
After Victoria and Lorraine left the kitchen, Bill tucked his beer bottle down under the steam table on the stainless steel shelf. Cigarette in mouth, he went down the stairs to cart up the first cube of grease.
He stopped first in the meat room where he took himself a long drink of bourbon. As he was drinking, Marie came in.
“You never gave me that drink,” she said.
Bill handed her the bottle. “I never got one myself. This is the first chance I had.”
Marie took a drink and handed the bottle back to Bill. He capped it and put it back in the drawer under the towels.
“Make sure you’re okay to drive,” he said.
“I’m fine.” Marie stepped close to Bill and reached to stroke his thighs. “You got any weed?”
“Yeah. But I ain’t smoking any now. I’m carting up the grease and finishing up the fryers so I can get the hell out of here.”
“I’m all done,” Marie said. “Mind if I take a joint from you and smoke it in the deep freeze?”
“Knock yourself out.” Bill reached into the same drawer where the bourbon was and found a joint he had put there. He handed it to Marie. “It’s strong stuff,” he said. “Last time I say it, just make sure you can drive home.”
Marie reached up and kissed Bill, tongue and all. “I just have to empty one coffee pot I left full for the people still out there. I’ll see you upstairs before I leave. Sure you don’t want to play with me while I get high?”
“Want to? Yeah. Going to? No. Girl, I don’t get this work finished, I might as well stay here the whole night.”
That said, he left Marie in the meat room and stopped in the store room where he hoisted the first fifty-pound cube of grease up on his shoulder and carted it up the stairs. He dropped it by the first deep fryer, then went for a small pot to drain the grease into and a big stock pot to empty the small one into. This was the routine, a well-practiced one that he virtually never varied from. Because he was changing the grease tonight, he hadn’t emptied the Garland’s grease drawer yet. He would do that on his first trip outside to dump the grease from the stock pot.
So he got down on his knees. He opened the door to the fryer, where the drain and gas jets were, lined the bottom shelf of the fryer with used dish towels. He made sure the gas was turned off and began the process. He opened the drain, filled the pot, closed the drain, emptied the pot into the stock pot. He did this over and over until the fryer was empty.
Still on his knees, he lit a cigarette and reached for the beer he’d left under the steam table. It was then that Tommy came in to tell him that most of the customers had left but there were still a couple of tables with people at them. He said they might order a dessert, but no more food was going out for sure.
“We ended up with a good night,” Tommy said.
“Real good,” Bill said. “I can tell by the meat inventory.”
“You and Mary and Henry Lee will have your work cut out for you tomorrow.”
“Yeah.”
“Did he leave a round cut?”
“I didn’t look. Don’t matter. If not, I’ll cut one first thing.”
“You did a good job.”
“I heard you and Lillian had a talk about me.”
“Yeah, we did,” Tommy said.
Pick up a copy of my published works here: Books by Peter Weiss.
Judging people and things back then by today’s standards is only one disintegration of reasoning and language. There are many. Many! There are many ways our language and reasoning have been and continue to be eroded.
A second major beginning of the breakdown of language and reasoning goes back to the eighties once again. That’s when, so far as generally accepted in the timeline, the gender issue in pronouns became an issue and when the language began shifting, moving into what became a most awkward period. The actual issue of gender consideration in language is much more longstanding. But the changing of the language, that is a serious matter whose effects must be understood in the context of what we end up doing as a people in our history.
Seat belts. When the first seat belt regulations came into play and the first seat belt laws came into effect, we were assured, even promised, that we wouldn’t be ticketed for not wearing a seat belt. Now, some years later, we see that that promise was pure BS.
E-ZPass. The advent of E-ZPass was a great convenience and time saver. But we were afraid electronic tracking would compromise our privacy. So we were assured that E-ZPass records would be kept private, that they would never be used in court. Then along came that first clever lawyer with the great idea of using those supposed-be-to private records to prove marital infidelity, and lo and behold E-ZPass caved to the subpoena. Now E-ZPass records are pretty non-private, or they are easily used in courts.
History shows that first and foremost money talks and BS walks, no credit for that saying taken here. It also shows that government can’t be trusted to stay to where its rightful place is, which is protecting its citizens. The two examples above show the progression of things when left in the hands of our leaders, all of them, but primarily those who adhere to and preach the progressive narratives.
Gender-Specific Pronouns! So in the eighties these became an issue. At first the linguists looked at them in terms of messiness and discomfort. The language no longer had the wherewithal to suit our needs if we wanted to be gender-fair and considerate. Language is our tool, they thought. If it no longer met our needs in regard to gender-specific pronouns, it would fix itself to do so. They thought language would adjust to compensate for equalizing or neutralizing gender references.
But as with the two examples above, that wasn’t quite what happened.
What happened was, like with the seat belt and E-ZPass examples, legislation and regulation. The progression that was supposed to be toward gender equality or gender neutrality in language so as to match what was perceived as happening in our society turned toward control. Or, to be more precise, it turned to control for the purpose of extracting money in the form of fines. Today, in certain states one can be arrested, jailed, fined or all three for incorrect use of gender pronouns.
What has this breakdown in language and reasoning wrought upon us? Or, from what was supposed to have been a move to empower and equalize the genders (he and she), or at the very least to neutralize them within the language and thereby equalize them, what has the erosion of language brought us?
Those same people who have led us at every turn to being controlled through fear of prosecution, can now prosecute us for using an incorrect gender reference. And with some thirty-something genders now, another result of the breakdown of our language and reasoning skills, how would one know if one’s gender-pronoun usage is correct?
We have been led to confusion and dis-empowerment because the aim behind the breakdown of language and reasoning as mostly articulated by the progressive narrative is control and domination.
