8834 E 34 Rd Suite #131 25053 Cadillac, MI 49601
info@duckfisney.org
Book a Call
SIGN THE PETITION
JOIN THE COMMUNITY
SHOP DUCK FISNEY

What is Duck Fisney? Who is Duck Fisney?

In the interest of full disclosure, Duck Fisney is a brand under the umbrella of a for profit business. We are a partnership (LLC) with two stakeholders, partners, and part time employees. As lifelong friends, long-time colleagues, and devoted conservatives/libertarians, we made a decision to fight back against a new cancer pervading our society, culture, and country, at the core of that fight is Duck Fisney.

A real quick description of the Duck Fisney team. Our leadership team has a collective background as entrepreneurs, student-athlete coaches/trainers, software developers, and graphic designers. One stakeholder (owner) remains "silent" (anonymous) for privacy reasons, but the other owner and primary partner are big believers in transparency and working towards being more front-and-center.

Michael and Ginger Lucy, husband/wife team, manage the Duck Fisney digital, social, and web assets and accounts. Michael and Ginger also have a 7 year old daughter (6 at the time when the Florida bill was signed), which amplified the story of "Woke Disney" for us and countless of our friends with children at similar ages. It was #GameOn.

The silent partner manages the print shop and print shop operations, YES, all our products are made in-house in in the USA!

NOTE: Michael Lucy has two accounts, currently locked out of original account as I know longer have access to the email I registered in 2012!

Something is Rotten in the State of Denmark

"Something is just not right", you know when you get that feeling? A feeling or emotion that is recurring over time, then at some point you reach a mindset where you are absolutely certain beyond a shadow of a doubt something is wrong. You, however, can't quite put your finger on exactly what it is or exactly what is causing it.

The two bookends for me between the time when I felt something was wrong and when I knew something was wrong are;

  • September 9th, 2016: Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables Speech
  • March 28th, 2022: Florida's Parental Rights in Education, "Don't Say Gay" backlash

While many people will say they "knew" something was wrong before Sept. 9th, 2016, others will say they knew well before March 28th, 2022, I am less cynical than the average person and as a black-and-white type A scientific mind type of person, I need more concrete evidence than Alex Jones' word or an EpochTimes article, #SorryNotSorry.

Beginning Bookend, "Basket of Deplorables"

September 9th, 2016 and the famous Hillary, "Basket of Deplorable" comment. Since the beginning of my time on earth and well before that, there was an unwritten rule that you can attack a candidate but never the candidates audience or followers. While there may have been violations of that unwritten rule over time I do not recall ever seeing, hearing, or reading any egregious attacks. This remark smacked me right across the face, it was a very different tone, it was arrogant, thoughtless, and inconsiderate.

Living most of my life in metro Detroit with a large union presence, the UAW, I knew that with the exception of the Reagan-era Democrats, metro Detroit was by and large left leaning Democrat turf. In 2016 it was well known throughout metro Detroit that Donald Trump was winning over a sizeable share of historically staunch Democrat voters. I fully expected Hillary to fight back and try to win back what, at least I considered, the Democrat base.

Then it happened, September 9th, 2016, "A Basket of Deplorables"! I had in 2016 a large diverse network and social sphere I ran with locally, some left-of-center and some right-of-center, it was immediately obvious after discussions with friends that after this Hillary's debacle had lost this voter segment, at least here in Detroit. I vividly recall one friend, a 20+ year union employee at Ford Motor Company said; "Hillary just gave the middle finger to me, my union brothers and sisters, and the entire middle class."

Middle Chapters, The Trump Years

I preface the middle chapters with, once again, I am much less cynical than the average conservative. I made "excuses" for our left-of-center ideological counterparts out of both compassion for mankind but also (and this is very important to this article) that I did not believe there was a deep seated embedded ideology driving their actions, words, and behavior.

We had Charlottesville in 2017, and I thought to myself; "If I was a lefty, I would probably act the same way, behave the same way, and say the same things." The one thing about Charlottesville was the media and their audience's blind obedience to the sound bite; "... there are good people on both sides." It was clearly; (1) taken out of context and (2) an incomplete quote.

Throughout 2017, 2018, and parts of 2019, we experienced a full court press by the media pertaining to Trump-Russia collusion. In 2019 and the very beginning of 2020 we had the Ukraine Zelenskyy phone call. The Democrats just completed round 1 of impeachment, they were teeing up round 2, then the world stopped with COVID. Impeachment round 2 IMMEDIATELY came to a halt and it was a complete pivot to COVID.

The election year 2020 and COVID, there is not much to say about it that we don't already know. COVID was an increasing escalation of the media's extreme and staunch criticism of Trump's every move from his COVID response, to his dealing with Governor's, to the "summer of social justice", to rumors about the election, it was a media and establishment blitz of epic proportions.

One other thing I believe worthy of mentioning is the escalation of blatant lies and gaslighting during COVID in 2020. I had been a skeptic of main stream media most of my life. In my perspective, as untrustworthy as that media may have been over the years, media it seemed to me would (at least) history entertain dissenting views and beliefs, they were biased but at least tried to play by some standards of journalism. Then in 2020, as the public was locked down sitting at home with nothing to do but watch news, it was a non-stop barrage of staring the public straight in their eyes and lying. It was not only conventional lies, but also whole new kinds of lies.

Ending Bookend, "Don't Say Gay" and Disney's Reaction

March 28th, 2022 when the Florida Parental Rights in Education bill was signed by Governor DeSantis, the immediate (over) reaction by opposing ideological forces (establishment, education, media, corporate America, etc.) was of a fervor and an extreme that I had not see before. Not only was it extreme, it was instantaneous, it was cohesive, it was collaborative, and it was of a density and magnitude even greater than COVID.

