Archives

bookmark_borderUSNS Harvey Milk renamed after Oscar Peterson

Posted on by Marissa

The U.S. Navy ship that was named after gay rights activist Harvey Milk was recently renamed in honor of World War II hero and Medal of Honor recipient Oscar V. Peterson. The Navy oil tanker was originally named the USNS Harvey Milk in 2016 under the Obama administration, but Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth decided to rename it in order to “take the politics out of ship naming,” according to Fox News. The new namesake, Peterson, sustained fatal burn injuries while attempting to keep his ship afloat after it sustained severe damage during a battle with Japanese forces in the Philippines.

I agree with Hegseth. On the one hand, I feel bad whenever a historical figure has their name removed from something. Destroying the monuments, celebrations, and memorials of historical figures is exactly what I have dedicated the past five years of my life to criticizing and fighting against. But with this renaming, the intolerant bullies who have carried out this historical figure genocide are finally getting a taste of their own medicine. Harvey Milk is a historical figure that the intolerant bullies of political correctness tend to admire, so perhaps by seeing his name erased, they are experiencing a tiny, miniscule fraction of the pain that they have inflicted on others.

One such bully, Nancy Pelosi, called the renaming “a shameful, vindictive erasure of those who fought to break down barriers for all to chase the American Dream.” This comment demonstrates a complete and utter lack of empathy. Pelosi and those who think like her have spent the past five years actively carrying out a vindictive erasure of historical figures who actually signify diversity and inclusion. This is what is truly shameful. Perhaps Milk is a historical figure who makes gay people feel included and represented, but having a ship named after him doesn’t do anything to help me. As someone who has always had difficulty fitting in and making friends, who has always been different from the majority, and who has always thought for myself rather than following social norms, Milk didn’t do anything to break down barriers for people like me. Rather, it is historical figures such as Christopher Columbus, Robert E. Lee, and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson who make me feel included and represented. And those are exactly the historical figures who have been subjected to a deliberate, vicious, cruel, and brutal campaign of obliteration by Pelosi and her ideological allies. It’s despicable for Pelosi to complain about a “vindictive erasure of those who fought to break down barriers” when that is exactly what she and her allies have been doing.

While I do feel a little bit bad for Harvey Milk, having his name removed from a ship pales in comparison to the sickening acts that have been perpetrated against Christopher Columbus and those who fought for the Confederacy. It is those acts which are truly shameful. And it’s past time that the perpetrators get a taste of their own medicine.

bookmark_borderFlag raising at the South Carolina state house

Posted on by Marissa

Yesterday, a huge Confederate battle flag was raised at the State House in Columbia, South Carolina by the organization Flags Across the South (source here). The flag raising marked the anniversary of former governor (and intolerant bully) Nikki Haley’s decision to destroy the state flag, thereby sending the message that only people who fit in and are like the majority, are welcome in her state. Thanks to Flags Across the South, for one day, a flag was flown that signifies actual diversity and inclusion. A flag was flown that sends the message that it’s OK to be different, that people who don’t have friends, who are excluded, who are different from the norm, who don’t fit in, have a right to exist too. This is a glorious sight indeed.

Edit: You can watch a video of the flag raising here.

Additional edit: You can see some more photos and videos from Dixie Forever, here and here and here.

bookmark_borderKeeping your shoes on at the airport is a significant victory for individual liberty

Posted on by Marissa

In a significant step (no pun intended) in the right direction for individual liberty, people no longer have to take their shoes off in order to board an airplane. This announcement was made by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on July 8 and is effective immediately (source here). 

“TSA will no longer require travelers to remove their shoes when they go through our security checkpoint,” said Noem. “We’ve gone back and looked at our security processes, looked at the efficacy of everything we do. We’ve evaluated the equipment that every airport has and are fully confident with the no shoes policy that we still have the security needs in place at every checkpoint.”

This is fantastic news. Some might think that whether or not people have to remove their shoes in order to board an airplane is insignificant, petty, or unimportant. Some might consider it silly, or even stupid, for a person to care about this. But I do care about this development. I think it is important and significant. This is a meaningful victory for individual rights, privacy, and liberty, which has taken place under the Trump administration. Thanks to this change in policy, travelers will have a bit more dignity than they had before. And that is something that everyone should celebrate.

bookmark_borderPrior to June 2020…

Posted on by Marissa
 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Judy Smith (@judysmithphotography)

In other words, prior to the obliteration of everything that makes life worth living. 

Prior to the events that changed my life profoundly and irrevocably. 

Back when people who are different from the norm could actually see ourselves represented in public art.

Back when we could actually feel accepted and included, and like we were allowed to exist.

I never could have predicted what would happen to this statue as well as countless others. I likely will never be able to find the words to fully express how horrible these actions were, and why they have had such an enormous impact. And I certainly will never forget.

bookmark_border“Heroes of what, exactly?”

Posted on by Marissa

“Heroes of what, exactly?”

This is a comment that I saw on a post with a cool graphic depicting Confederate soldiers of various ranks and wearing various uniforms, with the caption “our heroes.”

