Another day, yet another school shooting, this time at a high school in Parkland, Florida(near Fort Lauderdale) on Valentine's Day. It was the most fatalities in a school shooting since the December 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.
You could almost use a stopwatch to see how long it would take for the ignorantly insane morons on both ends of the political spectrum to politicize the tragedy and blame everything else other than the shooter himself. After all, it's not the FBI's fault they blew not one but TWO opportunities to potentially stop the attack months before it actually happened(which in itself was part of a spectacular clusterfuck of failure in which a Broward County sheriff's deputy/school resource officer did respond to the call of an active shooter and didn't even go into the school to stop the gunman). And it's also not the shooter's fault that he chose to join a white nationalist militia to get military style training. Or that he chose to go to a school he was expelled from, pull the fire alarm, and murder 17 people. It's somehow the gun's fault even though it's an inanimate object. It's the fake "violent" video games he may or may not have played, even though there's no evidence as of this writing(started on Feb. 16th) that the shooter actually played video games to begin with.
It is insanely idiotic and insanely laughable for Kentucky governor Matt Bevin(where a fatal school shooting happened last month) to say after the Florida school shooting that an "honest conversation on violent video games and movies needs to happen."
It would be nice to have that "honest" discussion. Unforunately, the lying scumbags that want to trample on the First Amendment and ban fake "violent" video games don't want an honest discussion and NEVER wanted one to begin with. If that honest discussion were to happen, the people who defend video games like myself would win that debate hands down. We gamers would expose these hypocrites for the liars they truly are. Wouldn't even take any longer than two hours.
The politicians, the so-called family advocacy groups like the Parents Television Council & Common Sense Media that hide behind children to justify their censorious views, & the tabloid trash corporate legacy mainstream news media with their bubble headed bleached blonde newscasters legitimately fear an "honest" discussion because it would mean two things:
1) they would have to admit that they have no real solutions to the problem of gun violence in the United States of America, &
2) they would have to pin the blame where it really belongs: on their own constituents. On the very people that vote for these idiot politicians like Bevin, or donate money to these family groups, or watch their garbage news networks promoting their biased Twilight Zone version of the world.
Just like with former Louisiana governor Bobby Bitchcakes Jindal after the shooting at a community college in Roseburg, Oregon in October 2015, I have to ask what does the governor of Kentucky expect to accomplish in whining about fake "violent" entertainment? That is, other than parroting the National Rifle Association's whining since Sandy Hook in its thinly veiled attempt to shift the false blame from guns to the entertainment industry to protect themselves from the growing backlash against them and playing to their voter base.
Good thing I recently posted a lengthy defense of video games. Here's the link to that: https://beardoggx.livejournal.com/279438.html
Without rehashing too much, the US Supreme Court decision in Brown v. EMA(which I was struck to hear that Scoot seems to know nothing about from listening to his show on Feb. 16th on WWL 870AM as of this writing) pretty much kills any legislative attempts at restricting sales of fake "violent" video games or movies. State legislators in Connecticut and New Jersey found out the hard way in the aftermath of Sandy Hook.
The scientific research is increasingly showing no connection between real world violence and fake "violent" video games.
Violent crime in the United States is down since peaking in 1991 according to the FBI's own crime statistics despite video games becoming more popular, more technologically advanced, and more graphic in its depictions of violence in the last 25 years.
It was also insanely idiotic and insanely laughable for Spokane County, Washington Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich to say that fake "violent" video games are why "society has changed" while defending guns in the aftermath of the Parkland shooting. Society really hasn't changed that much since humanity came into being. As I said in a previous blog, society has always been sick and loving it. Violence has always been a staple of humanity's entertainment diet since humanity has existed and evolved over the eons because violence is a part of everyday life.
Marilyn Manson said it best years ago when he was talking with David Duchovny about the issue in the Feburary 2005 issue of Official Playstation Magazine: "I think-----and I've said this before-----that times are far less violent and far more televised. You're just seeing it more.
If there had been television during the Civil War, I'm sure people would not have been thrilled about what was going on."
And Marilyn Manson is right. Since the advent of cable television and the 24/7 news channels like CNN, MSNBC, & Fox News, coupled with the growth of the internet and social media, we've become accustomed to getting our news instantly. Maybe a little too much so.
Idiots like Matt Bevin, Ozzie Knezovich, & even President Donald Trump(who I've lost a little respect for after he started criticizing fake "violent" video games & movies for the Parkland shooting) should realize that the American public is sick & tired of seeing both hypocritical politicians like them(and other idiots like London mayor Sadiq Khan) doing what amounts to nothing & hypocrite celebrities like Jimmy Kimmel & Stephen Colbert virtue signal about guns after a mass shooting. The American people are also getting sick & tired of seeing mass shootings like Sandy Hook, Columbine, Las Vegas, Virginia Tech, & this latest one in Parkland get politicized while the bodies are still warm, even by the families, friends, & classmates of the victims of the shootings. But I don't believe in blaming everything other than the person responsible for the tragedy.