Then within days Disney executives lashed out, the Chairman of the Board, CEO, and President in lock-step admonishing Governor DeSantis. The following are clips from Christopher Rufo taken directly from the now famous Disney Corporate Zoom Video Conference.

Now, this was the moment when I absolutely knew with certainty there was a philosophy and/or ideology steering the progressive ship, something deeper. The next logical question is; What is it? Where is it coming from?

Faith, God, Morals, and Truth

I started out on my journey to identify the root cause of the ideology and beliefs. I start by asking a few highly intelligent trusted friends and colleagues (two of which are pastors) where this ideology is rooted. Summarily, all the initial responses can be described as;

"Mike, it's a increasing lack of god and faith in people's life."

While I buy this as a symptom, I do NOT believe it's the root cause. I was (am) convinced there is something deeper than lack of god or faith. For starters, humans instinctively are pre-disposed to meta-narratives, pre-disposed to living their life through a blueprint. Every religion is a meta-narrative, Christianity provides the bible as blueprint, Judaism the Old Testament (Torah), etc, with each religion providing a prescription for life. Even Marxism is a meta-narrative, it prescribes ad entire description and blueprint for life. So, in my mind if someone is lacking faith or god, it simply has to be replaced with something. What is that "something"?

Before we proceed, brief digression and a few words about me; Once again, I was born as a left brained Type A science driven person. I had always struggled with both faith and at times literature, for me science defines the world. For that reason, the first 40 years of my life, I was not an avid reader, never had much interest in literature, philosophy, moved away from faith or anything else literary. Times have changed, and now I have a deep hunger and passion for understanding, faith, the literal, and the meaning of life. This is important to the story I feel, as I meet and discuss this with more and more people I realize that it's 50/50 whether someone has knowledge of what we will discuss (postmodernism); 50% have knowledge, 50% do not have knowledge. Admittedly, I was completely obvious to this up until March 2022.

Finally, I'm Over the Target

In my rotation of reading, books, documentaries, blogs, podcasts, etc. is a steady diet Jordan Peterson. Shortly after March 28th (too lazy to do it right now, but I could dig through my YouTube history and find the exact date) I was watching a Jordan Peterson video with Peter Robinson from the Hoover Institute at Stanford.

Mr. Peterson is REALLY intelligent and if I were to say he has a tendency to be a sesquipedalian (person who overuses big words), many would agree. The problem with a fast thinker and complex speaker like Mr. Peterson is sometimes we as listeners simply ignore or just skip over parts of what they are saying, perhaps we internally make assumptions; "I don't understand what he is saying, it can't important anyways."

As Jordan Peterson is speaking with the audience at the Hoover Institute, he is talking about progressive forces and their ambition to deconstruct the nuclear family, THEN in the same thought he mentions postmodernism. I had heard the term "postmodern" many times in the past, but as the left brained Type A person I am, I simply chose to ignore it as "it can't be important". Part of me also related postmodernism to art, and while art may impact culture and society art itself is not a philosophy or ideology.

Peterson rattles off some names related to postmodernism and give a 20,000 foot birds eye summary of postmodernism. I put names (Nietzsche), the words (nihilism), the phrases (moral relativism) in my long term memory and set out to research what postmodernity is all about!

Paydirt - The Left's Neo-Marxist Philosophical Meaning(s) of Life

To emphasize how I felt when made this discovery, I will use a not-so-eloquent phrase to describe my reaction immediately upon starting to dive into postmodernism; HOLY SHIT, IT DESCRIBES EVERYTHING!

I am going to save most of the gory details of postmodernism for future articles. That said, below is a bullet list of the main tenets and assumptions of postmodernism.

TENETS OF POSTMODERNISM

  • Rejection of Metaphysics - Postmodernism does not believe in the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
  • Social Constructivism - Truth and morality do not exist objectively.
  • Cultural Determinism - Theory and premise that individual group characteristics and behaviors are produced as a function of a societies economic, social, political, and religious organizations.
  • The Rejection of Individual Identity - Postmodernism rejects the common origin of humans. They believe that human identity is constructed by national and local culture and is specifically influenced by three key cultural features of gender, social class, and race.
  • Rejection of Humanism - Values that emphasize the creativity, autonomy, and priority of human beings are misplaced. There is no universal humanity since every culture constitutes its own reality. Groups must empower themselves to assert their own values and to take their place with other planetary species.
  • The Denial of the Transcendent - There are no absolutes. Even if there were, we would have no access to them since we are bound to our culture and imprisoned in our language.
  • Power Reductionism - All institutions, human relationships, moral values, and human creations are expressions and masks of the primal will to power.
  • The Rejection of Reason - Reason and the impulse to objectify truth are illusory masks for cultural power.
  • Revolutionary Critique of the Existing Order - Modern society with its rationalism, order, and unitary view of truth needs to be replaced by a new world order. The old order must be put away to be replaced by a new, as yet unclearly defined, mode of communal existence.

