Bullshit explained – If there is something

When your brain has taken too many wrong turns: pride and prejudice edition

Unless you just arrived by starship from the other side of the galaxy, then you undoubtedly know it’s pride month. With all that’s taken place over the past few months, it’s hard to wrap one’s mind around what could shape up to be an exponential increase in pride and pride related activities. It feels like the pride dial is already cranked up to eleven, but it’s surely about to go even higher.

What should be a surprise to no one is that some people are beginning to experience some pride fatigue and are even pushing back a little. By pushing back, they’re mostly just refusing to participate while a few are also voicing their opposition. This insufficient embrace of pre-pride pride has resulted in more than a few pairs of rainbow underpants working themselves into a tightly knotted bunch. The following excerpt appears in USA Today under the headline “The right-wing is waging war on all things Pride. We can’t let them win.”

“In the past, the right often ignored Pride Month, and Pride events. Or just mocked them. That’s no longer the case. Now, we’re seeing a war on all things Pride. That word, war, is not used lightly. It’s accurate.

“It’s a war they’re playing for keeps. They like the viciousness of it. The idea of it. The power of it. The pain it causes. They like that it terrifies companies and people alike. There is no goal other than to bash the LGBTQ community and force companies to capitulate. If you don’t believe me, just look around.

“First, it was Bud Light after transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney promoted a March Madness contest. Then it was Target that, well, I’m still not exactly sure what Target did other than sell some rainbow-themed merch.

“Now, it’s Chick-fil-A. And, again, I’m not sure exactly why the right is targeting them. It has something to do with the hiring of a DEI officer. One that got the job…in 2021. Not to mention the company is one of the most culturally right-wing in the nation.

“Then of course there was the attack on the Dodgers for inviting (then disinviting and subsequently re-inviting) the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a civil rights group. The right has spent months going after drag queens and are attempting to ban trans athletes.”

What all these examples have in common is that consumers simply refused to buy what these companies were selling, which is a bunch of values with a product attached to it. If you’re a Bud Light drinker, you couldn’t just buy a can of beer. You had to also promote the likeness of a ridiculous, cartoonish social media clown with your purchase. Target has been selling rainbow-themed merch forever. This year they decided to set up a pride shrine and then were shocked when families turned down the opportunity to adorn themselves in coordinated pride wear. Nobody’s boycotting Chick-fil-A. Along with gold, Chick-fil-A is what you find in the pot at the end of the rainbow. To Mike Freeman, the author of the USA Today piece, what is the appropriate amount of pride expenditures families should engage in before they are no longer guilty of bigotry?

As for the Unwavering Adherents of Unceasing Narcissism, if you want to honor a group of satanic clowns with their own night at the old ball park, go right ahead. But are you really shocked when a large segment of the public takes offense and declines to support or participate in its mockery of Catholics and the Christian faith? Is that what pride month is all about?

When your brain has taken too many wrong turns: Raised with the wrong politics edition

Occasionally a piece of journalism emerges that really puts in perspective the hidden challenges and private struggles facing a wildly successful Hollywood movie star. Those of us in the general public often take it for granted that celebrities have fairy-tale lives, and seldom pause to realize that the fact that big stars want for nothing sometimes means they’re susceptible to torment by just about anything. Things most of us might casually brush aside as a minor annoyance often account for a great deal of distress in the life of an insanely popular and fabulously rich Hollywood movie star.

One such Hollywood starlet this week laid bare her struggles with being raised by parents with the wrong politics. As someone who was raised in a working-class, earth-people-inhabited den of cannabis, it never occurred to me that being raised in a Republican household could inflict so much trauma on a person’s life. Haunted by nightmares of Tucker Carlson relentlessly tormenting her, this starlet just can’t bring herself to forgive her parents for her Republican childhood:

“I just worked so hard in the last five years to forgive my dad and my family and try to understand: It’s different. The information they are getting is different. Their life is different. I’ve tried to get over it and I really can’t. I can’t. I’m sorry I’m just unleashing, but I can’t f— with people who aren’t political anymore. You live in the United States of America. You have to be political. It’s too dire. Politics are killing people….I don’t want to disparage my family, but I know that a lot of people are in a similar position with their families. How could you raise a daughter from birth and believe that she doesn’t deserve equality? How?”

