I'm Just Going to Stick with What I Know, Thank You Very Much: It's Columbus Day

by Leonard Knath, staff writer

I'm sorry. Did you just call it Indigenous People's Day? I have a new name for it too, actually, now that you mention it. I am going to call it Blow it Out Your Ass Day. In other words, you can take your political correctness and literally shove it where the sun doesn't shine, and I don't really care about what you think about that any more than you care about changing history, and what a holiday is called.

As it happens to continue to be a free country, with the 1st Amendment so far untouched by cancel culture, I am going to say what I want just like you feel so free to.

By the way, have you seen a bottle of Pearl Milling pancake syrup lately? It says right on the label, "Formerly Aunt Jemimah," so what are you really accomplishing here anyway? I think nothing but more liberal BS that only a very small circle of people care about that accomplishes nothing but to create more division.

Curated by the very people who drive around in Tesla's crying about climate change with "Coexist" stickers on their bumpers while acre and acre of land is mined for minerals to make batteries as coal plants burn ton after ton of coal to bring sparks of electricity to the very plug you put in where the evil gas pump is supposed to go.

Ah. I get it. We're saving the planet and saving ourselves from...ourselves. For the greater good, supposedly. 

Ten years from now we'll be burying those massive car batteries, and ten years after that we'll have aquifers polluted by them after we bury them. The left who clamored so loudly for them will simply blame the big corporations for being the problem, of course.

"You were supposed to figure out how to recycle them. Not bury them!"

Look, whether or not it was Columbus who landed on our shores way back when or whether or not the people he saw when he landed were people from India or indigenous people doesn't matter. It's our history. Right or wrong. It's what it is. It's what it was.  

Why can't we just discuss the mistake? Why do we have to change the history? Why do we have to cancel it? What purpose does it serve to deny it? I mean, what if, in Germany, they completely tried to erase the Hitler era and make it sound more appealing? Because that's really what Indigenous People's Day is all about. Making people feel better. 

Like it or not, good or bad, we have a history just like anywhere else in the world. We don't have to like it. It doesn't even have to be a good history. Slavery sucked, for example. It was terrible. The Jim Crowe days are no more appealing than a colonoscopy without anesthesia or lube. But it still happened.

You can call the day whatever you want to call it. That's your right just like it's mine to call BS on it, and to continue to call it Columbus Day. I'm only mad about it because you're mad about what I want to call it. Otherwise, I couldn't give two hoots.

But that's part of it too, isn't it? You want to control me. You want me to conform to your demands. You want me to crater under the weight of your pressure.

"You can't call them Indians."

Oh, the hell I can't. You can try your best to rewrite history and change the story. You can tear down the statues and rename the pancake syrup. But what you can't do is change the facts, no matter how badly you want to or no matter how hard you try.

Since 1937 it has been called Columbus Day. If you want to call it something else, that's fine. But you're going to have to step in line and wait your turn if you want everyone else onboard with it. It's been Columbus Day for far longer than you have been opposed to it being called that. And if I call it what it is to me, well, you're just going to have to accept it just like you expect me to call it what you want me to call it now.

Season's greetings or Merry Christmas? I don't know. Both are correct. You decide. But don't try to tell me which one is right, and which one is wrong. You don't get to have exclusive dibs on who makes the rules. That's not how it works.

Leonard Knath, pronounced like math, is a seeker of truth and an adamant denier of the status quo. He makes his home in Stratford, New Jersey in Camden County where he lives with his wife Dee and their two cats, Lawson and Saul.

Do you want to keep up with the latest posts from The Springboard? Follow us on our Facebook page to keep up with the latest posts wherever they may be posted.

© 2024 Leonard Knath

Did HubPages Shadow Ban Me?

Is it about quality, or is it something else? As you are probably aware, I also write for HubPages, which is a community of several sister sites including HubPages itself. And just like here, a lot of the content I write is regarding conservative politics. 

Something that is not necessarily discouraged over there, by the way. I think that's important to point out. I don't want to be unfair to HubPages at all. Several of my conservative posts are what they call, "featured." In other words, a featured post is one that HubPages has determined meets certain quality standards such as good, solid content that is a certain length, that is generally well put together and worthy of being "listed" on their main page, or becomes published on one of their sister sites.

Unfeatured posts are almost invisible. 

