January 20 was 12 days ago. Twelve.
Depending on your point of view, that means that in less than two weeks, President Donald Trump has either completely driven his political opposition into the nuthouse or he has threatened the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of every American on Earth.
In twelve days.
We apparently elected the Hulk.
Hulk: smash!
With only the use of his phone and his pen, (where did he get the idea that he could do that?) Trump has managed to start smashing up everything his predecessor did that enraged half the nation. More than half, if you don’t count California. California must be counted, of course but they don’t need to be heeded.
In fact, none of the opposition need be heeded so far.
Recent polls indicate that with every stroke of his pen, Trump’s popularity grows but the polls have been wrong on everything for two years so we won’t heed those, either.
I say the opposition so far can be dismissed because nothing Trump has done has been outrageous. Nothing. He has wielded the presidential eraser at a blinding speed but he hasn’t erased anything that wasn’t brought into being with the casual flick of a presidential wrist. Live by Executive Order, die by Executive Order.
The latest paroxysms of grief were brought on by Trump’s “un-American, unprecedented, religious travel ban” which, on even superficial examination, turns out to be neither un-American, unprecedented, based upon religion or a ban.
Bottom line: Trump’s opposition is taking the stand that borders, any laws governing immigration and national security are all un American. While that certainly explains a lot, I’ll bet you wish you knew those truths before you voted in 2008 or 12, don’t you?
Last week, millions of women took to the streets to protest, wearing pussyhats and vagina costumes.
What were they protesting?
The existence of straight men, I guess. I’m being reductive here; follow my logic.
A.Trump was caught making rude remarks in private about wanting to have sex with women.
B. The definition of a straight man is one who wants to have sex with women.
C.The definition of a misogynist is one who dislikes and disrespects women as a group.
D.Trump often hires women over men for important jobs. Example: Kellyanne Conway**.
In order to reach a true conclusion, one must be sure that the premises of one’s argument are true. My definitions in C and D are simplified and may not be the only* definition of each term but they are true in and of themselves.
If A, B, C and D, then…which conclusion fits:
E. Trump is straight
F. Trump is a misogynist
G. Trump is a straight misogynist
Given the facts we know to be true, we can only conclude E. Trump is straight. In fact, D. is evidence that Trump does not fit the definition of misogynist. This doesn’t prove not F or G, we simply don’t have enough evidence to outweigh D, which we know to be true.
Therefore the march last week was against Trump for being a straight man. I may be missing something…Trump is also not a Democrat. Maybe the march was against Trump the straight, Republican man.
Either way, I’m reminded of the scene from an episode of Mad Men, where Peggy tearfully tells Dick she feels underappreciated because he never says ‘thank you’ for a job well done and he replies “that’s what the money is for!”
That’s what the election was for.
Ladies, you lost. Your candidate lost. It wasn’t because she was a woman, it was because she was that particular woman. If disliking and disrespecting Hillary Clinton makes me a misogynist, then I’m a misogynist***. Getting hysterical when you don’t get your way does not add to your credentials as a strong, empowered individual (or group) who should be taken seriously.
But I’m delighted that there were protests!
I am!
I was not happy about the rise of Trump. I worry about some of the hyperbolic rhetoric I heard during the campaign. I finally threw my support his way, in part because I knew there would be protests against him. I see these mobs as a fire brigade, just waiting to turn their hoses on him the second he bursts into flames. For the first time in years, we have a press that bothers to actually read and report on what’s coming out of the oval office with no regard as to how cool the president looked signing it. I find that refreshing.
Trump was the only candidate who could make the entire media shut their mouths and refuse to slurp up whatever effluence spewed forth from the oval office and start distinguishing bullshit from chocolate like they’re supposed to.
Yeah, that’s gross. I can play that way. I just prefer not to.
If Hillary had won, does anyone think there would have been marches in the streets to protest her email scandal? Her emoluments scandal? Her pay to play scandal? Her fast and loose relationship with the law and the truth? Her decades long war on the bimbos who threatened to disrupt her husband’s and therefore her own political trajectory?
We all know perfectly well there wouldn’t have been and it’s not because no one on the other side of the aisle would be as outraged and depressed by her election as the left is by Trump’s. It’s just not how Conservatives react to adversity. We don’t shake our fists at the sky and rail against the heavens; we put our shoulders to the wheel and get to work or get back to looking for work. Who we are is why we vote the way we do.
I was thoroughly depressed by the reelection of Obama. I didn’t march in the streets. I did leave the country.
Okay, I took a ten-day trip to Paris. I highly recommend it! Of course, since then, Europe has been flooded with ‘refugees’...
Which brings me to the point of this post, actually.
I heard someone on the radio the other day saying that Trump’s moratorium on allowing citizens of some Islamic nations entrance to the US would be used as a recruiting tool for Jihad.
Let’s see; Jihadists believe women are chattel and should only be allowed out in public covered and in the company of a male relative. They think the US is ‘the Great Satan’.
Which event feeds more into the idea that we’re the Great Satan: a travel ban or a million women marching in the streets dressed like vaginas?
Don’t get me wrong: considering what jihadists are for, I’m completely in favor of pissing them off.
But don’t you want to be taken seriously? Marching through the streets in pussyhats is not dignified. Not when you’re marching in solidarity for a candidate whose husband sees this and thinks it’s a humidor. Not when the opposition assumes that who you are is why you vote the way you do.
I remember the beginning of the women’s movement. Women’s lib was about women not being treated merely as sex objects. 40+ years later, women are marching through the streets dressed as vaginas.
What’s the message?
*A ‘straight man’ is also the member of a comedy duo or team off of whom jokes are bounced, ie; Dean Martin was straight man to Jerry Lewis.
**If your first thought on reading her name was to dismiss her as not an authentic woman, check your own misogyny.
***I don’t care. Only I can give your words power over me and I don’t choose to.