man; it’s clear that Biden the candidate does whatever his Democratic handlers tell him to. He’s shown no willingness to stray from the party line or condemn the excesses of his own partisans.

These same partisans are the ones harassing people at restaurants. They are the ones who crossed the line with Kavanaugh, they’re the ones attacking George Washington, and they’re the ones censoring our daily communications. In short, they’re the ones pushing intersectionality and critical race theory. All the nice words and peace, love, and compassion in the world will mean nothing from a candidate who fully intends to empowering the exact people responsible for this humiliation.

Critical Race Theory and Social Control

Whether intentionally or unintentionally, Friedman overlooks the main factor in the humiliation of Trump supporters. Critical race theory and intersectionality – known colloquially as the “Oppression Olympics” for their tendency to award oppression points based on race, gender, and sexuality – are the main tools used to attack and humiliate Trump supporters and, ultimately, any American refusing to toe the ‘woke’ line.

Clearly, this group has upped the ante in the past few months with the tactics of humiliation. In 2016, if you didn’t want elitists talking down to you, you simply avoided academics and Hollywood. Now, by hiding behind an uncontroversial slogan (BLM), critical race theory – and its accompanying humiliation of Americans and Christians like Drew Brees and Terry Crews – has infiltrated every aspect of American life.

Today, you can’t go to a restaurant without being harassed, and you can’t watch a football game or shop on the internet (since, you know, COVID restrictions) without being bombarded with BLM messaging. With BLM messaging comes the Cultural Marxist subtext of self-flagellation, a requirement to kiss the ring to make up for the original sin of being American/Christian/white (or whatever privilege you have to compensate for).

Trump the Troll

To understand how left-wing overreach will win Trump the election, it’s important to understand Trump’s electoral strategy. Essentially, he’s a troll. He says things that get his opponents on tilt, and when they go too far it galvanizes people who may not be pro-Trump but whose hand is now forced by the excesses of the Resistance.

Remember, Trump won the primary with 41% of the vote*; 59% of Republican primary voters DID NOT vote for Trump. Yet, the secret of Trump’s remarkably consistent if unimpressive approval rating has been his historic, near-uniform approval among Republicans, most of whom preferred another candidate.

*This number is especially impressive considering it includes contests after Trump became the presumptive nominee.

A Growing Number of Deplorables

How did he go from a small group of ‘Deplorables’ to a party representing just under half of the nation? The excesses and abuses of the Resistance – most notably the Kavanaugh hearing and Obamagate – galvanized Trump-skeptical Republicans to rally behind the President. Simply put, the willingness to use mobs and shady legal tactics to destroy and coerce created a threat greater than any posed by a fat orange man sitting in a room tweeting.

With the degree and uniformity with which the establishment has rallied around the anti-Trump cause under the guise of BLM, expect the number of deplorables to grow. After all, the restaurant-goers being harassed by BLM mobs aren’t necessarily Trumpers. Football fans generally go to games to escape the anger of the day-to-day world – forcing them to take a knee, which they likely already have to do in some form at their jobs, is just going to piss them off further.

As the BLM mob becomes more aggressive and liberals like Friedman feel more and more comfortable forcing left-wing politics on people trying to go about their lives, expect more and more Americans to begin to feel ‘deplorable’.

Trump the Roto-Rooter

In many ways, Trump is a mirror. In addition to his trolling tactics, part of the reason for Trump’s electoral success has been the ‘flexibility’ he touted in the debates. Having no real record or core political beliefs has allowed a wide range of supporters to look at him and see themselves. It also explains why media-types like Friedman, along with academics, bureaucrats, and tech giants, have such a visceral reaction to Trump. They are obsessed with Trump’s corruption because they, themselves, are corrupt.

They constantly complain about Trump’s attacks on American institutions without asking whether those institutions deserve to be attacked. Especially in the media, many journalists have come to believe themselves so immune to reproach that they see any criticism – even pointing out mistakes – to be an attack on the First Amendment. Bureaucrats in many cases are more concerned with protecting their own power and prestige, even if it means keeping in place an outdated and inefficient bureaucratic system.

In fact, Trump’s attacks on institutions aren’t undemocratic – they are the reason we elected him. America’s elite institutions, from the bureaucrats to the media to tech giants, have become so fat, lazy, and condescending that we elected somebody to challenge them. Rather than take the message, they have doubled down on the humiliation tactics. We’ll see how that works from them this time.

