Why are activists called “activists”? They may be actively engaging in public protests, but they’re nowhere near as active as their gainfully employed fellow citizens producing goods and providing services that are valued and desired.
Plus, what offends most so-called activists and motivates their protests seems to be activity, activity engaged in by their gainfully employed fellow citizens in the service of society: energy production, manufacturing, real estate development, farming, ranching, logging, etc. The obstruction, cessation, or prohibition of some widely appreciated activity is the raison d'être of most activists.
If it’s an activity they oppose, seek to impede, and ultimately hope to stifle, shouldn’t they be called “inactivists”? Or, better yet, in the blunt, precise language of the not-so-distant past, before the emergence of the utterly mad and culturally divisive phenomenon known as political correctness: saboteurs.
Take, for example, the inactivists at “Stop Sterigenics,” whose protests concerning the alleged hazards of ethylene oxide (EtO) led to the closure of plants that sanitize the gowns, masks, and other personal protective equipment (PPE) that protect medical professionals, et al. from infection. That was prior to the outbreak of the coronavirus, of course, but, in retrospect, it’s hard not to look at the activity of inactivists, trial attorneys targeting sterilization plants with lawsuits, and politicians pandering to both groups in a different light.
Thankfully, the walking-back of overreactions has begun. Medical sterilization plants in Georgia and Illinois have been cleared to reopen – at least for the time-being, and with some restrictions.
Last year, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp acted to close or curb the operations of sterilization plants in their states. Now they’re singing a different tune. They’re not apologizing, mind you. They’ll never do that, but at least they’re trying to minimize the fallout from their foolishness.
The big question now from talking heads on network news is whether or not President Trump has “blood on his hands” for not responding fast enough to the virus. Perhaps that question should be directed to state officials, instead.