Ranger from the North

If Donald Trump wants to ensure he recaptures the 2020 electoral votes in the Great Lakes states he won in 2016 – and possibly add Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Maine – there is one simple thing he could do that would make him a hero to every snow-blowing American – issue an executive order to restore functioning gas cans.

To be clear, this would also make him a hero to tens of millions of other Americans throughout the country who use lawn mowers, power tools, etc around their homes or in their jobs. In 2009 the EPA banned the sale of gas cans that functionally pour gas. To be specific, the scientifically illiterate bureaucrats at the EPA outlawed gas cans with vents, mandating that all new gas cans must have crazy contraptions that require three hands to operate. Unlike the old gas cans, the new ones spill gas all over the user and onto the ground. The result of the EPA's incompetence is a new gas can that is much worse for the environment than the one it replaced. The incompetent regulators at the EPA are so scientifically illiterate that they honestly believed that the vents on gas cans were there to allow gas fumes to escape, rather than the actual purpose of allowing air to flow in to the can so that gas can be poured out. Having received their "science" education in Oppression Studies classes at Grievance State University, these morons making rules for how we gas up our power tools have likely never handled a tool more powerful than their own personal groomers.

Normal people are getting tired of being told they have to lie and say there are 631 sexes, and they are tired of militant jerks wanting boys hanging out in their girls' locker room, and they are getting sick of boys winning girls' sports championships. J.K. Rowling, who is otherwise a leftist doofus, recently survived social media cancelation for telling the truth that sex is real. The rest of us will be roused to action — people were trying to be polite, but now it's all too stupid and obnoxious to tolerate. There is a big difference between being kind and not adding to the pain of people with real issues, and with being forced by drag bullies and their allies to publicly affirm what everyone knows is false.

Companies can and have banned political discussions in the workplace (probably for the best), but while the raging transgender policy debate is certainly a political matter in the public square, the actual pronouns people use when addressing their coworkers are not. (Or at least that's my reading of it.) Lyles is free to refer to herself however she wishes and dress in any style that doesn't violate company policies. But what about the free speech rights of her former coworkers who may hold different opinions?

If this lawsuit results in challenges and appeals it could be an interesting one to watch. The courts still haven't come to any final consensus on this entire idea of redefining the words sex and gender to suit a small but vocal minority in defiance of millennia of medical science. But in the meantime, I'm wondering if they will hold that you're actually causing "damage" to someone by refusing to warp the English language (or any other for that matter) with a plural "they" and all the rest of this. What form would such damage take?

People are allowed to say far more mean-spirited things than this in the public square. Yes, speech can be regulated in the workplace within reason, but beyond that, the courts have generally held that words aren't damaging unless you're yelling fire in a crowded theater. It looks like Nike will be the test case for this question.

When Omar has something to say on her own behalf, she is not bashful about saying it. When caught in a compromising situation, however, Omar exercises her right to remain silent, accuses anyone who asks about it of "Islamophobia" or "stupidity," and/or lies about it.

The problem is that at least some of the judges in the city are already proactively implementing new "bail reform" policies that are set to go into effect on the first of the year. The Mayor and City Council members have determined that cash bail is somehow racist and "unfair" to various members of the community. They are also looking into decriminalization of some so-called "quality of life crimes" similar to what California is doing. (And of course, we all remember what happened when California decriminalized the theft of up to $1,000 worth of merchandise.)

When you remove the disincentive to commit crimes, a certain percentage of the population is going to take advantage of that opportunity. How this isn't obvious to the powers that be in Gotham remains a mystery. The police are aware of it, however, and they wind up paying the price for these policies, along with all of the law-abiding citizens who wind up being victimized. As long as New Yorkers keep electing the same batch of liberal "reformers" year after year, this pattern will certainly continue.

Before closing, there's yet another example of this phenomenon to consider. You may have already heard about the woman who was found to have assaulted three Jewish women on the street this week. She too was released the same day without bail. Well, she'd only been back on the street for a single day before she assaulted yet another woman. And yet again she was unleashed back on the public immediately.

Where is Snake Plissken when you need him? We really need to consider building a 100-foot wall around New York City and then make sure Bill de Blasio is on the inside of it before it's finished.