In Defense of Karen(s)

My wife's name is Karen.  She's a lovely person.  She has the patience of Job, which many would say is an understatement considering her husband.  She's social, personable, inclusive, kind, thoughtful and every other good thing a person should be.  

As most people are aware, the name Karen has fallen into disrepute.  My wife bemoans her name, claiming it is antiquated.  I've always thought it was beautiful, especially compared to some truly antiquated names like Beulah, Lorna, Myrtle and Maude.  But it is now bandied about as a term to denote a woman who is a nuisance or, worse yet, a racist.  As one columnist (Karen Kirk) put it:

"Karen" has become a label for racist white women who call the police on innocent Black men, point guns at protesters, refuse to wear masks and generally behave outrageously. It has become a misogynistic stereotype of all the things that I am not and all of the negative qualities that I don't possess (except perhaps occasionally asking for the manager).

So woman are now branded with this name if they don't measure up to another person's expectation of how a woman should behave in a given situation.  The trouble with this usage isn't that the women in given situations don't deserve some sort of criticism, because they do.  The trouble is that by using my wife's name, my wife indirectly is besmirched as possessing the name of a vile person.  That's unfair.

What also bothers me is that this use was coined by blacks for white women who did things that, according to the blacks, were racists to varying degrees.  Its usage has expanded to include misbehaviors that are not racist in the least bit.  Conduct that is rude, or stupid, or selfish, or loud, or obnoxious, or socially inept -- the woman exhibiting such behavior is labeled as Karen.

My wife, when giving her name, now says "My name is Karen -- one of the good ones."  Fifteen seconds after meeting my wife is enough to know she doesn't live down to the stereotype.  Yet the unfair taint that attaches to my wife by virtue of her name as applied to other women who misbehave is inescapable. 

One miscreant named Gary even thought it was funny.  The really ironic part of this is that this moron took a post off Karen's FB page that was critical of a Christian singer who was making fun of Karen's in a song.  Karen lamented that a Christian would choose to use this for comedy and not see the hurt it caused women carrying that name.  Gary, more interested in proving his comedic chops, took offense when Karen challenged him.  Had I been quicker, I would have proposed that we replace Dick with Gary, to give Dicks across the country a respite from hearing their names used as an epithet, hoping that Gary would gain traction so that he would know what it's like to be tarred by other people's misconduct.  The likelihood that my proposal would ever gain traction is miniscule, but I'd like to try it.

There are problems using this term.  What happens to black women named Karen?  Are they exempt from being similarly insulted?  Or what do we call black women who misbehave?  Shanequah?  Or is it racist to suggest that black women misbehave? (Given the number of videos showing black women getting violent in fast food restaurants, I would think any claims of racism are easily disproven).

It's time that use of Karen was given a rest.  There may very well be white women out there named Karen who are vile beings, but I'm sure there are just as many Marys, Sues, Kims and Brittanys that are at least as horrible.

Besides, I love my wife.   She doesn't deserve this.

(c) 2023  The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Reckoning for the MSM?

 For years, I've tried to determine how best the MSM would be forced to fess up and admit its bias.  It can't be sued, as there's no statute that would provide for a cause of action.  We can't shoot them, because then there would be no confession.  About the only thing that I could come up with was to use sodium thiopental, the so-called truth drug, and put them under oath to answer questions.  

As of now, however, there is no real way to get to the truth about the MSM and its Leftist leanings.

Over the course of the last few years, however, the MSM has been losing in the courts of law.  Of course, given the numerous settlements into which it's entered, it can claim that it didn't lose.  But if it were so confident of being vindicated at trial, especially given the standard of New York v. Sullivan, it would never have settled.

It began with Nicholas Sandman's settlement with the Washington Post of the defamation lawsuit he brought against the newspaper.  Although the terms of the settlement weren't disclosed, the fact that the paper chose not to go to trial is indicative of how it viewed the probable outcome.  On the heels of that settlement, Mr. Sandman then settled with CNN, again due to the likely outcome.  Even so, two titans of the MSM buckled when confronted by a teenager, because they defamed him.