POSTMODERNISM ASSUMPTIONS

  • Social Construct, Moral Relativism - The view that moral values and judgements are not absolute and neither true or false. No moral statute or codex standpoint is uniquely privileged over time.
  • Social Construct, Subjective Truth - Subjective truth is based off of each individual persons experience, perspective, feelings, and opinion. Everything an individual knows is based off their inputs, senses, and perceptions, hence everything we know is subjective, a SUBJECTIVE REALITY and there is no such thing as OBJECTIVE TRUTH.
  • Cultural Determinism - Theory and premise that individual group characteristics and behaviors are produced as a function of a societies economic, social, political, and religious organizations.
  • Reason is Subjective - Postmodernism argues that people's reasoning is fundamentally subjective because their individual, group, and social beliefs and values alter the way they organize factual data, hence the narratives they construct around data will also be subjective.
  • Objective Knowledge is a Myth - Postmodernists reject knowledge because they consider all realities and values including human nature and his innate values as being fluid and constructed by social and external factors.
  • The world is too complex to be explained by any worldview claiming to have objective knowledge of absolute truth - The theory that no worldview and/or meta-narrative blueprint for objective knowledge and truth is possible since life is always changing and evolving.
  • Nihilism - Life has neither a god nor meaning.
  • No Individual is Neutral or Unbiased - Because there is no such thing as morals, absolute truth, and each person experiences lives through their subjective lived experiences every individual is in some way, shape, or form biased based upon their own subjective truth.
  • Societies Like Humans are Biased - Since societies are comprised of individuals, the macro society reflects the bias of the majority of the micro (individuals).

The Duck Fisney and Postmodernism Takeaway

There is so much more to postmodernism, certainly if an academic, scholar, or student of postmodernism were to read this, I would be scoffed and laughed at. Scoff at me, scoff at us, laugh at me, laugh at us, I am over the target and ready, willing, and capable of exposing postmodernism for what it is; a nihilistic worldview attempting to enslave mankind into an ideology of tribal warfare.

As mentioned above, I was oblivious to and ignored this philosophy and cancer for over 40 years. It's rooted DEEP in all of our institutions; government, education, media, law, and now companies/corporations. I am, and we are, just small cogs in the giant machine of humanity but together we make up the entire machine and production life of life.

In closing, I will leave you with a Call-To-Action! That call-to-action is for the sake of you, your family, your community, and mankind, please do some research on this philosophy, ideology, and as I call it cancer. If you are knowledgeable on Postmodernism, we want to hear from you, we want to hear your story or stories.

Please, subscribe to our Newsletter and follow Duck Fisney (and me) on Twitter.

Join the Community

Sign up to receive awesome content in your inbox.

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

The Buffalo Shooter Manifesto (PDF)

Attached is a link to the full transcript of the Buffalo Shooter Manifesto in it's 180 page entirety. For your convenience, I have highlighted a few excerpts and included a narrative, an op-ed so to speak. If you want to go directly to the manifesto, CLICK HERE, otherwise I would appreciate if you took a minute or two to continue reading and then sharing your feedback.

Some Manifesto Milestone by Page #

  • 1-3: Manifesto Introduction
  • 5-13: Questions and Answers
  • 9: Ideological Questions and Answers
  • 13-24: About Black Americans
  • 24-53: About Jewish Americans
  • 54-57: White American, Arab American, and Currency
  • 57-157: Weapons
  • 157-163: Messages to Ideological and Identity Groups
  • 163-180: Continuation of Manifesto

Buffalo Tops Friendly Market, Saturday May 14th, 2022

When the tragic incident occurred, we were all captivated by the incident. As news and information streamed in, the conduit to that information was the Main Stream Media (MSM), at least at the beginning of the incident. Across the MSM ideological spectrum, one thing was near-immediately clear, it was racially motivated. Question: Does racially motivated mean ideologically motivated? And, if so, what ideology?

The first thing that struck me about the Buffalo shooting was the assumption that the shooter, Payton Gendron, was from the right side of the ideological spectrum. In short the media within hours of the event assumed he was a conservative. In all honesty, as a conservative, that was my reaction.

Then, an overwhelming feeling of guilt struck me. A tragic even occurred, people died, families are suffering, and a community is mourning, and I am worried about the ideology of the shooter, my stake in the shooting, and (dare I say) my responsibility as a white male conservative (aka being gaslit)? Some conservatives may disagree with having an internal sense of responsibility, but I believe it's human nature to have compassion and empathy for others while constantly challenge one's self sense of morality.

I felt compelled to publicly mention it in a Tweet (above). As much as I wanted to include a byte about ideology, the media, and my feelings, I realized two things;

  • It's a time of mourning, injecting my feelings at this time is (extremely) selfish and uncompassionate
  • The story is still evolving, we were only a few hours into the event and a lot was still to be discovered

Fast forward to Monday May 16th, once again this happened on Saturday May 14th, and news and information is becoming much more readily available. Social media channels are scurrying to suspend and terminate Payton Gendron's account, they are scurrying to "secure" a proposed MANIFESTO.

In the back of my mind I am still feeling a tinge of "white guilt by association", just like the radical left wants people like me to feel. I just want answers - HOW CAN A TRUE CONSERVATIVE BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH A TRAGIC EVENT? It is my wholehearted belief that conservatives hold the moral high ground in the ideological culture war. So how do you reconcile "moral high ground" in the backdrop of such a tragic and unnecessary event if indeed the shooter was a conservative?

THEN, new information starts to trickle in about the proposed Manifesto containing information that the shooter was a leftist. In the age of technology and social media, independent partisan news just can't be trusted (sorry, not sorry).

After the exchange above, a link to the Manifesto was provided and I got to review first hand the Manifesto!

Excerpts from the Manifesto

The first three (3) pages of the manifesto are just that, a manifesto. Payton Gendron obviously has been indoctrinated into extremist Supremacy ideology. I usually detest using the term "White Supremacy" on grounds of it being so poorly and loosely defined however this is clearly a case of someone off his rocker.

Fast forward to page 9, via the shooter's own admission he is more appropriate defined as a Bernie supporter than anything else; "Mild-moderate Authoritarian left populist". More bluntly, Bernie had a bigger influence ideologically than Tucker.

On page 34, Gendron attacks Libertarianism as "largely pioneered by Jews" and cites profoundly respected classical econonists Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, and philosoper Ayn Rand, amongh others. This is hardly a conservative right-leaning perspective.