Somehow, though, against all odds she managed to break free of her Republican programming, and despite her parent’s insistence that she just meet some nice young boy and give them lots of grandchildren, she managed to carve out a career for herself in Hollywood, rising to become one of the most celebrated celebrities and highly paid actors in all of tinsel town. If only her parents had supported her and given her a proper upbringing, perhaps her star could have risen even higher than Leonardo DiCaprio.

Those of us not on the red carpet or the silver screen, who are just trying to put food on our laminate table top, don’t appreciate how important it is to be political. It’s true: politics are killing people. So, by all means, let’s all become more political. It appears to be doing wonders for the mental health of those who have discarded their marbles and jumped headlong into the fray.

NYT: That trip to the restroom could be your last

In a Monday New York Times piece entitled Is COVID More Dangerous Than Driving? How Scientists Are Parsing COVID Risks, author Benjamin Mueller attempts to bring some much needed perspective to the amount of risk Americans face from COVID in our new post-pandemalyptic landscape. The article concedes that doctors, scientists and public health officials haven’t been doing a proper job explaining risk to the rest of us dull-witted folks, so they’re going to lay down the facts in a way that even we can understand.

According to the piece, “an average unvaccinated person 65 and older is roughly as likely to die from an omicron infection as someone is to die from using heroin for 18 months.” I’ve long suspected that my ten month heroin addiction was mere child’s play compared to the ravages of Omicron, but finally I’ve had it confirmed for me by a real life health official. Thankfully, I’ve been vaccinated, so there is the peace of mind that comes with that protection, as well as the comfort of knowing I can ride the white horse for another seven months.

A University of Georgia mathematics professor was consulted to provide some overdue insight on how to understand percentages. The professor provided a useful example for overcoming her elderly mother-in-law’s difficulty grasping ten percent, explaining, “imagine if, once out of every 10 times she used the restroom in a given day, she died. ‘Oh, 10% is terrible,’ she recalled her mother-in-law saying.” No doubt everyone’s felt the cold hand of death on their shoulder from time to time when the urgent need to use the restroom arises. However, now the poor mother-in-law is trapped in a self-repeating cycle of alerting the grim reaper after every tenth flush of her toilet.

Another sobering reminder of risk showed “that an average 40-year-old vaccinated over six months ago faced roughly the same chance of being hospitalized after an infection as someone did of dying in a car crash in the course of 170 cross-country road trips.” Additionally, a “transplant recipient is twice as likely to die from COVID as someone is to die while scaling Mount Everest.” Well, when these high-falutin, ivory tower eggheads put it like that, the whole picture comes into high res focus. So, I guess you’re telling me that avoiding that second booster is akin to a daredevil motorcycle rider trying to jump 52 semis? Got it.

Overdosing heroin junkie, lavatory death chamber, Neal Cassady frequency road tripping fatality, Everest mountain climbing casualty: Whatever context they’re providing for establishing risk, it seems like the New York Times and their panel of expert consultants is basically just telling us to maintain the present course of being scared shitless all the time, which is pretty much the message they’ve been peddling all along.

Canada declares war on “terror” trucker convoy

The full force and fury of the Maple Leaf is about to strike mightily at Canada’s freedom trucker convoy. Invoking powers reserved almost exclusively for war time, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau declared war on the lawless band of 18 wheelers, flatbeds, and reefer trucks occupying the Canadian capital and a handful of other locations around the country.

Apparently the protests were cutting into the country’s bottom line. Indeed, the freedom truckers are so essential to Canadian commerce that not only were they required to put their health and safety on the line during the early days of the pandemic and move goods around the country and across the border, but they’re still needed to shut up, get back behind the wheel and do as their told, lest they have their livelihoods taken away and their bank accounts frozen.

“This illegal occupation needs to end … the measure of success will be, can we get our supply chains back? Can we end the disruption to livelihoods of people who rely on trade to the United States?,” Trudeau told reporters.