This comment is yet another example of the bigotry, intolerance, and idiocy of “woke” ideology.

“Heroes of what, exactly?”

My first thought in response to this comment is… what does that even mean? I wasn’t aware that a person needed to be a hero of something in order to be a hero. I wasn’t aware that the term “heroes” required such a specifier in order to make sense. What exactly does it mean to be a hero of something?

It’s probably pointless of me to even ask these questions, because this comment isn’t really an attempt to make a logical and reasoned argument, but rather a mindless act of aggression for the sake of aggression. It’s an attempt to attack, to dominate, to question for the sake of questioning. Seemingly, this commenter thinks that he’s making an incisive and salient point, that being a mean bully somehow demonstrates his cleverness, that failing to answer the question to his satisfaction (or at all) somehow makes Confederate supporters look foolish and stupid. He seems to be saying “gotcha!”… as if our inability to specify what Confederate soldiers are heroes of, somehow proves wrong our assertion that they are heroes.

In reality, it’s the commenter himself who looks foolish and stupid.

In reality, all that is demonstrated by this thoughtless and incoherent comment is the fact that the commenter is a mean and aggressive bully.

We consider Confederate soldiers to be our heroes, and we have every right to do so. People don’t need to be heroes of anything in order to be heroes.

An additional observation that demonstrates the bigotry, intolerance, and idiocy of “woke” ideology: I left a comment on the original post expressing agreement and stating, “their lives mattered.” Several people chose to react to my comment with the “laughing face” emoji. The fact that every person’s life matters should be so obvious that it shouldn’t even need to be stated. Yet several people chose to express the opinion, not only that the lives of others don’t matter, but that the very idea that the lives of others might matter, is laughable. In other words, to these people, the possibility that people who are different from them might actually have value, is considered ridiculous.

What kind of person laughs at the idea that other people’s lives mattered? What kind of person ridicules the possibility that those who are different from them might actually have value? An intolerant bully and bigot with no mind and no soul.

In conclusion, Confederate soldiers are heroes, and their lives mattered. Period. Full stop. End of story.

bookmark_borderThere’s no such thing as “paying for tax cuts”

Posted on by Marissa

“It’s just not the right thing to do to shut down a bunch of rural hospitals to pay for tax cuts,” Sen. Josh Hawley recently said regarding financial legislation that is currently under consideration in Congress.

This statement irks me. I’ve seen statements like this numerous times over the years, and I am irked every time I see one. Because there’s no such thing as “paying for tax cuts.” Tax cuts are not something that you pay for, because tax cuts are not something that costs money. Tax cuts do not involve spending money on something. They involve collecting less tax money to begin with. In other words, tax cuts do not constitute an expense for the government; they constitute a reduction in revenue. 

It’s true that both expenses and reductions in revenue have the same result: the government ends up with less money, and therefore has to cut spending in order to balance its budget. But this does not mean that an expense and a reduction in revenue are the same thing. They aren’t.

Tax cuts are not something that you pay for. They are something that requires you to cut spending, because you’re now taking in less revenue. 

This distinction is important because in my opinion, tax cuts are a good thing, while spending is not. Every government should strive to collect as little revenue as possible and to have as few expenses as possible. Statements like Hawley’s, about “paying for” tax cuts, are made almost exclusively by people who oppose the tax cuts in question. To portray tax cuts as something that has to be “paid for” is to equate tax cuts with expenses, thereby making tax cuts sound irresponsible, like some new and unnecessary spending program. But tax cuts are not irresponsible; they are exactly what every government should be aiming to implement. They don’t involve spending money at all; they involve taking in less revenue.

It would have been more accurate for Hawley to say, “If the tax cuts are implemented, the government won’t be able to pay for rural hospitals anymore.” Because unlike tax cuts, rural hospitals are actually something that the government is paying for.

Whether or not implementing those tax cuts is the right thing to do is a matter of debate – I would say yes – but regardless of where you stand on that issue, you should use the correct language to describe what you’re talking about. Yes, the government will need to cut spending in order to accommodate the tax cuts. And that is something that a lot of people are opposed to. But tax cuts are not expenses, and they’re not something that anyone needs to “pay for.”

bookmark_border“Conservatives are arming teenagers”

Posted on by Marissa

Um, yes. And this is bad, how?

Conservatives support – gasp! – actually respecting teenagers’ fundamental rights.

Again, how exactly is this bad?

Contrary to what “March For Our Lives” seems to be implying, it actually is fine for people’s fundamental rights to be respected. In fact, it’s the only thing that is.

Plus, this might be nitpicky, but it doesn’t really make sense to capitalize, and thereby place emphasis on, the words “DECADES-OLD.” The age of a law has nothing to do with whether it is good or bad. A law that violates people’s rights existed for decades. And? How exactly does that make it bad for said law to be overturned?

The only bad thing about this situation is the fact that a law which violates people’s rights existed for as long as it did.

Allowing people to actually have their fundamental rights respected is not only fine; it’s a basic moral obligation.