Pages 157 and 158 are balanced criticisms of both right and left worldviews, he is (IMHO) equally critical of both sides of the ideological spectrum. These pages are well worth reading.

One thing that struck me was that the shooter dedicated 30 pages (24-54) to Anti-Semitism and 100 pages to weaponry (57-157). 120/180 pages dedicated to weaponry and anti-semitism, and relatively small amounts dedicated to Black Americans, yet a predominantly Black American community was the target of this evil.

Why is that?

The only conclusion I can draw, and I believe the common sense conclusion, is that Black American's are easy to identify as a target. Humans, being instinctively tribal, when confronted with a perceived "fight or flight" threat may resort to their primal fight instincts targeting people that do not have the same attributes.

The argument that angry and disenfranchised people seek to avenge their resentment against people not like them seems to strongly apply in this case.

Takeaway

Resorting to the tweets published on Saturday and Monday above, the true victims are those that lost their lives, the families of those that lost their life, and the community of Buffalo. While indeed I feel a sense of guilt for briefly deflecting attention away from the families and people of Buffalo, a broader message to the masses that we can't let tit-for-tat ideological differences and arguments consume everyone's everyone's waking moment.

This all out culture war and primal drive to blame and find evidence to shame the ideologic enemy is a deep seated cancer in our society. I, for one, am always willing to exchange ideas, listen to dissenting views, and make strides toward the better good of society and man as a whole. Are you?

If you made it this far, THANK YOU! Once again, here is a link to the manifesto, CLICK HERE. Comments are always welcome, just complete the form/info below.

Some Manifesto Milestone by Page #

  • 1-3: Manifesto Introduction
  • 5-13: Questions and Answers
  • 9: Ideological Questions and Answers
  • 13-24: About Black Americans
  • 24-53: About Jewish American
  • 54-57: White American, Arab American, and Currency
  • 57-157: Weapons
  • 157-163: Messages to Ideological and Identity Groups
  • 163-180: Continuation of Manifesto

Conservatives Have Feelings Too

About the Author: My name is Michael Lucy, a politically homeless conservative. I identify as a Mugwump, a 19th century term for independent conservative ...

Have you ever experienced a wonderful friendship with someone that holds ideological beliefs that are directly opposed to yours?

Believe it or not, there was a time in our society and culture when these did exist! I would like to share an unfortunate story of a friendship dumpster fire. Would certainly appreciate to hear your story as well, leave them in comments at the end of the article.

Rewind to 1999 I was a young capitalist that just finished my (figuratively speaking) "apprenticeship" in IT with a company in Wilmington, DE. I had the requisite 2 years experience on my resume and some in-demand software development skills, so I took my show on the road to Baltimore, MD to work as a Verizon contractor for their growing new High Speed Internet business.

Truth be told, as a capitalist and a young professional I wanted to make more money, luckily I picked a profession that was in demand and paid a nice wage, as opposed to a six-figure college education that left graduates both jobless and penniless!!! (Yep, indeed that's a jab at the young entitled millennials)

After graciously accepting a new contractor position, and getting a handsome raise, I show up to my first day of work. Greeted by a Verizon IT Director, I was immediately assigned to my team manager, who was also a software developer contractor.

The managers name was Heidi. 20 years ago, I could say the remainder of this story was about "her", but in 2022 I have ZERO CLUE what the politically correct word is to describe "her", matter of fact if this story ever filtered down to Heidi and "she" read that I used the pronouns "she / her", Heidi would probably put out a contracted hit on my life (1/2 joking here).

A Different Friendship, but Great Friendship Nonetheless

To get to the "good part" ASAP, will need to provide a little background on our, Heidi and me, relationship over the years leading up to 2020.

Heidi and I worked together for a while before we both moved on to "bigger and better" positions. It was not very long into our work relationship that we both began to confide in each other and share some of our personal skeletons and secrets. My skeleton and secret was I really liked cocaine. Heidi's skeletons were that she suffered from emotional issues (was on various medications) and she was gay, a lesbian.

A solid friendship developed, we both had the antithesis of each other that we could confide. Reflecting back, I think the fact that we rolled in different social circles provided a mutually beneficial confidant, a confidant we both knew would not "expose" skeletons and secrets to our inner social sphere - Know what I mean, make sense?

By early 2001, I had moved on to a position in midtown Manhattan (lived in Jersey City because it was STUPID expensive in Manhattan or anywhere in NYC) and Heidi had moved on to a director position for a non-profit in Washington DC, not far from the White House. We kept in touch, but remember this was 2001 so our communication was mostly email and maybe a monthly phone call.

THEN, 9/11 HAPPENED, remember I was in Manhattan and Heidi was in DC! By 9:00 am, Heidi and I were in constant phone and email communication, at least until phone lines stopped working and then it was solely email communication. I vividly remember Heidi saying how scared she was (we were all scared) and she desperately wanted to move back home, rural "coal country" Pennsylvania.

Fast forward a few years, indeed Heidi moved back home, started a business, and was attending law school studying to become an attorney.

As I am writing this, I came to realize something VERY important that I never considered. Prior to Heidi entering law school, she was apolitical at the very least was apolitical in our conversations. Certainly we had conversations about her feelings towards the "gay" community (LGTBQ was not yet part of our vernacular), but never in a political sense.

NOTE: What I just realized is that CRT, Critical Race Theory, for the first 20-30 years of it's existence was disseminated through law schools. From it's roots in law schools, it was not until the mid-2010's did CRT start to "bubble up" to the main-stream. I realized in writing this, reflecting back upon my friendship with Heidi, and witnessing her increasing rhetoric and activism against perceived oppression, did I realize that she may have likely encountered CRT indoctrination during her time at law school. This explains A LOT, at least for me.