The nation’s elite political class and the keyboard tapping Zoom crowd can do without the calloused hand, beer gut brigade disrupting their lives in Ottawa. And if you don’t think the pajama clad power elite is serious, check out their little bulldog, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, as she steps to the mic and tells the people how it’s about to go down.

“First: we are broadening the scope of Canada’s anti-money laundering and terrorist financing rules so that they cover crowdfunding platforms and the payment service providers they use.”

Hold up a second. There must be some kind of mistake here. This isn’t the press conference where they announce the takedown of some international drug trafficking cartel or terror financing network. These are the freedom truckers, dog.

“Second: the government is issuing an order with immediate effect, under the Emergencies Act, authorizing Canadian financial institutions to temporarily cease providing financial services where the institution suspects that an account is being used to further the illegal blockades and occupations. This order covers both personal and corporate accounts.”

So according to Freeland (ironic name, eh?), if you’re participating in the protests, or providing material aid and comfort to the freedom trucker movement, the commonwealth will come after you like a bone-chilling blast of Alberta Clipper and freeze your bank account.

Apparently the freedom truckers don’t enjoy a lot of popular support in Canada. Most Canadians disapproved of Trudeau’s handling of the protests and were demanding a resolution. However, who thought it would be prudent to invoke unprecedented executive powers and suspend civil liberties by equating a peaceful group of protesting truckers to terrorists? Wouldn’t the thoughtful and compassionate approach be to just drop the mandates and the passports? Some provinces are already doing so. But I guess you can’t negotiate with truckers. All they understand is the iron fist. Maybe next time there’s a deadly virus outbreak, rather than face down the virus and put their and their family’s health and well-being in jeopardy, maybe the truckers should just stay at home and protect themselves, like their Zoom chattering overlords.

DHS deploys 500 to head off phantom trucker convoy

America breathed a collective sigh of relief this morning after the promised trucker protest convoy never materialized and the Super Bowl and all related activities came off without a hitch. Thanks to rapid and decisive action by the Department of Homeland Security, the massive convoy of lawless truckers barrelling toward LA was never able to achieve its diabolical plan to disrupt the big game.

According to Reuters, “A reported trucker protest planned to coincide with the Super Bowl appears to be going nowhere, a social media monitoring firm that has been tracking the issue said on Saturday.”

Apparently someone forgot to notify the truckers that this big event was going down. Although the Department of Homeland Security did its best to try to get the convoy rolling.

“After media reported on a U.S. Department of Homeland Security memo warning of potential disruption around Sunday’s Super Bowl, there was a notable increase in social media mentions about a convoy of anti-vaccine truckers purportedly planning to descend on Los Angeles,” Reuters reported.

Okay, raise the possibility that a politically hostile U.S. based trucker protest convoy determined to disrupt America’s beloved Super Bowl holiday is on the loose. Disseminate memo to a credulous media to promote the story and sound the alarm. Point to resulting increased activity on social media as evidence of a plot in action. Deploy 500 additional staff to California to head off the angry phantom convoy. No word yet on how many DHS agents attended the Super Bowl for security reasons.

Comment from America’s recently radicalized legions of long-haul truckers was not forthcoming as most of them were passed out in front of their televisions, overcome by voluminous consumption of hot wings and frosty cold beverages.

Insider article halts production at Pottermore Publishing

The ancient, rusted printing press at Pottermore Publishing rests covered in cobwebs this morning, and the old inky-fingered typesetter is out looking for other employment following new revelations outlined in Pam Segall’s recent Insider piece “There is no good way to introduce ‘Harry Potter’ to the next generation.”

Segall, a self-described millennial Potterhead, claims the Harry Potter magic is dead, killed by its creator’s malicious spells transmitted via Twitter in 2020. Furthermore, according to Segall, J.K. Rowling’s assault on the Potter magic goes back as far as 2018 when the Harry Potter author “liked” a “couple of offensive tweets” cast by other like-minded magic killers.

In probably one of the more relevant assertions of the piece, Segall says of Rowling, “Her actions disenchanted scores of fans, who have struggled to figure out what to do with their love for the series given the controversy around its creator.” Meaning some multiple of twenty fans is experiencing the same emotional difficulty and confusion described by Segall in this piece.