Only one person is ultimately responsible for the attack on Marjory Douglass Stoneman High School in Parkland, Florida on Valentine's Day and that's the 19 year old who murdered 17 people. Nobody else is. Nothing else is. It is completely ridiculous to suggest that fake "violent" video games are responsible for the negative behavior of individuals and it is wildly inappropriate to hold the content of fake "violent" video games or any other form of entertainment responsible for the actions of individuals. You are the only person responsible for how you act in society.
Many of the problems we're facing in America today are directly because we no longer seem to have any respect at all for individual accountability. Holding individuals accountable for their own behavior has been replaced by blaming everything other than the individual.
Scoot said it best in a blog about some idiot blaming Facebook for people being "addicted" to social media: "The foundation of any civilized society is built on the concept that individuals are responsible for their actions. The further we drift from that premise – the further we drift into societal chaos."
Let’s end this decades-long trend of trying to blame everything other the individual for their actions. Just because it's easier to play the Blame Game by blaming fake "violent" video games or even guns doesn't mean that you should play the Blame Game. The only way to win the Blame Game is to ultimately not play the Blame Game.
One last note: The students that survived and the families of the victims of the Parkland school shooting should recognize that the American people's sympathy for them is not infinite. While pushing for "common sense" gun safety legislation may appear to be laudable, it's still seen as politicizing the deaths of your sons & daughters and fellow classmates. The families of victims of the various mass shootings over the last 20 or so years know this all too well.
But being scarred forever by a deranged individual doesn't excuse your own negative behavior. Saying that the thoughts & prayers of the President of the United States(and by extension, the American people, since the President represents every American citizen) are "meaningless" and having the mentality of "you're either with us or against us" is going to be counterproductive to your cause. Attitudes like that will cause the people to be less sympathetic to not just you, but to the victims of the next mass shooting, because the people are going to wonder if their families, friends, & classmates are going to be just as disrepectful towards people offering their condolences.
Also, calling your movement "#NeverAgain
" is a dumb move because if another school shooting happens, then your movement has automatically failed in its stated goal of no more school shootings.
I also wonder how many of the students of that school actually knew all or even half of the people that were killed other than the assistant football coach(who was in a position of power)?
And finally, the NRA & conservative politicans & President Trump in particular, should realize that whining about fake "violent" video games is going to alienate younger voters & in particular Generation Z. It has been stated in surveys that the next generation after the Millennials, Generation Z. is tracking to be just as conservative as the Baby Boomers eventually became. They may not want to hurt their standing with a potential voting bloc that could help their cause in the long run because they chose to moralize about fake "violent" media in the short term. As I stated before, whining about fake "Violent" media is part of what ultimately cost Al Gore the 2000 Presidential election to George W. Bush. This might be President Trump's most disliked move as President by his core base since the airstrike on a Syrian airbase last April.
And President Trump should realize that whining about fake "violent" video games makes him look like a total hypocrite. Trump had no problem play-fighting with Vince McMahon at WrestleMania 23 in Detroit in 2007(and using a gif of his fight with Vince to mock CNN last year) and being a member of the WWE Hall of Fame years after WWE was falsely blamed for "causing" real world violence(in particular, the Lionel Tate case, which led to WWE forcing the Parents Television Council to pay $3.5 million and publicly apologize to WWE to settle a defamation lawsuit).
Deja Vu All Over Again Part 3: Still Fighting the Good Fight & How to Defend Fake "Violent" Video Games
It never fails to annoy & amuse me how after every school shooting(especially after the most recent shooting Jan. 23rd in Denton, Kentucky, over 20 years after the shooting in Paducah, Kentucky), morons rush to attack fake "violent" video games for "causing" the shooting when everyone who understands the idea of personal accountability & personal responsibility knows that the industry had absolutely nothing to do with the shooting.
So, here's a refresher course on the best ways to defend video games, A Greatest Hits package, if you will:--1) The US Supreme Court decision in Brown v. EMA(originally called Schwarzengger v. EMA because then-California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger asked the court to hear the state's appeal of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling that California's law was violated the US Constitution)--
When the US Supreme Court ruled in the video game industry's favor in June 2011 by a 7-2 vote to affirm the Ninth Circuit's ruling, the majority opinion written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia(and joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, & Elena Kagan) pretty much destroyed any attempt by the US government & the states to regulate the fake "violent" content in video games. Justice Samuel Alito admitted as much in his concurring opinion(which Chief Justice John Roberts joined) when Alito wrote that Scalia basically no room for a more narrowly defined law and SCOTUSBlog agreed because the majority ruled that:
-Video games are free speech protected under the First Amendment
-Video games can NOT be treated differently than any other form of entertainment like movies, TV, or music under the Fourteenth Amendment
-Fake "violent" content in all forms of entertainment is exempt from US obscenity laws
-People under 18 have a First Amendment right to view free speech with or without parental permission as long as the material in question is not judged to be obscene
From my LJ post "Five Years After Brown v. EMA Part 2": 1) Because video games cannot be treated differently than other entertainment media like books, movies, television, and music under the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the law, any bill restricting fake "violent" content would have to apply to all forms of entertainment media, not just video games. Which means that either everything in entertainment is OK or nothing is. If it's OK to watch Saving Private Ryan or Scarface in a movie theater or on TV, then it should be OK to play Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto on the video game console of your choice.