After that, President Donald Trump took networks to task.  First, he humbled ABC to the tune of $15M, which will go toward his presidential library, along with an apology, for George Stephanopolous repeatedly referring to the verdict in favor of E. Jean Carroll for sexual harrassment.  Stephanopolous continually referred to Mr. Trump as having raped Carroll, when the jury specifically found he had not done that.

On the heels of that, Meta settled with Mr. Trump for $25M for suspending his account.  Not to be outdone, X settled with Mr. Trump for $10M for the same reason.

At almost the same time, NBC settled with Dr. Mahendra Amin for falsely reporting that he had performed dozens of unwanted and unnecessary hysterectomies on illegal aliens.  The trial court had all but decided the case on a motion for summary judgment and ruled that the reports were verifiably false.

One case that did go to trial involved the defamation lawsuit brought by veteran Zachary Young against CNN.  Discovery provided damning emails and correspondence, not to mention horrendous deposition testimony.  At trial, the CNN witnesses were unrepentant.  The jury found in favor of Mr. Young, awarding him $5M, but also advising the court that he was entitled to punitive damages.  Seeing the writing on the wall, CNN settled before the punitive damages phase began.  Experts have reckoned that punitive damages could have exceeded $100M.

Perhaps chastened by Mr. Young's victory, certain of these other lawsuits were settled in short order.

One would think that the MSM had gotten the message and would change its wiley ways, but if the behavior of the CNN witnesses in the Young case is any indication, that's hardly likely.  In fact, certain producers involved in that case were later promoted.  As long as advertisers are willing to spend money with these outlets, nothing is going to change.

But if nothing else, shots have been fired.

All that remains is for the Supreme Court to tweak the Sullivan standards.  If that happens, perhaps there will be real change.

(c) 2025 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Moments

 There are times when I reminisce and certain memories recur.  Mostly, these are good memories, happy memories, but sometimes they're just meaningful to me without happiness involved.  These are times that I'll remember for as long as I live because of their impact on my life.

--  Mom driving me to the airport when I was leaving for Spain.  We sang O' Danny Boy together.  Neither of us knew how my year in Spain would go.  It could end in disaster.  I may decide to stay in Spain.  But on the way to O'Hare, we sang that song.  I'll never forget it.

--  In eighth grade, our basketball team was very close.  At the time, the Doobie Brothers' son Black Water was popular.  I can't remember lyrics very well, but I remember the chorus from that song because it was very simple.  Our singing the song in the locker room after practice is etched in my memory.

-- Speaking of the Doobie Brothers, when Karen and I saw them live they played my favorite song, South City Midnight Lady.  For whatever reason, I felt as if they dialed up that song just for me.

--  Karen's uncle Frank didn't have much longer to live.  We'd just gotten in town to see him and the ladies went out to get pizza.  That left me and Frank alone, so we sat in the outdoor rocking chairs that he had made (by far the best rocking chairs I've ever had the privilege to sit in) and chatted.  Normally, that wouldn't be much of a memory, but because he'd been so close with Karen's ex-husband and because I never had much of a relationship with him, our chat -- banal as it may have been -- was all the more meaningful because it was just two guys chatting.  I'll long remember that chat and how we had to scamper inside when a deluge hit.

--  In the last quarter of my time in Spain, I found myself in the backwater town of Arriondas, known for its canoe culture.  I had just gotten off the train and bought myself Manchego cheese, a Coke, a pistola de pan and some strawberries.  I went down by the river and ate my meal in the serenity of the place.  It was a glorious day all around.

--  Being in Grayling, Michigan, watching the Cubs punch their ticket to the World Series for the first time in my life.  

--  Being with Custer on the day he died.  No death since my Mother's has hit me so hard.  His loss still pains me.

-- Driving with Karen in a blizzard to deliver donuts.  Were we wacky or what?