Having not been a millennial Potterhead in the late nineties, but rather a gen-x pothead too old for Harry Potter, it is difficult for me to fully appreciate Segall’s sense of disenchantment and loss. However, it must be darn near impossible to maintain a sense of magic and possibility when you’re swallowing all that ideological bullshit Segall’s been feasting on.

After bringing up about four or five of Rowling’s inclusivity infractions across all the Harry Potter works, Segall succinctly summarizes how the magic came to be drained from Potterland for Segall and the 20, 40, 80 or so other disenchanted fans. “In a series that spans thousands of pages and often provides minute details, the thought that Rowling couldn’t spare a few words to mention a character’s race or sexuality already seems preposterous,” Segall writes.

Indeed it is preposterous. Because everyone knows that beginning at some fixed date in 2016 or 2017 it became a cultural imperative that every children’s book detail the race, ethnicity, gender and sexuality of each of the book’s characters. The fact that some books don’t include these details is a colossal failure of imagination. Everyone knows that for a budding young reader to truly understand what makes characters tick, the author must include the character’s race or sexuality. Furthermore, it would be ideal if their distribution across the works would reflect the demographics of today’s modern society, even if the story is set in some other time and place, or some altogether made up realm.

It is Segall’s contention that Rowling’s bigotry has imposed itself on the Harry Potter works, thus releasing all the magic that has enchanted readers for nearly 25 years now. She calls this “the intrusion of real life” onto the works and concludes, “When we introduce the real world to the Wizarding World, we inherently drain some of its magic.” Setting aside whether or not Rowling’s tweets and likes are offensive, why is it that we are dragging the real world into the wizarding world again? It seems to me, again from the perspective of a former pothead and not a Potterhead, that often when you drag the contemporary world into the make believe world, you run the risk of disrupting the illusion. I don’t know, someone once told me that magic isn’t real, but often I can set aside that reality and enjoy tales of kick ass magic and wizardry anyway.

By the way, asserting that biological sex is real, and criticizing the phrase “people who menstruate” as a dehumanizing term for women is entirely within the bounds of mainstream thought and opinion. Among readers of Harry Potter books, there is nothing controversial about Rowling’s remarks and sales of her books reflect it. Currently, her most recent children’s book ranks #6 on Amazon and the Harry Potter box set ranks #16 in children’s books.

Still Segall writes: “Some fans treasure their existing copies of the beloved series while refusing to purchase anything new to support Rowling financially. For others, the books lie obscured and discarded, awaiting a fate yet to be determined.” I’m sure Segall wants this to be true because Segall and a few colleagues and friends feel this way, but this is clearly an example of magical thinking, dragging the world of belief and illusion into the real world.

Looking forward to a world without Harry Potter, Segall writes, “the best we can hope is that these conversations inspire the next generation to foster fully inclusive magic and create a more perfect version of this fantasy world.” No doubt this world would be fully embraced by the public if it were as imaginative, entertaining and enchanting as the Harry Potter books. However, the biggest obstacle facing this hypothetical work would most likely come from critics like Segall and company. Because they measure out their inclusivity in teaspoons and there is seldom enough of it in any work. Additionally, given the arbitrary formulation and constantly shifting nature of the inclusivity regulations, there is little doubt that if such a work as Segall describes were to set the reading world on fire, a new group of puritans would emerge to douse the flames.

From the sales of her Harry Potter books, J.K. Rowling has donated literally scores of millions of dollars to support research and treatment of multiple sclerosis. That’s some multiple of 20 million dollars of her own money. Additionally, she has used her platform to raise money to fight poverty, support children’s welfare and advocate on behalf of victims of domestic abuse. Segall and company seem unable wrap their heads around that magic, preferring instead to do the work of depriving Rowling of her powers to generate millions for those in need. I’m sure there’s some villainous character in Harry Potter who tried to steal or otherwise thwart the magic of those who sought to do good, but I wouldn’t know the name of that character because I was too busy taking bong hits and reading detective novels. Regardless, how does it feel, Segall, to become a villain in one of your formerly beloved Harry Potter books? There’s a story you can introduce to the next generation.

