Editor’s Note: Normal people might find some of this offensive. (We hope. Dear Lord, please!)
The end is nigh.
No, not the end of all things. Heck, not even the end of the World Series, which concluded the other night. Just the end of the 2016 election. Maybe.
Assuming one of our candidates can pull out a win on Tuesday, then someone presses a button and the whole insanity starts over once again. Before we congratulate President __________ or note how honorable/bitter his/her rival was, let’s look back on how crazy this election really was.
For starters, this was the most biased election since journalists first crawled out of the slime and then dove back in. Journalists and pundits have used tons of euphemisms to describe 2016, but “dumpster fire” resonates. They simply won’t admit that the term applies to what they did as well.
Journalists have served not as reporters but as extensions of the left’s communications operation. Every single thing Trump and other conservatives or Republicans (News flash: The two are not the same.) have done is bad in the eyes of the media. Everything liberals/Democrats have done is a default good.
A great example of this is The Atlantic’s latest piece, with the headline: “Why Is Hillary So Widely Loved?” Clinton has her supporters, granted, but “widely loved” is hardly an accurate description. But Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie shows how far you can take a rationalization. (Note: The story version here has a new headline because this was widely mocked.)
And Trump has become an extra special case. Everything he does must be described in the most apocalyptic of terms. And yes, I mean “real wrath of God-type stuff” including “dogs and cats living together.”
And that takes us to our first item:
Is An ‘Apocalypse Watch’ Better Than A Rolex?: Salon and Fusion are usually the go-to sites for Ghostbusters-level “mass hysteria.” But leave it to the lefty lords at Slate to make their mark in one of their more stupid ways. In an attempt to be edgy (always the goal of cool publications), Slate created a daily “Apocalypse Watch” that measured the danger of Trump in the numbers of horsemen from the apocalypse. To give a sense of the site’s worldview, here’s an actual quote: “This was not a good day for Hillary Clinton or the world’s prospects of keeping the nuclear button out of the hands of Donald Trump.” (Bolding their own.) Those of us who are old remember fun times when journalists (OK, that doesn’t include Slate) wanted to report on the news, not decide who deserved to win. Actual quote: “The Trump Apocalypse Watch is a subjective daily estimate, using a scale of one to four horsemen, of how likely it is that Donald Trump will be elected president, thus triggering an apocalypse in which we all die.” If anybody other than lefty tools read Slate, people would probably be chanting “Slate sucks” instead of CNN.
Why Won’t Funny Or Die Live Up To It’s Name?: Creating fun, viral videos is tough. Human attention spans are short and humor is very subjective. The Funny Or Die folks make a pretty heady promise, yet fail to deliver. In one of the site’s biggest failures, they brought together would-be comedian Lena Dunham, rap, stripping and a pro-Clinton theme. The media’s former “It” girl (replaced by equally talentless/humorless Amy Schumer) loves taking off her clothes to get attention. She thinks that societal revulsion to that act will drive clicks. In reality, our revulsion is to who she is as a person and the “art” she has created like the twisted show Girls. Still, Hollywood stars will do just about anything to get Hillary elected: raise money, perform on stage with her, write TV plots to support her and even take off their clothes. Bear in mind, Dunham has vowed to move to Canada if Trump wins the election. Hence, her stripping to her “sensual pantsuit.” Actual quote: “She’s a strong a—f---ing person, Couldn’t even walk a mile in the heels of this woman, Had to fight her life defending everything she does to the left and to the right.” Remember, liberals think stripping is empowering to women, unless you want to watch, in which case you are objectifying them.
Having Sex With Mother Earth: It takes a lot to stand out in the week before an election. You do so with intelligent, rational, informed content … or crazy garbage so demented that everyone just goes, “Ewwwwwwwwwwwww.” The nutballs at Vice have a hard time with the first category so they went full crazy with a piece only someone more insane than Lena Dunham could envision, “Ecosexuals Believe Having Sex with the Earth Could Save It.” First you have to understand what ecosexuality is. Vice found an academic scarily aware – Amanda Morgan, a faculty member at the UNLV School of Community Health Sciences. She’s “involved in the ecosexual movement,” which means you want to stay far away from her. Her description says, actual quote: “On one end, it encompasses people who try to use sustainable sex products, or who enjoy skinny dipping and naked hiking. On the other are ‘people who roll around in the dirt having an orgasm covered in potting soil,’ she said. ‘There are people who f--- trees, or masturbate under a waterfall.’” She’s at a state school, of course. Naturally, (sorry) this freak show can be traced to San Francisco and “couple Annie Sprinkle and Elizabeth Stephens, who have made ecosexuality a personal crusade.” Their pagan-esque perversions are celebrated in their "ecosex manifesto" (Unabomber had a manifesto, too. Hmmm.) The couple produced, actual quote, “a documentary, Goodbye Gauley Mountain: An Ecosexual Love Story, which depicts the ‘pollen-amorous’ relationship between them and the Appalachian Mountains.” Maybe the election isn't so bad after all.
Dan Gainor is The Boone Pickens Free Market Fellow and Vice President for Business and Culture for the Media Research Center.