In the interim, if Thomas Friedman wants to know the secret to Trump’s success, he needs only take a look around his own newsroom.


Two Trump Cards

How two traditionally minor issues could determine a historic election

After the RNC, there’s no question that Trump is making an all-out push for the black vote. And despite numerous Democrats trying to play “hide the candidate”, it looks like the debates are still on – which means Biden is finally going to have to answer questions for himself. Given the stories on FoxNews during the DNC, that makes it clear that Tara Reade (and Rose McGowan, for that matter) aren’t going away. Though Tara Reade’s accusations themselves won’t sink Biden, his authoring of the Obama Administration’s Title IX guidelines will (potentially).

The end result of this is that, even in the face of race riots and COVID, two relatively minor issues – both subsets of ‘education’, which seems far from voters’ minds at the moment – could sway the election for Trump.


*As long as it suits you politically

Black Voters and School Choice

I’ve written previously how black voters often have to take a backseat to other groups within the Democratic fold when it comes to policy priorities – nowhere is this more clear than the issue of charter schools. Despite overwhelming support among blacks, Democrats continue to oppose charter schools. Furthermore, it’s a difficult issue for Democrats to justify to black voters. Behind every legitimate argument lurks the unspoken elephant in the room – charter schools hurt the teachers’ unions, a (more) important Democratic constituency.

The fact that opposition to charter schools comes more from the left wing of the party than its center presents a second opportunity. The Democratic Party, especially the progressive wing, has become increasingly skeptical of religion, veering at times to open hostility. Black voters, by contrast, embrace religion, demonstrating above average levels of religiosity. If Trump can make school choice a central issue, the left’s anti-religion prejudices are likely to surface, allowing Republicans to exploit another cleavage between African-Americans and Democratic elites.

Tara Reade and Progressive Hypocrisy

I honestly have no idea how Democrats thought the Tara Reade accusations would just go away. Their response of essentially (though more respectfully) dismissing and moving on from the accusations would have been the best strategy – if the Tara Reade accusations were the actual issue. They weren’t. The Kavanaugh accusations and the Democratic double standard was the issue. Though it is possible to distinguish the cases – by, for example, believing Ford while disbelieving Reade – given the similar (lack of) hard evidence* in both cases, it’s difficult to believe that anyone is actually doing so without relying heavily on motivated thinking. Simply put, both are ‘he-said, she-said’ cases involving events that are decades old. No one with a brain can feel comfortable saying for certain what happened in either situation.

Normally, this wouldn’t be an issue for Biden. He wasn’t in power at the time of the Kavanaugh hearing, and could easily distance himself from the more unsavory moments of the affair. What he can’t distance himself from, however, is his role in developing the Obama Administration’s Title IX guidelines on sexual assault, under which he would have been convicted and removed. These same regulations have resulted in numerous young people being kicked out of school on accusations with no more merit than those of Biden’s accuser. Given Trump’s propensity for showmanship, it wouldn’t surprise me to see a couple of those former students make an appearance during the campaign.

*Though it should be noted that at least Tara Reade could establish she had actually met Joe Biden at some point. Reade 1, Ford 0, I suppose.

A Broad Pattern of Hypocrisy

Donald Trump’s own questionable pattern of behavior demonstrates one of two reasons Reade provides such a stumbling block for Biden. Trump would have to be completely shameless to bring up these accusations given his own checkered past, but that’s never been a problem for him before. The difference is that Trump’s issues are well-known. They won’t have an impact because they’re already ‘baked in’. Biden, on the other hand, has been hidden in his bunker by his handlers.

Normally, issues like this would have been brought up during the primaries or the summer, he would have taken whatever lumps he needed to take, and voters would be ‘inoculated’ from further attacks in the fall. Because of the Democrats’ willingness to sweep this under the rug when the allegations first surfaced, Biden is going to have to justify this double standard in the heart of election season.

The second issue for Biden is how well the Democratic response fits a pattern of exempting themselves from the standards to which they hold others. Democrats love protests – but not outside Lori Lightfoot’s house. LeBron and the NBA love social justice – but not for Hong Kong. We needed everyone to stay home – yet massive protests are alright if they cause is sufficiently liberal. These provide a common theme of elitist hypocrisy, which could allow Trump to ride the same anti-elite sentiment that carried him in 2016 to re-election.

If this happens, it may be the first time an incumbent has won as an anti-establishment candidate.