If the history doesn’t fit, you must stealth edit it

For some of our most respected and revered media institutions, history has become increasingly uncooperative and uncharitable toward the narratives they’re trying to peddle these days. A number of media outlets are finding it necessary to edit the stories of days gone by to make them more in keeping with the present day. After all, why update your thinking or try to maintain some semblance of consistency with regard to past events, when you can just go back and change the way you reported or interpreted those events at the time?

Following a recent Salon article that blasted Senator Tom Cotton for allegedly misleading the public about his service as a U.S. Army Ranger, some media outlets could barely keep up with the stealth editing necessary to make their current reporting more accurate and less hypocritical. Cotton graduated from Army Ranger training school and earned the honor to wear the Ranger pin, but he never actually served with the unit. Up until a week ago, it was quite common to refer to these service members as Rangers, but after the Salon attack piece, media outlets had some work to do to change all that. Newsweek, not wanting to be left out of the media pile-on, used the Salon article to launch an attack of its own on Cotton. However, Cotton’s staff notified Newsweek that it had referred in 2015 to the first two female graduates of the training program as Rangers. (So had Congress, by the way.) Newsweek went back and edited the article, relieving the barrier-breaking female graduates of their Army Ranger status. Now the publication was free to attack Cotton without appearing to engage in any double standards. It must have felt pretty liberating to the Newsweek editors to throw two female Army Rangers under the bus just so they could go after a high-profile Senator from the wrong team.

Indeed, fickle history doesn’t always cooperate when the media sets about attacking a public figure for partisan or ideological reasons. Back in October, during the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the then nominee was attacked by Senator Mazie Hirono for using the term “sexual preference.” Unbeknownst to nearly everyone on the planet, the term had apparently become “offensive and outdated.” Despite evidence the term had been in recent common usage by the very same news outlets and journalists who now criticized Barrett, the media rushed to brand the term as offensive. According to MSNBC producer, Kyle Griffin, “Sexual preference,” a term used by Justice Barrett, is offensive and outdated. The term implies sexuality is a choice. It is not. News organizations should not repeat Justice Barrett’s words without providing that important context.” Good thing MSNBC provided that impartial and objective context, because the folks over at Merriam-Webster hadn’t seen fit to update the definition of the term until the brou-ha-ha erupted. The dictionary people quickly edited the term’s definition, doing its part to add legitimacy to the media attacks on Barrett.

One of the most egregious examples of stealth editing was brought to light last September when it was discovered that the New York Times had quietly memory-holed the core claim of its 1619 Project, the celebrated history series which garnered a Pulitzer Prize for its creator Nikole Hannah-Jones. Initially, the piece attempted to reframe history in a manner that belied the facts. When leading historians pointed out these errors of fact, the Times edited the piece without notice, dropping the core claim of the project. Additionally, as if to assert that the public was suffering from some kind of Mandela Effect delusion, Nikole Hannah-Jones publicly asserted that the project had never made the claim to begin with. Attempts to rewrite or reframe history for a present and future audience are common. It’s how history is recorded. But time travelling in a digital space and changing history in an effort to conceal the fact that you ever misled or misstated facts about history…are you f-ing serious? It feels like trying to create a simulation within a simulation. One day journalists and historians may look back on this time as a sort of dark ages, when authors went to such extreme lengths to conceal, alter and meddle with the facts of history, that the true story of what really happened is rendered indiscernible. In any event, it will probably be one really hot mess for someone to disentangle.

Alex Acosta takes ‘poor judgement’ victory lap over handling of Epstein prosecution

Former Labor Secretary and Florida federal prosecutor, Alex Acosta, released a statement today celebrating a Justice Department Office of Professional Responsibility report detailing his ‘poor judgement’ in the handling of the investigation into child sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein.

In the statement, Acosta claimed vindication by the report’s findings because it failed to conclude that he committed professional misconduct.

“‘Poor judgement.’ Are there two sweeter sounding words in the English language?” Acosta crowed. “I welcome their application to me on my handling of this case. This is a victory for all prosecutors who have ever intervened on behalf of a wealthy and influential perpetrator and secured for them the deal of a lifetime. From this day forward, let ‘poor judgement’ guide our efforts as we seek to subvert justice on behalf of the rich and powerful.”