Our Friendship - Activism and Healthy Ideological Conversations

By the time Barack Obama was elected president for his first term, Heidi was nearing graduation from law school. She was still running her consulting business but also opened her a law practice after graduation (2011/2012'ish). She combined her consultant experience, IT experience, and law degree to offer non-profits and business guidance on startup and operations. She was also increasingly dabbling in activism during this time.

Our correspondence started to wane and be less frequent during this time. From 2008-2012, I was adamantly outspoken about President Obama and what I perceived as a socialist and "big government" agenda. With me being so outspoken and anti-Obama and Heidi becoming more and more involved in activism, our relationship was certainly not what it once was, but we were still cordial and when we did speak and was still with mutual respect.

The 2016 Election

Heidi and I were in communication during the 2016 election year. I was "Trump Neutral" but as a conservative for me Trump was the lesser of two evils. Heidi was a stanch Hillary supporter and vehement Trump hater. Heidi, like most everyone on the left, was all-in on the "Trump is a racist, misogynistic, heteronormal pig" narrative.

In the back of my mind, I was one of those people that thought Trump had ZERO chance of winning a general election against the established politician, Hillary Clinton. I thought it was a foregone conclusion that Clinton was going to be our 45th president, in short I was prepared to take the medicine we all were about to be administered with Hillary as our president.

Then, election night 2016 happens. My wife and daughter are visiting family in Florida and I am home alone at my computer reading headlines and watching highlight reel video clips of the election. The unthinkable and unimaginable is happening, Donald J. Trump is winning - THEN - Hillary concedes. Trump is indeed the 45th president-elect.

Sometime between 10 and 11 pm EST, I send a Facebook message to Heidi. My intent was 100% genuine and sincere; "Heidi, I know this is not the result you wanted. Everything will be okay, I promise. If you want to chat let me know." Looking back, I don't believe she felt this message was sincere, and I also believe it was the event that started the gradual downhill in our relationship.

The very next day, clear as day in my Facebook Messenger Inbox;

"Mike, it's happening already. We are not even 24 hours into Trump being the president-elect and it's happening.

This message was cryptic, VERY cryptic, so I gave Heidi a call and we discussed the message. What happened was Heidi and her "husband" (female) were driving down the road together and someone flipped them the bird.

Throughout this conversation, I did my absolute personal best to be sympathetic to her feelings, to her cause, while yet still holding firm in my beliefs while trying to keep the conversation on the rails. This was, though, not a pretty conversation at all. My premise was; "Heidi, I am certain this is not the first time you had felt targeted and certain will not be the last. Myself and every other conservative I know, do not condone such behavior. I hope you can take a small break from this, walk away, and return to realize that your emotions and feelings are hyper-sensitive right now. Every small gesture, you are likely to internally amplify because of your deep seated emotions that oppose Trump."

COVID 2020 Lockdowns & Summer of Social Justice

Heidi and I had very few exchanges between 2017 and 2020. I would occasionally see her posts on Facebook and likewise she would certainly see mine. It's important to note here, not once did I on Facebook (which at the time was my social media space of choice), publicly support anything Trump said or did, I was very much a "Trump Devil's Advocate." I was more critical of Trump than supportive. That said, I am on record many times as saying that MSM (main stream media) has an ax-to-grind with Trump. This article is not about Trump, we can save that conversation for a rainy day!

Then, one day during the summer of 2020, I make one of my usual "middle of the road" seemingly 1/2 joking, 1/2 serious gests, partially to satisfy my own desire to "bridge the divide" between the polarizing ideologies;

"I can't wait until the 2024 presidential election when maybe we can have two likeable and more moderate candidates. Tulsi Gabbord and Dan Crenshaw come to mind as candidates that might fit that description."

Holy Sh!t was that the wrong thing to say - LOLOLOL. I was put on blast my own saying that Crenshaw is just another aspiring establishment RINO hack. THEN, I was put on blast by Heidi, saying that Tulsi is no where near progressive enough. Heidi's response was PARAGRAPH AFTER PARAGRAPH of personal attacks against me and attacks against conservativism in general. Her diatribe was emotionally charged, and subjective, with hate filled rhetoric about the the oppression from the patriarchal white heteronormality of society and culture.

The public Facebook exchange ended with; "I guess it's time to snooze you for 30 days again."

WOW - that smacked me across the face, hard. A 20+ year relationship that had always been mutually respectful had turned into "snoozing for 30 days" because I disagree with your approach to beliefs, opinions, and problem solving, at least that is how I perceived the exchange.

I chewed on this exchange for a minute, literally a minute, then I decided that this relationship is beyond repair. The worldviews of both Heidi and myself had become so distant that there is no way we could ever have a civil and mutually respectful conversation, ever again.

My response was to select the "Block" feature on Facebook. It's kind of silly in it's own little way that as humans we retaliate on social media with seemingly childish pressing of buttons (snooze, block, etc.) to rid ourselves of relationships because of ideology. Perhaps it was my own narcissism and ego kicking in, or perhaps it was simply my unconsciousness (or semi-consciousness) saying; "This relationship and friendship has run its course, it's time to move on." Either way, I am beyond it now. Yes, I feel a shade of guilt every once in a while, but I also know when ideological differences reach such extremes there is absolutely no common ground in which future conversations will produce nothing but animosity. So, my mindset is now that ended the friendship was for the common and mutual good, I can look back and say; "We had a good 20 year run as friends, I will miss our mutually respectful conversations, but it's for the better good that we part ways." It's truly sad we have reached this point in society.