2) Even if that bill did try to restrict any depiction of fake "violent" content in all entertainment media, because Scalia said the Supreme Court made it perfectly clear in Winters v. New York that only sexual content or conduct can be considered obscene, fake "violent" content is essentially protected free speech under the First Amendment. Which means that fake "violent" content can not be restricted in the same way that sexual content can be or for any reason.
3) As the Supreme Court said in its holding in Brown v. EMA, "A legislature cannot create new categories of unprotected speech simply by weighing the value of a particular category against its social costs and then punishing it if it fails the test." Since the Supreme Court says that fake "violent" content is exempt from obscenity laws, that's essentially what any type of legislation against fake "violent" media would be doing.
And even if such a bill is meant to help parents, there's two problems with that. First, such laws do not actually enforce parental authority, but in reality, imposes governmental authority subject only to a parental veto. And second, if fake "violent" video games are really so "dangerous" and so "mind-altering", why would it be OK for a minor to even have or play one even if one of their parents says it's OK for that child to have and play it? It nullifies the whole argument against fake "violent" video games.
And this US Supreme Court decision is the culmination of a roughly twenty year legal battle that saw every attempt to legislate the sales of fake "violent" video games by nine different cities & states(Indianapolis, St. Louis, Washington state, Illinois, Michigan, California, Louisiana, Oklahoma, & Minnesota) ultimately get struck down in the courts as unconstitutional.
Ever since then, no politician has seemed willing to challenge the SCOTUS decision in Brown v. EMA, not even during the last Presidential election. In fact, fake "violent" content in entertainment media has been a dead issue since Sandy Hook. Especially when all of the past critics of the video game industry have virtually disappeared as they either retired, been discredited, or even sent to prison for unrelated reasons in the cases of former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich and former California state representative/state senator Leland Yee(who authored & sponsored the bill that was ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS).--2) All the research claiming a link between fake "violent" video games & real world violence or "aggressive behavior" is flawed & biased while also being negated by other research from sources that have more or equal prestige--
Part of the reason why the video game industry basically went undefeated in the courts is that the judges were very unconvinced by the so-called scientific research that claims a link between fake "violent" video games & real world violence or even "aggressive behavior".
The science is still very inconclusive despite people & parent advocacy groups claiming the science is settled on fake "violent" video games(ignoring how science & scientific theory actually works). For each study that claims that a causal link between fake "violent" video games & real world violence/"aggressive behavior" exists, there is another study that suggests that the link does not exist or even has the opposite effect.
In fact, a study done in 2013 by the United States Center for Disease Control at the order of President Barack Obama after the Sandy Hook shooting couldn't find a link. http://www.guns.com/2013/06/27/cdc-releases-study-on-gun-violence-with-shocking-results/
A more recent study by the University of York found no evidence that fake "violent" video games "caused" real world violence. Looks to me like if the science is indeed "settled", it's on the pro-video game side instead of the anti-video game side.
When the US Supreme Court looked at the research, Scalia & the other justices in the majority opinion were left unimpressed. The court noted that California's attorney admitted in the courtroom that the state couldn't prove a direct causal link between fake "violent" video games & real world violence and that the research California entered as evidence did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that violent games caused minors to act aggressively. The court also pointed out that nearly all the research is based on correlation(Correlation does not equal Causation) and most studies suffered from significant, admitted flaws in its methodology, citing Iowa State University professor Craig Anderson's admissions that "effect sizes" of exposure to violent games were "about the same" produced by exposure to television and that the same effects were found after watching Bugs Bunny and Road Runner cartoons, E-rated games like Sonic The Hedgehog, even viewing a picture of a gun.
As I've pointed out in past posts, the research done by Craig Anderson & Brad Bushman in particular have inherent bias to those studies. Anderson told Entertainment Weekly in its December 8th, 2002 issue that he hoped that his research into fake "violent" video games would lead to the video game industry paying monetary damages in civil courts over youth violence. Bushman has also authored research claiming that violent passages in the Bible(Cain killing Abel, the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah, the crucifixation of Christ) causes people to exhibit more aggressive behavior, as well as another study into lack of food and finding the same result. It should make a rational thinking person wonder if Bushman thinks that any tangible object causes people to become more aggressive and if Anderson had ulterior motives for his research.
