Definitions of Everyday Feminism

Everyday Feminism is a website that has bought me a lot of joy. I mean, a lot of join. Whenever I’m down, I simply need to head to that site, and enjoy the amazing satire it provides, every single day.

However, many people don’t understand that Everyday Feminism IS satire! In order to make the satire realistic, they often use the odd buzzwords of the left, and sometimes their punchlines aren’t very evident. So, as a service to your happiness, I’m going to explain some of these buzzwords, so you can understand the satire that could not have come from a feminist, because feminists never smile.

The first thing we’re going to decode is that ever-loved phrase ‘White Patriarchy’. The White Patriarchy is the easiest to explain. In the simplest of terms, it refers to any society built by Caucasian Males. It’s often used on the site to point out the absurdity of blaming the consequences of your decisions on the world.

The second term we want to tackle is ‘Intersectionality’ or ‘Intersectional’. A person or thing that’s described as Intersectional is a thing that belongs to several different victim groups. For example, a black man who is missing a leg is intersectional because he is oppressed because of his skin color and his handicap. Intersectionality allows you a certain amount of Social Justice Privilege, a privilege meant to combat the effect of the Patriarchy.

Now, by this point, I’m sure you’re laughing hysterically as you remember the jokes of Everyday Feminism, but we still have one more term.

The last term we’re going to define is ‘Cultural Appropriation’. This is when something from one culture, tortillas for example, are absorbed from one culture into another. This is obviously a demonization of America’s Melting Pot for comedic effect. The idea that one culture emulating the other is somehow something other than a compliment is clearly hilarious!

In conclusion, I’m going to give you the link to Everyday Feminism. Hopefully, you’ll laugh as much as I do. Every. Single. Day.


The Problem With Government Healthcare

The American Healthcare Reform Act, or “Trumpcare,” as it is coming to be known, is a roughly 95-page piece of legislation (this is strictly the current text) which claims to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). In the essence of time, I have not had the opportunity to read the bill in its entirety. However, there is one aspect that I find particularly interesting.

Besides repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act, “Trumpcare” also promises to defund Planned Parenthood — the infamous infanticidal organization — for a whole whopping year. Then government money slides once again into their back pocket, and they’re free to continue their murder of the unborn.
Many are lauding this as the end of Planned Parenthood or abortion in general, but they fail to realize (or maybe they blind themselves) that it’s only for a year. It is doubtful that more than a meager handful of Planned Parenthood facilities would go under during that time, especially with millionaire celebrities like Emma Watson who are constantly throwing money in the organization’s direction.
The same people who are so excited about the one-year governmental defunding of Planned Parenthood also seem to be under the impression that a Planned Parenthood facility is the only place the women can get an abortion. BREAKING — it’s not. Government-funded hospitals perform abortions on a daily basis. They just do it legally and require a parental consent for minors in states that also require it.

Another crowd, this one leaning towards the left, screams that healthcare is a right and therefore should be provided by the government. Republicans, in a sorry attempt to keep them happy, have created, as we have seen, its own ghastly rendition of federally-controlled healthcare, which only promises to dig this nation a deeper hole (and the left still isn’t happy).

Then there is the group that is rarely heard from. This group is made up of people who can’t afford healthcare, but are now required to get healthcare, at the risk of paying a large fine. So, they look into signing up for Obamacare, only to find out that they are not qualified. Therefore, they are by default required to pay an annual penalty for A. Not being able to pay for healthcare, and B. Not fitting into the government mold. Is this how we are supposed to help the lower class in our country?

Government healthcare has been a complete and utter failure thus far, but that should not necessarily be our primary concern. The underlying issue here is this: does the federal government have the power to control an individual’s healthcare? Anyone with a basic knowledge of the Constitution would say “no.” The Constitution lays out the federal government’s powers very clearly, and nowhere in the Constitution does it say “Congress shall henceforth mandate healthcare for every citizen.”

There’s a saying in politics, and it’s really quite true. “What the government pays for, the government controls.” It might be said that this should be clear to anyone, with which I would agree. However, there are those who would disagree, and for these individuals, I would like to provide a bit of perspective.
If the federal government pays for your healthcare, it controls your healthcare. If the government controls your healthcare, they presumably control your health. If they control your health, they control your life.

An Essay On Foreign Intervention in Elections

On December 29, 2016, departing President of the United States Barack Obama imposed sanctions and ordered the removal of Russian diplomats, due to allegations that the Russian government had hacked the Democratic National Committee.

On January 6th, each and every American intelligence agency stated that Putin ordered an “influence campaign” to alter and interfere with the United States election so that they could reap an outcome beneficial to Russian interests.

The outcome of this interference, however, is dubious at best. It was no secret that Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate, because of the fact that super-delegates were even necessary to help her defeat democratic-socialist Bernie Sanders. Not only that, but the Democrats even had to feed her debate answers so that she could beat the candidate the people of the Democratic party actually wanted. The insinuation that Hillary Clinton was even a good candidate, due to the Democratic primary, is circumspect at best. She just couldn’t appeal to her base, garnering less votes than Barack Obama did in 2012.

Impact analysis of the Russian hacking scandal aside, we should repudiate Russia for hacking into our election. It’s inexcusable, and we should take necessary action to make sure this never happens again.

But first, we should repudiate ourselves. According to Los Angeles Times reporter Nina Agrawal, the United States is no stranger to interfering in elections. Her source, Carnegie Mellon University’s resident political scientist Don Levin, created and gathered data on our interferences, dating from 1946 to 2000, and that data was shocking.

As a nation, we’ve interfered in 89 sovereign nation’s elections.

Eighty. Nine.

Americans need to repudiate Russian interference, but first we must examine our own worldview concerning foreign policy. Consequentialism, the belief that the ends justify the means, has been tried. It’s also been proven to be a failure. The defining failure of American consequentialism was in the 1960s, with the Vietnam War, when our government decided it knew better than the people of Vietnam.

By no means am I saying communism works–it doesn’t. However, propping up dictator Ngo Dinh Diem was just as morally bankrupt and flawed as the spread of communism. This was a man who halted free elections and brutalized the Buddhist people of Vietnam. In the government’s eyes, though, the ends justified the means. Anything was permissible in the march against communism.

However, we continued down this path in our foreign policy worldview, and the world is has made is, I would argue, vastly more dangerous. We, as the United States, can no longer advocate for a higher moral standard from nations abroad because we are operating in a plane of delusion where we somehow, in some way, have the moral high ground. We don’t, as evidenced in the Vietnam War.

Before we repudiate Russia, we must shift our worldview to be more deontological. We must view the morality of the consequences and the actions we must take to get there. We can’t be leaders of the growing global community if we’re morally compromised, and we certainly can’t call ourselves the bastion of freedom and liberty if we do not acknowledge and repudiate how we have propped up dictators in the past.

This is something both sides of the aisle, and every political ideology in America in between, should get behind. If we want to say we are the greatest way to spread democracy in the world, we need to both acknowledge that we haven’t done that in the past, and work hard to not enable it in the future.