Florida’s Parental Rights in Education Bill and “Don’t Say Gay”

About the Author: My name is Michael Lucy, a politically homeless conservative. Politically speaking, I identify as a Mugwump, a 19th century term for independent conservative. I am personally outraged, as are millions of others, with the recent events and conversations regarding government overreach into the lives of families with respect to child sex identity education. So let's get started ...

I am NOT a journalist, nor have any desire to be a journalist. That said, this article is written from both my my lived experiences, and from (civil) conversations with many people across the entire ideological spectrum. In short, I stand firm in my beliefs yet I am not a luddite and will certainly engage in civil discourse for the purpose of contributing to solving problems.

The Heated Debate of Sexual Identity and Parental Rights

The recent debate and emotions from both sides of ideological spectrum regarding sexual identity has exploded into a full fledged cold war, a cold culture war. There is so much pent up frustration, even anger. This cold culture war is a series of battles, albeit what feels to me like a series of escalating battles.

Florida's Parental Rights in Education Bill

The recent flashpoint in the sexual identity and "sexual justice" war is the battle over Florida, the catalyst for that battle being Governor DeSantis's Parental Rights in Education bill. The bill was signed on March 28th, 2022 and immediately created a firestorm of intense public debate. It's important to note that the bill was passed in the Florida Senate on March 8th, leading a 20 day on-ramp period of public discourse.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE FLORIDA.GOV ANNOUNCEMENT

CLICK HERE TO READ THE BILL

Have you read the Parental Rights in Education bill? If not, I highly recommend that you do, matter of fact it's such an important and charged issue that every American should read the bill. In my humble opinion, this is (by far) the most pivotal and important societal decision of my lifetime (note that I was born well after the 1964 civil rights act).

Before the bill was signed and before the exact context of the bill was known, left-of-center media had already labeled the bill as; the "Don't Say Gay" bill. This label became so pervasive, so fast, on March 27th the day before the bill was signed (reminder, the bill was signed on March 28th) even Hollywood went on the offensive during the Oscar's ( see video below).

One of my personal biggest points of contention is when people argue, debate, and take a position on the bill without reading the bill. Those people are arguing from a 3rd hand/party perspective, typically from a shaped narrative heard from or watched on their (biased) media channel of choice. In short, READ THE BILL!

What the Bill Actually Says and Enacts

I have copied and pasted the preamble from the bill below, VERBATIM.

An act relating to parental rights in education; amending s. 1001.42, F.S.; requiring district school boards to adopt procedures that comport with certain provisions of law for notifying a student's parent of specified information; requiring such procedures to reinforce the fundamental right of parents to make decisions regarding the upbringing and control of their children in a specified manner; prohibiting the procedures from prohibiting a parent from accessing certain records; providing construction; prohibiting a school district from adopting procedures or student support forms that prohibit school district personnel from notifying a parent about specified information or that encourage or have the effect of encouraging a student to withhold from a parent such information; prohibiting school district personnel from discouraging or prohibiting parental notification and involvement in critical decisions affecting a student's mental, emotional, or physical well-being; providing construction; prohibiting classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels or in a specified manner; requiring certain training developed or provided by a school district to adhere to standards established by the Department of Education; requiring school districts to notify parents of healthcare services and provide parents the opportunity to consent or decline such services; providing that a specified parental consent does not wave certain parental rights; requiring school districts to provide parents with certain questionnaires or health screening forms and obtain parental permission before administering such questionnaires and forms; requiring school districts to adopt certain procedures for resolving specified parental concerns; requiring resolution within a specified timeframe; requiring the Commissioner of Education to appoint a special magistrate for unresolved concerns; providing requirements for the special magistrate; requiring the State Board of Education to approve or reject the special magistrate's recommendation within specified timeframe; requiring school districts to bear the costs of the special magistrate; requiring the State Board of Education to adopt rules; providing requirements for such rules; authorizing a parent to bring an action against a school district to obtain a declaratory judgment that a school district procedure or practice violates certain provisions of law; providing for the additional award of injunctive relief, damages, and reasonable attorney fees and court costs to certain parents; requiring school district to adopt policies to notify parents of certain rights; providing construction; requiring the department to review and update, as necessary, specified materials by a certain date; providing an effective date.

It would be prohibitive to copy/paste the entire bill into this article, once again that is why I recommend reading the bill in it's entirety (click here). NO WHERE in the bill does it say nor imply "Don't Say Gay." The bill is clearly crafted with two main objectives;

  • TRANSPARENCY - Ensuring a parents rights to have access to ALL information and material in which a child K-3 (ages 5-8) are being exposed and taught.
  • PROTECTING A CHILD'S WELL BEING (MENTALLY, PHYSICALLY, EMOTIONALLY) - "prohibiting school district personnel from discouraging or prohibiting parental notification and involvement in critical decisions affecting a student's mental, emotional, or physical well-being", which I interpret as "when an educator identifies an issue with a child's mental, emotional, or physical well being, the parent must be notified - NOT for the educator to take unilateral action without consent regarding the well being of the child."

There is absolutely NOTHING inhumane about ensuring that parents are informed if their child is having health issues (mental, emotional, or physical). The argument on the left is that if and when a child is experiencing mental or emotional health issues, that the student should confide in educators, not the parents.

Reminder, I am not a journalist (nor an attorney) so I will leave out any of my personal subjective reactions to the bill, while also refusing to sensationalize the bill or criticism of the bill since I am not paid to write this article, as opposed to a media outlet or journalist who are paid to attract and retain an audience of readers which, unfortunately, in todays world requires sensationalized headlines and stories.

The bill speaks for itself, it's clearly available for the public to read and form their/your own opinion.

"Don't Say Gay"

Prior to this article, I had very little knowledge of exactly how "Don't Say Gay" was introduced into vernacular at the time of the proposed Parental Rights in Education.