Acosta delivered a scathing rebuke of fellow prosecutors who tried to broaden the investigation and root out additional criminality.

“‘Willful blindness’ can also be a very effective tool when piecing together a ‘poor judgement’ prosecution. Ignore the advice of subordinates (I’m looking at you Villafana) who might try to improve your understanding and thereby influence your judgement in a positive way.”

Facing a mountain of criticism from defense attorneys, journalists and the public, Acosta attempted, once and for all, to put the conspiracy speculation to rest.

“To all the critics and conspiracy theorists out there, let’s get one thing straight. History is replete with men who are called upon to deliver head-scratching incompetence at just the right moment to ensure that other powerful men avoid justice. That doesn’t mean that a bunch of lawyers conspired to cut a rich guy a sweetheart deal. It just means that the job required a special kind of pathetic ignoramus with impeccable timing to exercise ‘poor judgement’ in service of supremely important and well-connected individuals. And if you happen to advance your career and wind up with a coveted presidential cabinet position in spite of your irresponsible stupidity, well that just means somebody saw something special in you.”

After exhaustive investigation, media concludes Americans often set off fireworks around July 4th

The results are finally in regarding all those firecrackers you’ve heard popping at night and the colored lights you’ve seen bursting in the evening sky. A two-week intensive investigation conducted by a number of media outlets has concluded that Americans enjoy setting off fireworks on and around the Independence Day holiday.

While your average American probably thought some nefarious government plot was afoot, the New York Times and Slate, among others, went digging into this pyrotechnic phenomenon to dispel any conspiracy theories that these news organizations and their Pulitzer Prize winning staff members may have promoted.

To be clear, this is not a government psy-op. Illegal fireworks traffickers are not trying to destroy communities by flooding the streets with their sparklers, fountains, and smoke bombs. When dusk settles across America during the days leading up to July 4th, excited children and their slightly inebriated fathers routinely break open the Red, White and Boom box and let the explosive fun begin.

But congratulations to the New York Times for committing the time and resources to discovering how typical Americans celebrate around the holidays. And a heads up to Slate, those ghosts and goblins scurrying around residential neighborhoods in late October and those giant furry bunny rabbits handing out chocolate eggs in the spring, it’s all on the up and up.

Human resources department institutes epic ass-covering measures in response to pandemic

Essential worker Ben was slightly taken aback one morning when he attempted to log on to his work computer and was greeted with a series of statements with which he had to agree before completing log in.

“It said things like, ‘I’ve not had a fever in the last 72 hours, I haven’t had any of the following symptoms, or been around anyone who has tested positive.’ I further had to agree that I only cough into my sleeve, and that I use a hand sanitizer with a minimum alcohol content of 60%,” reported Ben. “Of course, I couldn’t complete log in if I didn’t agree, and failure to adhere to the requirements meant potential disciplinary action.”

Such is the state of employer/employee relations in these challenging times. Human resources departments across the country are dealing with potential liability brought on by sick employees.

“Now, more than ever, covering the old rump is the name of the game,” said one personnel manager who wished to remain anonymous. “This is coming straight from the top. Deflecting all responsibility onto the employee for what happens in our workplace is the only thing that stands between corporate and an epidemic of lawsuits.”

Essential Ben agrees that it seems like management’s approach to the pandemic is to blame employees. “I gotta sign a release to use the restroom, promising to limit the length of time I spend relieving myself, and to wash my hands only with an approved anti-bacterial foaming soap in a prescribed manner for a set duration of time. Of course, failure to comply could result in disciplinary action.”

“Yeah, I came up with that one,” said the personnel manager, chuckling to himself. “Look, in these uncertain times, you’ve got to be creative.”

Has management ever considered taking temperatures, testing employees, or providing personal protective equipment like masks?

“Fuck no,” says management. “If you can’t print it out and make them sign it, then it’s too expensive. Besides, that would be like admitting we have some responsibility or obligation to our employees. Additionally, it only makes sense that we put the onus on the employee as management are all working remotely from home and can’t be on site to supervise.”