By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Live Forever Golf’s new Spring ’25 apparel collection offers versatile pieces for golfers of all skill levels. The line includes comfortable and stylish options suitable for both on and off the course, such as performance hoodies, shorts, and polos. Designed for comfort and performance, the collection blends practicality with modern aesthetics. Key items include the Soft Landing Natural Performance Hoodie and Hudson Performance Shorts. The collection is available now at Live Forever Golf.
Read the original article here
JD Vance’s condescending question, “Don’t you all have jobs?”, directed at protesters, reveals a profound disconnect from the realities faced by many Americans. It’s a statement that ignores the complexities of employment, economic hardship, and the very reasons these individuals are protesting in the first place.
The irony is palpable. His comment, delivered to a room presumably filled with individuals also absent from their workplaces, highlights a stunning lack of self-awareness. It suggests a world where employment is consistently accessible and readily available, a notion completely out of sync with the experiences of many who struggle with unemployment or underemployment.
The remark further exposes a deep-seated insensitivity. For many protesters, the issue at hand is so pressing, so significant to their livelihoods and well-being, that taking time off from work to voice their concerns becomes a necessary sacrifice. To dismiss their efforts with such a dismissive question ignores the weight of their commitment and the gravity of the situations motivating their actions.
The widespread criticism of Vance’s statement points to a broader societal issue: the increasing disconnect between the wealthy elite and the working class. His comment reflects an attitude that often trivializes the struggles of everyday people, viewing their activism as an inconvenience rather than a legitimate expression of dissent. It also reveals a narrow understanding of the diverse range of work schedules and circumstances that influence individuals’ abilities to participate in protests.
The counterarguments to Vance’s statement are numerous and compelling. Many protesters might be unemployed precisely because of policies or actions championed by the very individuals they are protesting. Others may be working multiple jobs, leaving little time for anything else, yet still find it necessary to make their voices heard. Many were laid off in recent waves of job cuts, a reality Vance seems to blissfully overlook.
The sheer hypocrisy of the situation is also apparent. A common retort notes that many of those attending Vance’s events are also not working. This raises questions about the appropriateness of his criticism and reveals a double standard in his perspective. He seems to only consider others’ professional responsibilities when those others are protesting views he doesn’t agree with.
The comment reflects a wider pattern of rhetoric that seeks to undermine and delegitimize dissent. By framing protesters as irresponsible or lacking in ambition, the speaker seeks to silence their voices and prevent them from participating in the democratic process. Such language serves to maintain the status quo, preserving the power structures that benefit those in positions of privilege. This, in essence, represents a form of gaslighting – a technique used to manipulate individuals into questioning their own perceptions of reality.
Ultimately, Vance’s comment transcends a simple expression of disapproval; it symbolizes a deeper societal chasm. It’s a symptom of a political landscape where empathy for the struggles of the common person is increasingly absent. Instead, we are faced with a rhetoric of dismissal and disdain, a language that further alienates and marginalizes those whose voices deserve to be heard. This careless dismissal only serves to amplify the underlying frustrations and fuel further dissent.