I now engage in, one can hope, brief exegesis on the above subject, considered by all right-thinking people with horror of those who engage in its practice including those who engage in it. I am much elevated in my own opinion of myself as offering this exegesis with utmost confidence that I am not a practitioner.
Take a gander at this. I had a recent exchange with an individual of long acquaintance on the subject of Mary Peltola. I made the, to me, unexceptional observation that the case of the two Dan Sullivans was "sleazy sleazy sleazy and Peltola lied", the latter in reference to said Peltola's claimed lack of knowledge of the months-long scheme by her campaign in conspiracy with the national Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Having listened preparatory to this text message exchange to the radio program 1A, I ended my electronic missive with the observations that the brouhaha was much ado about nothing of substance since "stacking the ballot" is a common political sleaze that is not criminal (unless one lies in a court proceeding about being behind it) and which sleaze has been substantively, and conclusively mitigated by the decision of the Alaska election officios to identify on the ballot the real Dan Sullivan by full name including middle initial and by appending his entry with "Republican, Incumbent". In common vulgar parlance, "What is the fucking confusion?" As stated, I was much elevated by my own reasonableness and pushed "send" or whatever it is that one pushes to send a text message.
I was much surprised and chastened by the response. "Hmmm. I don't know of any evidence that Mary Peltola lied". Well, cut me down and call me shorty. I have known this person for many years and just the same day was recipient of a text that an appalling dirty trick had just been discovered in the seminal Texas race for the United States Senate. A friend or professional acquaintance of the uniquely corrupt Republican candidate Ken Paxton had sent fliers to high school students, addressed to "student" not parent, extolling the virtues of transsexualism. These mailings had not been traced with any greater particularity to Paxton himself, nor to his campaign but reasonable people can put two-and-two together as my communicant did and I did.
I did not respond to the text, being possessed of the forbearance that Abdul El-Sayed lacks to avoid conflagrations with friends who I do not wish to see immolated. However, I was also then possessed by the evil spirit that my communicant was employing a double standard to the cases of Mary Peltola and Ken Paxton, the evidence on which seemed to be very similar and to which the standard "good for the goose, good for the gander" seemed of application.
And then I thought back. Back, back, back. My communicant is of long standing in my exceedingly truncated circle of communicants, she is a goose, we were once entwined in the holy bonds of marriage together, and I had known her previously on many occasions to get her goose feathers up whenever any criticism were made of a fellow goose. This gander concluded that my ex-goose was engaging in the horror of identity politics, that, in my reasonableness, I had to allow that it was likely that I too must have fallen prey to this blight myself at some odd points in my long, dissipated life, but that was just being reasonable and playing the odds; I have never been accused of the offense and have no idea where, when or how I may have done so and thus was much elevated in my opinion of myself in handling the matter thus.