If you haven’t heard the news, boys and girls, there’s going to be quite a party in Jefferson County tonight. And it sounds like it’s going to be a biggin:

Turnout is expected to be so high that the teachers’ union plans to stream video from the meeting room — which holds a couple hundred people — on a big screen in the parking lot outside. Students are making plans to start their protests early in the day.

Big screen TV, you say? I’m sold. But wait, there’s more!

I’m hearing from my sources on the playground that there will also be snacks provided by the friendly neighborhood teachers union. I’m tremendously relieved to see that although JCEA says it did not “organize” any of the unrest in Jeffco (a denial that grows less and less plausible as new evidence comes to light), it is at least stepping up to the plate when it comes to snack provision this evening.

Ok, I’m being a little snarky today. But can you blame me? We’ve been absolutely bombarded with straw men, false flags, and red herrings since September 19, when all of this chaos kicked off. And even as the narrative becomes increasingly confused, we are seeing the situation continue to escalate.

Most recently, the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) wrote a letter condemning the school board’s attempts at “censorship.” NCAC is a broad group of organizations that includes heavy hitters like the ACLU alongside some more colorful organizations like the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund and the Woodhull Sexual Freedom Alliance. And lest I forget, both the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association are also member organizations. Come on, at least try to act surprised.

The letter chastises the board for its attempts at “censorship” thusly:

As public responses to the pending board proposals indicate, Jefferson County is home to a diversity of opinions on political, moral and religious questions. The board’s attempt to monitor school curricula to promote certain viewpoints means privileging the beliefs of some individuals over others. It is precisely this form of viewpoint discrimination by government that our constitutional system is designed to prevent.

An interesting statement given that the letter is intended to support protests aiming to shut down a community discussion of the APUSH framework. Allowing a vocal group of citizenry to steamroll others who hold potentially valid concerns about the framework sounds an awful lot like… well, like censorship. If people hold diverse opinions on something as important as history, don’t we owe it to the community to have a discussion and make sure we find a reasonable middle ground?

Then again, none of this was ever really about censorship, was it? In fact, the entire moralistic “civil disobedience” narrative unravels upon closer inspection.

All right, faithful readers, it’s time for me to go. I’ve got a party to attend.