I say almost because of course, over the years I have a bit of a "built-in" audience. So, it's not like no one will see a post that is not featured. And even though I have my profile settings set to only show featured articles, I can still physically include an unfeatured article in the highlights, and I did that.

When I look over the article in question, "We Must Put Our Country Before Party," there is nothing about it that seems to obviously separate it from anything else I may have written on the site that has been featured before it.

Although in it, I mention (or question) the mental capacity of President Joe Biden. Could that have something to do with it? Is it an article lacking quality? Or is it one they simply don't like what it implies? I don't even do it in a particularly mean way. In fact, it was not accusatory in so much as it was simply suggestive.

The question for me is, am I being shadow banned simply because the editorial team dislikes the context of my content rather than it being an issue of "quality," as was suggested in the form letter that is often provided when an article on HubPages is not featured.

In the letter it says, "It's possible that your article is not featured because it contains spammy elements." The post promotes nothing at all and in fact, contains no links at all. Neither does it make any reference to other articles on their site or elsewhere.

They go on to say, "If you don't see any spammy elements in your article, then it was likely defeatured for failing to meet HubPages' general quality standards." That is a fairly generic statement, especially considering I have been writing for HubPages for 15+ years and am quite aware of their quality standards and how to write and structure an article that meets them.

Over 50 of my articles are featured, and of the ones that aren't, they were featured at one time. The reason they are not now is due to their age and their current relevance, since many of my articles are not evergreen, and became unfeatured over time simply due to a lack of traffic to them.

How many people today are reading about the presidential debate between John McCain and Barack Obama?

Other suggestions regarding quality they suggest is that the article may have been too short or underdeveloped. It far surpassed the 700 minimum word count, and it was not laid out any different than previous similar content. "It may have had formatting issues, broken or unrelated links, and/or significant grammatical errors."

None of those are at issue. Granted, that's based on my own personal assessment. But again, the article follows the same general manner in which I write all of my pieces, regardless of where I happen to write them.

The point of my discontent here is not that my article was not featured. I have been writing long enough to know that not everything is the highest quality, and even I can admit when I may not have put my all into something. 

It happens. I get it. It doesn't bother me. 

What does bother me is that if it appears to be the case that a form of censorship, outright or simply making something hidden, is what's happening—that's where I take issue. I write opinion. Sometimes it's not a popular one. But it doesn't mean it doesn't belong somewhere.

And that's not to discount the fact that I actually appreciate the high standards by which HubPages determines its content. It makes the site better. It drives more traffic to the site because even though it is a mostly self-publishing platform, there are still eyeballs making decisions in back rooms to determine what they show to readers to find.

Like I said, I have a built-in audience. But that organic traffic which can help to build and grow that audience comes from articles that are featured. So, what happens to an unfeatured article and why does it matter? Why could it be considered a form of shadow banning? 

Featured articles enjoy increased visibility is one reason. For example, an unfeatured article lives on HubPages. But it's not on their "Discover" page, which is the main page everyone sees when they go to the site who do not have an account. If something is not featured, only your existing audience will ever see it.

Featured articles are showcased on topic pages and appear as "Related Articles" on other similar featured posts. They are also made available to search engines. In other words, if your article is not featured, it lives on the site, but it is kept from searches. It is internal to HubPages, but is deeply buried and much harder for anyone to find.

As I said before. It is almost invisible.

Just like any media is going to be, there are many within their office walls who tend to be liberals and of course, carry on with a very liberal agenda. Conservative speech is not banned on the site. Not hardly. But it's also not the first time very specific speech has been shadow banned by the site.

To me it is a matter of that slippery slope. Free speech is free speech, and all opinions, even if we strongly disagree with them, deserve to be heard. If you're not careful, eventually only certain selected speech is ever allowed.

I don't think that my comments in the article in question were harsh or mean. I also do not think they were unfair or didn't at least provide some context and explanation behind why I made them. I think they just made an editorial decision to keep the opinion as quiet as possible.

I did send a response asking if they could provide a more detailed explanation. But often times those go unanswered. 

The important thing for me is that all voices be heard and that even if the content does not agree with the opinions of the editorial staff, articles should not be hidden from view based only on that alone. At the same time it is their site and I respect what they do, and what their site allows me to do. I will respect their decision regardless. 

But of course, I will also publicly share my opinion on what I think about it.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or on X to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

MyPillow's Fall is Leaving Us a Tell

It would seem, in an ironic sort of way, that what has happened to Mike Lindell of MyPillow fame and the reason behind it might be a bit of an odd turn of events if not also a very telling tale of how democrats and liberals think.

What do they (liberals) always say about businesspeople? They put profits before all else and leave the regular folks behind in the process.

Was it not so long ago that republicans and conservatives were bashed by the left for bringing pain to Anheuser-Busch for its stance on the Dylan Mulvaney issue and support of LGBTQ+ issues? After all, according to the left, the makers of Bud Light simply had an opinion, and they were entitled to it. 

Enter Mike Lindell who also has an opinion. But of course his opinion, albeit a controversial one (but so was the Dylan Mulvaney opinion from the right) did not and does not align with what the left thinks. His kind of opinion is not allowed and therefore he must be destroyed.

As a result, enduring ongoing legal battles that have wiped his bank accounts clean and destroyed his company as voting machine companies sue him for defamation and many retailers have opted to remove his products from their shelves, the left is rejoicing.

This is what you get, they say.

In a way I agree with the sentiment. I have said often that businesses can have an opinion, and surely their leaders can as well, but that mixing their opinions with their business presence is generally a bad idea. Granted, Hobby Lobby and Chick-Fil-A proved to be exceptions to that rule.

In business the only goal is to make a profit and sell your products, and because certain opinions alienate some customers and potentially threaten one's ability to do that, you probably should just keep quiet.

At the same time, one thing Mike Lindell has been very vocal about is his convictions regarding the matter he is fighting so hard for. He's held his position and held firm in his pursuit of it without regard to profits and even his own riches.

He has put what he believes in ahead of profits.

Shouldn't the left, so hateful of the rich, rejoice in that over the potential devastation of his business and wealth? You don't have to agree with what he says or what he is fighting for. But if you are going to make the statement that a business is entitled to say what it wants and shouldn't be punished when they say things the left agrees with, on the basis of "free speech" as it applies to them, and "doing the right thing" as it aligns with their position, shouldn't the same concept apply even if what is being said is opposite of their side's position?

This is where the double standard always comes in to rear its ugly head. This is where the tell comes from.

Beyond that, doesn't the business who decides to pull a product from shelves also engage themselves in politics when they decide to do that? And why are their "statements" not challenged as well at some level?

Let's think about what may have happened had retailers decided to pull Bud Light from the shelves after the controversy over Dylan Mulvaney took hold? How would the left have reacted to that decision? Would they have said of the businesses who refused to sell the AB product, "Their business, their decision, get over it," like they did when AB decided to double down on their position over the infamous beer can?

Not hardly. Because again, this way of thinking only applies if the reason behind the decision is in lockstep with what they think is right.

The question in a case like the MyPillow one is, why would anyone perhaps not question, just a little bit, what the real motivation is if you are willing to destroy your business and keep on with what you are fighting for?

Beyond that, how does what Mike Lindell is doing align with the left's unrelenting stance that rich people only care about the money and will exploit everything and everyone in order to simply make a profit?

Clearly, he's not doing that.

Regardless of whether or not I agree with Lindell, or even admire his stance, I still stand by my thought that mixing business and politics is a recipe for disaster and should be avoided. But I also think that when it comes to "the response," it should not always be a sort of one-sided one. Because particularly when it comes to product yanks, it tends to happen to conservative leaning opinions as opposed to liberal ones.

If it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander.

Some businesses have a different kind of reach, such as Hobby Lobby and Chick-Fil-A, where they have standalone buildings in which to sell their products. MyPillow relied mostly on mail order or the retail stores that carried his wares. It's harder to get your products out if the stores won't carry them or TV stations won't even air your commercials.

The problem I have with all of this is that so often the left gets its way, and they are happy about that, but get fit to be tied if the tide turns against them for the very same reasons they win on their side.

Take the Washington Redskins or Aunt Jemimah pancake syrup. The indian figure on Land O' Lakes products or Uncle Ben's rice. Clearly all evidence of a cancel culture the right does not embrace that the left does. And yet, while the left will cry foul if anyone is against their cancellations, they are perfectly fine if something aligning with the right is cancelled.

I think as a people and as a society, we need to decide what we want. And more importantly, to decide why we want it? Is it to get our way and simply have our say? Or is it because we truly believe in the underlying fundamental basis for shutting down anything.

Because the same woes facing Elon Musk's X could also be an example. Does X experience issues because of the business itself and what it offers? Or is it affected only because the views of the guy who owns it leans conservative in his views?

Ultimately, we're not going to stop businesses or business leaders from having opinions. It's still a free country and these people and businesses are entitled to exercise their constitutional rights just as much as anyone. But when it comes to the products they sell? I think it should be left up to the buying public to also support or not support something. If the decision had been made to pull MyPillow from the shelves because the consumer decided to let the products collect dust on the shelves, that's one thing. But taking away the choice of the consumer to send their own message is wrong. Just like in the case of the Bud Light controversy, the opinion of the consumer was clear. Bud Light beer stayed on the shelves while competing brands flew off them.

Yet no one pulled Bud Light entirely to avoid any potential backlash for carrying the product despite the clear opinion of the buying public. And that's the very reason MyPillow was pulled. The retailers did not want to be associated with the opinion of the brand. But again, this decision sides with the left and once again leaves conservative opinion behind.

Like what I have to say or the way I say it? Follow me on YouTube or on my Facebook page to keep up with all the latest goings on of The Springboard.

Is Alissa Heinersheid Out, or Is She Over Bud Light Marketing Controversy?

Was the vice president of marketing, Alissa Heinsersheid, fired over the Bud Light controversy? Well, that depends on who you talk to and how you want to interpret words. Which, by the way, is an age-old tactic with the left that perhaps took root when Bill Clinton famously answered a question by asking another question, "That depends on what is is."

Or maybe it was something the left has been doing long before Clinton's now famous response to what was a rather simple question. They say things that sound like the same thing but aren't exactly necessarily the same thing.

What Anheuser-Busch InBev said is that she simply took a "leave of absence."

One thing the left, and particularly the woke and cancel culture people, hate to do is admit defeat. They very strongly don't want to be wrong. 

It depends on what "is" is.

Whether or not company officials say she was fired or not to me doesn't matter. As I have said before, business is about dollars and cents. Not politics—even if many corporate America executive boards and leadership now seemed to have tapped into woke people to lead them.

They chose to allow a bad idea to hit the airwaves thinking they were being inclusive and thinking that woke culture is "the new next best thing," and they thought that consumers would rejoice when they saw transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney on their beer cans.

Because woke people, besides being misinformed about their own cause and popularity, and despite the feeling of power they think they have, are simply out of touch with reality. Consumers are having had enough of it and they sent a clear message to Anheuser-Busch InBev about it. They don't want to just come right out and say they were wrong.

So, they didn't fire the person behind the marketing idea gone wrong. She's just on a leave of absense. Okay. Whatever.

Meanwhile, Todd Allen, who is the vice president of global marketing for Budweiser takes her place, and other changes to marketing teams and leadership have also been made so that there is more oversight over how marketing campaigns will be conducted and reviewed in the future.

Sounds clear to me that Anheuser-Busch InBev is making these changes because of the Bud Light, Dylan Mulvaney controversy. What else would it be about?

Speaking about transgenderism, I think it is worth noting that the way the media is portraying any backlash on the issue, they say that the right (and republicans in general) are "fixated on transgender issues," with many state governors and legislators introducing bills that they claim infringe on transgender rights.

Wait a minute. Who is fixated?

For several years now I think the truth is that the left has been fixated on it, literally shoving their cause down everyone else's throats and forcing them to "accept this or else." Join our woke movement or be labeled as a racist, homophobe or demagogue.

They don't care what the majority wants. We are not supposed to have our voices heard. We are supposed to just quietly sit back and take it—all of it—and accept whatever their definition of the world is.

Regardless of whether or not Alissa Heinsersheid is out of a job or not I don't think makes a difference, ultimately. At least not in the short term. With this wording of her departure, I think consumers are smarter than the narrative. They want an admission of guilt, and they want the company execs to be honest about what happened and why, and admit they were wrong.

This isn't going to be a moment where consumers, essentially ignored and unappreciated, now simply go back to the stores and start buying Bud Light again. The damage has been done and the little token of a "white flag" being thrown up in a kinda sorta way isn't enough.

Besides, I think consumers need to continue to stand tall against what Bud Light tried to do. If the "moment" is one in which execs simply feel they dodged a little bullet here, the real message will be lost in translation.

Like the way I write and the things I write about, you can find more of my work from all of the places I write on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/jimbauerwrites