Media coverage of the bill heated up around the time the bill passed the Florida Senate on March 8th. So, there was certainly an on-ramp period for the term "Don't Say Gay" to take root and become main stream.

Why was/is there such a large and heated public resistance to the bill from those left-of-center?

I can't answer that, personally. I have (with civility) discussed this with a handful of left-of-center friends and family, two of which are left-of-center attorneys. The non-attorneys I have discussed this with had little or no knowledge of the exact bill and were simply stating (parroting) the default left-of-center positions typically heard on left leaning media. The attorneys I discussed with resorted to the question and argument; "What is gender?", which in my opinion has nothing to do with the bill.

My conclusion is that "Don't Say Gay" is a manifestation of both a counter culture resistance and "opposition politics." Opposition politics in this context meaning that left-of-center politicians, leaders, and elites simply oppose anything and everything proposed from anyone right-of-center.

Left-of-center people, leaders, and politicians are most critical of the language in Section 3 of the bill.

  1. Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.

I would hope (expect) that every human being would agree that parents should not only be responsible for but also be active in a child's education, not only traditional reading, writing, math, etc. but also responsible for and active in sex education. To construct a strawman argument that parents need not be involved in sexual education of K-3 (5-8 year old) children and that the state is more qualified to teach sexual education, is just wrong - SORRY, NOT SORRY.

With the understanding that I am not an attorney, there is some room in section 3 above for legal interpretation and/or manipulation, specifically the word OR in combination with in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.

There is absolutely NOTHING inhumane about ensuring that parents are informed if their child is having health issues (mental, emotional, or physical), which is the left's counter-argument and criticism of the bill. The argument of the left purports that;

  • Children ages 5-8 are more comfortable and open with teachers than with parents
  • Educators and teachers are more qualified to have conservations about sex with children ages 5-8

Lastly on the "Don't Say Gay" movement. It has been my observation that the "really smart" people on the left which includes attorneys, politicians, and elites are resorting to the constitutional argument that;

Conservatives and republicans are trying to block freedom of speech in the classroom between teachers and students.

This is where I will add opinion, subjectivity, and passion. It's a VERY slippery slope when you make the argument that Freedom of Speech applies in the classroom, especially when that freedom of speech involves impressionable 5-8 year old children. That slippery slope is so slippery that I, for one, do not accept that argument or position that a teacher of 5-8 year old children is given a blank check to talk with those children about intimate and potentially dangerous subjects like sexual identity.

Florida's Parental Rights in Education Bill and "Don't Say Gay"

We live in a free country where freedom and freewill is paramount. You and everyone else is 100% entitled to an opinion and position on this matter. I cherish not only that freedom for myself, but for the entirety of everyone that lives in a free world whatever your position is. Differences of opinions always happen, especially for important topics, the most important thing we remember is that these differences in opinion need to be solved in a civil manner.

This subject, this matter, this debate, and this law has far reaching consequences and must be carefully considered. There are three argument/positions that are in play;

  1. (right-of-center argument) Create laws that completely ban the introduction of and conversations about sexual identity in the classroom for ages 5-8, grades K-3.
  2. (left-of-center argument)Create laws that do NOT require disclosure to parents regarding the introduction of and conversations about sexual identity in the classroom.
  3. (centrist argument) Create laws that are a compromise and collaboration between teachers and parents for the introduction of and conversations about sexual identity.

If you put a gun to my head today and said; "Pick One", my pre-disposition would prompt me to respond; #1. That said, if given time, space, and an audience of people that could/would debate this in a civil manner, #3 is the long term choice I would certainly advocate, but we would need to clearly layout the rules.

Transgenderism and Gender Dysphoria vs. Race: A False Equivalence

About the Author: My name is Michael Lucy, a politically homeless conservative. Politically speaking, I identify as a Mugwump, a 19th century term for independent conservative. Millions of Americans are outraged with the recent events and conversations regarding government overreach into the lives of families with respect to child sexual identity education. So let's get started ...

There is a pervasive mentality in left-of-center ideology that if someone right-of-center disagrees with their view than it's appropriate to simply label that right-of-center person as "phobic". That phobia may be racism, sexism, or any other label that categorically paints a person as someone who solely operates as exclusionary or as a "supremacist".

The False Equivalence of Race and Sexual Identity

This article is not intended as a dialogue on the history of racism. Rather I will describe from my perspective how racism is being used as a foundation and template for other victim groups, specifically the T (trans) group within LGTBQ.

Left-of-center leaders, politicians, and elites have perverted the conversation of racism and are extrapolating that conversation into a false equivalence melting pot soup of racism and "non-binary" sexual identification, all distilled into one conversation which makes very little (if any) sense, at least makes very little sense to me.

It's a narrative that advocates "one victim for all, and all victims for one" while constantly probing and recruiting the next victim group to jump aboard the victim-bandwagon.

What victim group is next?

The False Equivalence of Race and Sexual Identity

Many conservatives want to start controversial racial conservations with BLM. I believe solely citing BLM is a non-conversation starter, it's shortsighted and exclusionary. The foundation of the conversation is about ALL African Americans, not just limited to BLM (supporters and advocates).

The left is crafting a narrative and attempting to implement policies vis-a-vie the argument that African Americans have been, still are, and will remain oppressed. The left's story is that if radical change is not made then oppression will continue to exist.

We are not here to debate the previous paragraph, rather to lay the groundwork for the false equivalence.

African Americans are brown, black, and even shades of white. It's a physical trait and attribute assigned at birth of which they have no control over.

The physical trait of being brown, black, or a different shade of white exposes African Americans to being different when surrounded by a predominantly non African American society and population. At an average of 13% of the US population, if we were entirely homogeneous society, a little more than one out of ten people would be African American.

History, human history, and human's primal instincts are that, as humans, we are tribal. The tribal instincts of humans and primates as a whole are that "the strong survive" and there is "power in numbers", especially when one group is a minority of a larger group assuming that physical characteristics of the minority are distinguishable from the group as a whole.

So with the vastly different physical traits and attributes of African American in addition to the lived history of oppression that African American's have encountered over time, there is absolutely grounds for African Americans to pursue the social justice debate and pursue a commensurate justice. People in general can disagree during a debate and they can disagree on commensurate justice, but we can all agree that there is a history at the very least worthy of discussion.

LGTBQ, Specifically the "T"

So as not to derail the train nor create any room for ambiguity, this part of the article will be strictly about gender identity, gender dysphoria, proposed fluidity of gender, and with a focus on transgenderism. We will touch upon some science, some history, and some subjectivity.

Gender Dysphoria:

Gender dysphoria is the feeling of discomfort or distress that might occur in people whose gender identity differs from their sex assigned at birth or sex-related physical characteristics.

Humans are born with a combination of X and Y chromosomes. Somewhere between 99.6-99.8% (depending on source) of the worlds population are born with either XX (female) or XY (male). Females are born with physical characteristics, traits, and attributes that make them feminine while males are born with physical characteristics, traits, and attributes that make them male.

Within both females and males, we can all agree (I hope) that some males are more masculine and some females are more feminine but that still does not change the FACT that they are XX or XY.

Before we continue, let's discuss the other 0.2-04% of the population that are born with chromosomal irregularities. This small segment represents irregularities that includes;

  • Klinefelter Syndrome (males with an extra X chromosome), between 1/500 to 1/600 males are affected or 0.17-0.2%. People who are born with the physical irregularity of Klinefelter have a high predisposition for transgenderism, for the sake of this article let's assume all 0.17-0.2%.
  • Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS) also afflicts males and comes with a predisposition for transgenderism though at a rate of between 2/100,000 to 5/100,000, 0.002-0.005%.
  • Gender Dysphoria which account for 0.005% to 0.014%
  • Other at this time unknown or not-entirely-known physical conditions that lead to a predisposition for transgenderism.
  • According to the National Library of Medicine, 0.39% of the population are affected by transgenderism (click here for citation)

It is important to note here that physical traits of people that suffer from gender dysphoria, 0.39% of the population, will exhibit a wide variety of physical traits from no obvious physical traits to widely recognizable traits and attributes.

In no way shape or form am I minimalizing that 0.39% of the population does not have human rights, should not be treated with absolute dignity, nor should not experience the same freedom that every else enjoys. The purpose of using statistics is to contrast and compare the scope and magnitude of differences between race and gender dysphoria, both qualitatively and quantitatively.

Differences Between LBTBQ vs Race

Race, as a function of societal makeup or distribution is also relative to geography and place. In the US, African Americans represent 13% of the population. Finding statistics on the number of black people in a country within Africa is not as easy as it sounds (not able to find any) because the statistics available are for different groups and not based on skin color. The point being is that a country in Africa will have a much higher percentage of black people as a function of population.

The transgender population is an absolute, it's an absolute at 0.39% across the board for the entire human population of earth. It does not matter where you reside, that percentage will average out to 0.39%.

Recalling from above the conversation about the history of oppression and racism in the US, there is a penchant among the left and LGTBQ community to extrapolate racial oppression to non-binary (not straight male or female) sexual oppression. Unless I missed something in history class, LGTBQ were historically never held in bondage nor owned as slaves.

Somehow, despite these (and many other) obvious differences between race and sexual orientation the conversation and narrative become intertwined and co-dependent.

Identity and Victim Group Politics

One of my personal observations regarding victim group politicking is that, to me, it feels like the left is crafting a hierarchy of victimhood, or victimology. Meaning, victimhood is additive, a victim of racism may or may not be more of a victim than a sexual victim, but a racist victim that is also a sexual victim by virtue is a bigger victim than other victims. The more victim checkboxes a person can select, the greater their social status becomes where victims are always looking for ways to gain more status.

Transgenderism and Gender Dysphoria vs. Race: A False Equivalence Takeaway

The stacking of victim checkboxes, in my opinion, is not healthy for society. Rather than focusing on the future, we seem to get caught up looking in the rear view mirror too worried and focused on how we were victims, why we were victimized, and who did the victimizing.

To me, it seems like there is an attempt to normalize all types of victimology, perhaps an attempt to convince everyone they are a victim and galvanize all the victims into one heterogenous melting pot of victimhood.

The social justice conversations that are persistent in our culture and society are healthy conversations and dialogue, heated but healthy. For 13% of the US population, there is a documented history of oppression. Myself, I am an opponent of the position that America is built solely upon white privilege and systemic racism hence must be tore down, but that will NOT prevent me from engaging in a civil dialogue with anyone that believes otherwise. Matter of fact, I had a few conversations with local Detroit BLM leaders during COVID brainstorming constructive ideas to bridge the divide.

Given the takeaway for social justice with respect to race above, compare and contrast that to the current conversation and dialogue about transgenderism. There is a similar argument and position that society needs to deconstructed and rebuilt because of oppression to and upon transgender or gender-fluid individuals. The position and proposed policies (laws) would give more control to public institutions in the the raising of and sexual education of our children, specifically school children ages 5-8. This lending of power to government would be at the expense of the family, the nuclear family unit.

Furthermore, there is no documented physical proof of oppression of transgenders, sure there is anecdotal proof, there is "story telling proof", and there is a WHOLE LOT of "he said, she said" third party hyperbole, but documented proof of widespread systemic oppression does not exist.