-- Cooking turkey for Christmas in Madrid.  Rounding up the ingredients was a chore, but cooking the meal and sharing it with a Colombian, a Mexican and a Jew from Boston was memorable.

-- The puente trip to Pedraza was a most bohemian experience.  Eating salad out of a large communal bowl was a first.

--  Carrying on a conversation in Spanish with a bus driver from Soria next to the walls of the city of Avila.

--  Seeing the Pacific Ocean for the first time with Karen.

-- Watching John Wick 3 in Friday Harbor, Washington, in sunglasses.

-- Meeting Karen for the first time outside the restaurant that no longer existed.  It changed my life forever.

(c) 2025 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Liberal Hypocrites

 I have long contended that when it comes to politics, Republicans are arrogant, and Democrats are liberals.  Remember, I consider myself a Marxist, as in I would never join a club that would have me as a member.  Republicans like to pat the electorate on the head and patronizingly tell us that they know how to handle everything, that we should just shut up and vote for them because they'll handle everything.  Democrats, on the other hand, will look us in the eye, tell us one thing and then do whatever they want.  Nothing proved the latter more tellingly than the inauguration of Donald Trump for his second term.

This was a man who Democrats and their Leftist foot soldiers maligned, besmirched and pilloried for the last eight years at a nazi, a fascist, an idiot and a dictator, among other epithets.  He was the second coming of Hitler.  All manner of dirty tricks were employed to stop him from becoming president, then subvert his administration, then to defeat him in the second election, then to prevent him from every running again, then to defeat him at the ballot box.  Lawfare, a new tool, was employed at the state and federal level, which ultimately failed.  Not even the MSM could hide the shoddy attempts that all failed miserably.

But now, given the mandate that was the 2024 election, and considering how miserably the Left failed in all their attempts, there seems to be a change of heart among some on the Left.

Mark Zuckerberg, the feckless head of Meta, formerly known as Facebook, is making the rounds complaining how the Biden administration twisted his corporate arm to act as its surrogate to suppress stories that would have been injurious to it and its election hopes, beginning in 2020.  Funny, but when it was happening, Zuck didn't complain at all.  He bobbed and weaved, claiming that is brainchild was protecting the country from misinformation, when all along he knew that the stories were true.  Only now, once Biden can do him no more harm, is he coming clean -- after denying it for four years.  

Snoop Dog, who called fellow blacks Uncle Toms for supporting Trump in 2016 and threatened to roast the fuck out of people for similar support, performed at one of Trump's inauguration balls in 2024.  My how the worm has turned.

Then, to add insult to injury, at the actual inauguration, Zuck, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos (who also owns the Washington Post) and Sundar Pichai, head of Google, appeared with Elon Musk.  Only the latter supported Trump when he faced the lawfare; the others acted like Francisco Franco did toward the end of World War II and supported Biden until it was evident that his administration was on the way out.

Cowards and liars all, save Musk.

The saying goes that if one doesn't stand for something one will fall for anything.  In this case, the move made by Zuck, Pichai, Bezos and Snoop wasn't the result of them falling for anything but trying to save their hides before they fell under the tidal wave that occurred in November's election.  Desperate to remain in power, not to mention relevant, they saw the writing on the wall and chose to eat crow as the price of keeping what mattered most to them, their principles be damned.

And what of President Trump?  I know that if I were in his position, I wouldn't let those jackasses withing one hundred miles of my inauguration, but he plays by different rules.  Keeping one's friends close but one's enemies closer, the President has now made them beholden to him.  Seeking federal backing for AI, these spineless Leftists chose to abandon their questionable politics so that their businesses could eat at the federal trough.  If all battle plans fall apart at the first sound of gunfire, so do Leftist principles founder at the first sound of Republican victories...and the sound of cash being dispensed.

I loathe the Left.  Not necessarily its policies, because some are worthwhile.  The lack of actual principle, however, is enervating.

In the next post we'll discuss family behavior in the wake of the election.

(c) 2025 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles