The best vacations leave you feeling renewed and invigorated, ready to take on the world.

You spend a week on the shore somewhere or at Disneyland or at home binging Netflix and return to work feeling newly energized and inspired.

You know what I'm talking about? Laura Ingraham sure does.


After taking a "pre-planned" Easter vacation (which just so happened to coincide with advertisers dropping her show after she mocked Parkland survivor David Hogg), Ingraham returned to Fox News on April 9 to deliver a searing rant about how conservatives are being persecuted and shut down in America.

Ingraham's return to the air included a vow to "protect" the First Amendment.

Upon her return, Ingraham revealed that her show would feature a new segment. It's called "Defending the First," and according to ABC News, Ingraham has promised that she'll "expose the enemies of the First Amendment, of free expression, and every thought while showcasing those brave voices making a difference."

Ingraham followed this up with an impassioned plea for anyone who's been the subject of First Amendment violations to call on her for aid: "If you have been subjected to threats or intimidation because of your speech, I want to know about it," she said. "Tweet me, because without free speech and a free conscience, we are not truly a free people."

Is a boycott really a violation of the First Amendment though?

In her speech, Ingraham referred to herself as a "victim" of a boycott. The reality, though, is a little different. Ingraham's speech was not curtailed by the government, which is what the First Amendment is about.

Whenever this subject is brought up, I think of this XKCD comic, which is a nice reminder of which rights the First Amendment protects. (Hint: It's not the right to a TV show.)

[rebelmouse-image 19533212 dam="1" original_size="750x765" caption="Comic by XKCD, used with permission." expand=1]Comic by XKCD, used with permission.

Let's break it down further:

Had Ingraham been arrested, thrown in jail, or otherwise detained by agents of the government, then yes, she would absolutely have a point.

As the comic perfectly explains, however, as much as Ingraham may like to think of herself as a victim, freedom of speech doesn't protect you from the consequences of the things you say. Nor can it force anyone to listen to you if what you've said isn't to their liking.

So if you malign the survivor of a mass shooting for not getting into a college and advertisers decide that's not where they want to put their money, their refusal isn't curtailing any civil liberties.

Boycotting is a legal and time-honored tradition of voting with one's money.

While Ingraham paints boycotting as something only "liberals" do, we must remember that conservatives are not new to cutting off businesses they do not agree with.

In 2017, conservatives boycotted Keurig (in the strangest way) when it stopped advertising on Sean Hannity's show. They also boycotted Nordstrom after it dropped Ivanka Trump's line. When Target announced a move to be more inclusive of the trans community in 2016, a boycott reportedly led the chain to lose millions of dollars.

President Donald Trump is no stranger to calling for boycotts either. While campaigning in 2015, he suggested Starbucks should be boycotted for not putting "Merry Christmas" on their cups. And in 2017, he called for NFL fans to walk out of games if players kneeled during the national anthem and said that protesting players should be fired.

Will Ingraham be championing those that have been hurt by these boycotts as well?

Let's not forget that Ingraham was making these points on her nationally broadcast talk show.

The idea that she's a victim feels a little hollow when you realize Ingraham's speaking from a national pulpit and earning millions of dollars while demanding compassion and righteous indignation from her legions of supporters — supporters she is allowed to speak at on a regular basis without fear of repercussions even as she refers to those who oppose her as "Stalinist." (FYI: Stalin would have never stood for this kind of free-wheeling invective on public media.)

You may remember the time Ingraham was accused of doing the Nazi salute, accused Hillary Clinton of doing the same thing in retaliation, and then still ended up with her own show instead of being prosecuted? Sounds a lot like free speech to me.

The First Amendment affords us all the right to speak out.

Defending the First Amendment makes perfect sense, but as XKCD so brilliantly points out, we owe it to ourselves and one another to understand what we're defending first.

Ingraham's talking points will surely rile up her fanbase. But her rhetoric — that any criticism of conservatives is tantamount to First Amendment violation — is disingenuous and divisive.

The First Amendment protects Ingraham's right to say what she wants. It doesn't mean anyone has to listen.

Joy

Man uses TikTok to offer 'dinner with dad' to any kid that needs one, even adult ones

Summer Clayton is the father of 2.4 million kids and he couldn’t be more proud.

Come for the food, stay for the wholesomeness.

Summer Clayton is the father of 2.4 million kids and he couldn’t be more proud. His TikTok channel is dedicated to giving people intimate conversations they might long to have with their own father, but can’t. The most popular is his “Dinner With Dad” segment.

The concept is simple: Clayton, aka Dad, always sets down two plates of food. He always tells you what’s for dinner. He always blesses the food. He always checks in with how you’re doing.

I stress the stability here, because as someone who grew up with a less-than-stable relationship with their parents, it stood out immediately. I found myself breathing a sigh of relief at Clayton’s consistency. I also noticed the immediate emotional connection created just by being asked, “How was your day?” According to relationship coach and couples counselor Don Olund, these two elements—stability and connection—are fundamental cravings that children have of their parents. Perhaps we never really stop needing it from them.


Keep Reading Show less
Photo by Jonathan Borba on Unsplash

woman laying on bed

I was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Inattentive Type about three years ago—I was a fully functioning adult, married with children before finding out that my brain worked a bit differently. Of course I've known that I functioned a bit differently than my friends since childhood. The signs were there early on, but in the '80s diagnosing a girl with ADHD just wasn’t a thing that happened.

Much of the early criteria for ADHD was written based on how it presented in males, more specifically, white male children, and I was neither. Women like me are being diagnosed more and more lately and it’s likely because social media has connected us in a way that was lacking pre- doom scrolling days.

With the help of social media, women can connect with others who share the same symptoms that were once a source of shame. They can learn what testing to ask for and how to advocate for themselves while having an army of supporters that you’ve never met to encourage you along the way. A lot of women that are diagnosed later in life don’t want medication, they just want an answer. Finally having an answer is what nearly brought me to tears. I wasn’t lazy and forgetful because I didn’t care. I had a neurological disorder that severely impacted my ability to pay attention to detail and organize tasks from most important to least. Just having the answer was a game changer, but hearing that untreated ADHD can cause unchecked anxiety, which I had in spades, I decided to listen to my doctor and give medication a try.

Keep Reading Show less

TikTok about '80s childhood is a total Gen X flashback.

As a Gen X parent, it's weird to try to describe my childhood to my kids. We're the generation that didn't grow up with the internet or cell phones, yet are raising kids who have never known a world without them. That difference alone is enough to make our 1980s childhoods feel like a completely different planet, but there are other differences too that often get overlooked.

How do you explain the transition from the brown and orange aesthetic of the '70s to the dusty rose and forest green carpeting of the '80s if you didn't experience it? When I tell my kids there were smoking sections in restaurants and airplanes and ashtrays everywhere, they look horrified (and rightfully so—what were we thinking?!). The fact that we went places with our friends with no quick way to get ahold of our parents? Unbelievable.

One day I described the process of listening to the radio, waiting for my favorite song to come on so I could record it on my tape recorder, and how mad I would get when the deejay talked through the intro of the song until the lyrics started. My Spotify-spoiled kids didn't even understand half of the words I said.

And '80s hair? With the feathered bangs and the terrible perms and the crunchy hair spray? What, why and how?

Keep Reading Show less