Pick up a copy of my published works here: Books by Peter Weiss.
Go on. Just call me racist up front and get it over with. As was said in And the Winner Is, that word, the R word, is now applied so often and used so callously that its meaning is quickly dissipating. Like the Deplorable label, it becomes a badge of honor when one is called it for saying something true simply because one is speaking about a person or persons of color.
For example, merely saying that Al Sharpton didn’t pay taxes and helped publicly frame Steven Pagones in the Tawana Brawley case would make one a “racist” by today’s standards of the word even though there is no racial implication in the factual statement. That speaks to the breakdown of our language and our reasoning, both of which are different issues altogether though very essential ones and ones of course tied to the bundle of what’s going on with Obama being the big winner and what’s going on in America.
The argument goes like this: why are you picking on Al Sharpton? Lots of whites did a lot worse to blacks. Pick on them! Picking on Al Sharpton is racist. You are a racist.
Similarly, to say anything about Hillary Clinton causes one to be called a misogynist. The argument: Lots of men did a lot worse to women than anything Hillary has done altogether. Pick on them! Picking on Hillary makes you a misogynist. (And we all know that the reason she lost was because of misogyny and chauvinism.) You are a misogynist.
So, a little about the breakdown of our language and reasoning.
Way back in the eighties when studying literature in graduate school, we were taught that an author who wrote in the forties should not be called a racist in the eighties for referring to a black man as a Negro because that was the correct term of reference at the time the writer wrote. Or, forty years later, in the eighties, calling the author a racist or saying he/she was being derogatory back then is incorrect. It is logically flawed thinking. More important, however, doing so then was indicative of the beginnings of a breakdown in our reasoning and language that was being driven by a progressive narrative.
This type of breakdown in language and reasoning is evidenced all the time now and it leads to the revisionist history we are seeing today. It is the logical progression of that progressive narrative we are being force fed, and it is the danger within America.
As an example, consider slave owners during legal slavery times. Being a slave owner did not necessarily make one a bad person or one who should be erased from our history due to being judged by today’s standards of morality and right or wrong, which in and of themselves are quite questionable.
History shows there were many slave owners back then who were anti-slavery and kept their slaves because they knew that if they freed them other slave owners would gobble them up and mistreat them horribly. These “good” slave owners (I know, by any sensibilities it sounds like a contradiction in terms) treated their slaves humanely. They utilized them as workers, allowed them a decent standard of living, did not abuse or molest them, allowed them marriage of their choice amongst themselves and to stay in the families they themselves created. They did not sell off their children for profits.
As messed up as it may seem today, this was in many circumstances the moral thing to do back then. Not only was it moral, but it was courageous, for those who did it were going against the social and economic norms of the times. If found out, they were ostracized and boycotted economically such that they lost their businesses.
Judging people and things back then by today’s standards is clearly a breakdown in reasoning and language skills, not to mention it being nonsensical. Doing so ignores the concepts of time, context and knowledge, not to mention the differences between the accepted morays of the society back then as compared to now. Furthermore it denies rational logic.
The absence of logic in today’s discourse and the general breakdown of our language and language skills is a true danger to America.
Pick up a copy of my published works here: Books by Peter Weiss.
From the start, Obama’s proclivity toward communism and his general disdain for the American way of life were inherent in his attitudes as president. While these proclivities could not be seen looking directly at him, they could be clearly seen in the group of people he brought with him to the White House. Every president does it, surrounds himself with people he trusts, with people whose views are simpatico and in line with his agenda. In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with this. The electorate expects it then takes comfort in the fact that a president is limited to two terms, one of the built-in constitutional protections against a takeover.
In what was seemingly a normal, rational world, which we were at the time Obama became president, those who liked the new leader were happy. Those who didn’t, not all of course, but most, were at least respectful of the person and the office. They were generally tolerant of the changes, willing to give him a chance, and they were even hopeful that as the first African American president he would unify us as no other president before him had done.
Obama truly offered hope and change. The problem was that few people understood what he meant by that slogan. Those people who did understand it had taken the time to look into his origins, his upbringing and his associates. These people, of two kinds, were basically supporters or opposers. The opposers were quickly saddled with that racist label, branded almost immediately with the R word. The goal of the racist branding was to silence all opposition to the pro-communist, anti-American president of the United States.
So Obama was the big winner. He was the big winner because people were afraid to speak out against him for fear of being called a racist. He was the big winner because he carried the mainstream media in his pocket (and still does). He was the big winner because as a result of both of these trends he went unchecked and mostly free to do what he set out to do.
In the scope of things, overall, we don’t know yet if his direction was a good one. Whether or not where Obama led us in his eight years as president was to a good place would surely seem controversial. One thing that is not controversial is that he was the big winner.
So what was Obama really about? What was the purpose of what has come to be known as the apology tour? What was the purpose of decimating the military? Of growing the Federal Government’s bureaucracy to bloated, wasteful limits? Of willfully and purposefully dividing the American populace along racial and class lines? Of giving away the store to our enemies and alienating our allies? Of moving the Democratic party so far to the left that it would be unrecognizable to its greatest liberals of yesteryear?
This was his fundamental transformation and Obama was and is the big winner because he was able to partially achieve this transformation, a transformation we now know was the attempt to scale down the United States as a world power and world leader.
Unfortunately, the answers to what Obama was about are relatively simple but the issues are rather complex. In the end, the overriding answer to what Obama was about was power, pure and simple. The secondary answer is that he was about the taking down of what he was raised to believe was the evil capitalist empire that was so presumptuous as to dominate the world. Or, he was about the transformation of the United States into a non-power. He did not like the United States. Neither did his wife, his pastor or most of his friends and his associates.
Obama accomplished much of what he set out to do. And that makes him the big winner.