A few years ago, some professors went looking into the office of the late Frederic Wertham, whose book "Seduction of the Innocent" about his research into comic books led to comic books getting neutered for decades(the main reason the video game industry fought back against the state and federal governments' attempts to censor the medium), and found some notes showing that Wertham falsified much of that very research, making comic books look worse than they actually are/were at the time.
Some people, especially conservatives, will try to use David Grossman's research, but his research is considered to be a joke after John Stossel debunked Grossman's false claims that the military uses video games to train soldiers to kill(laughably, Anita Sarkessian's former boytoy Jonathan McIntosh actually plagarized Grossman a couple of years ago).
As I posted in the LJ blog "It's Deja Vu All Over Again": As Stossel recounted in his book "Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity", Stossel called the Marines and asked them if Grossman's claim was true. The Marines told Stossel "No, we only use video games to teach the soldiers about teamwork and to improve their hand/eye coordination." That's it. Stossel then wrote "Get out the shovel", implying that he thought Grossman was full of shit. Which Grossman is.
Grossman also made claims about the 1997 Paducah, Kentucky school shooting that were proven false by Thomas J. Aveni of the Police Policy Studies Council. For example, Grossman claimed that the Paducah shooter had never fired a gun prior to the attack and somehow getting 8 headshots with 8 bullets. It turned out that the shooter had learned how to shoot a gun from his father and at a 4-H camp that summer. And it's kind of easy to shoot 8 people in the head and neck, killing 3, when you're basically standing right next to them in a crowded hallway. Talk about shooting fish in a barrel.
Recently, I realized that Grossman's own military background also discredits his research. By rising up the ranks of the US Army and eventually retiring as a Lt. Colonel, Grossman was in the position of both giving orders as a commanding officer(sometimes working as a drill sargent like Hartman in Full Metal Jacket) and receiving orders. In the military, you're told as a recruit that you have to follow the orders of your commanding officer without question(this doesn't take into account things like immoral orders). Outside of the military, you're essentially your own commanding officer, so you're still responsible for your own actions. And "just following orders" is not considered a vaild excuse for your actions.
Trying to compare fake "violent" entertainment to tobacco & alcohol is also a very weak argument as a tobacco product & alcoholic beverages are not protected by the First Amendment.--3) Violent crime rates in the US have fallen as video games became more popular, more "violent", & more technologically advanced--
Another problem that people ignore when they're falsely blaming fake "violent" video games for society's ills is that according to the FBI, violent crime in the United States has actually fallen by roughly 1/2 since 1991 despite a slight uptick in violent crime in each of the last two years. Yes, the US population has increased since then, but if fake "violent" video games were actually "causing" people to become more violent in the real world, then wouldn't the rate of violent crime have stayed the same or even increased since then?
Also, America shares a lot of its entertainment with the rest of the world, yet violent crime hasn't gone up around the world either. Separate investigations by both the Houston Chronicle and the Washington Post after Sandy Hook showed no correlation between sales of video games & violent crime in the US, Canada, the UK, Germany, Australia, Japan, China, the Netherlands, France, & South Korea.
Which says a lot. Why is it that Canada has lower crime rates than the United States when we Americans share the same viewing habits with our neighbors to the north and share each other's movies & TV shows?
Why is it that Japan also has much lower crime rates than the United States when Japanese entertainment media has more fake "violence" and the Japanese are much more permissive of nudity and sexuality in entertainment than the US is? In fact, most other countries are much more permissive of nudity and sexuality in entertainment media than the United States. I know that the US was founded by prudes, but it's been long since time that we shed that image.
Not only that, but video games are/were much more closely scruntized than movies, TV shows, & music ever were. The US Federal Trade Commission found in its most recent shopper survey in 2013 that the video game industry's ratings system was better enforced by retailers like Wal-Mart & Target than the movie or music industries. Especially when video games are the most expensive artform. Games still cost upwards of $60+ for a new release and that doesn't take into account downloadable content added to the game later on. What kid has $60 in their pockets?
Not to mention that, according to yearly surveys done by the ESA, the average age of a person playing video games is actually much closer to 40 years old than 20 years old. So it stands to reason that the video game industry is going to cater to an older audience that can afford to buy their products than to teenagers that need an adult to buy the game for them if the game is rated M.
It's no different than the television networks considering 18 to 49 year old adults the target audience of the shows they put on their channels. The reasons they go after that segment of the population is because those adults tend to have more disposable income(more likely to be less frugal, have less loyalty to a specific product, & less likely to buy the cheaper product Wal-Mart or local grocery store offers). The TV networks have their own problems, though, as that audience is leaving TV for the internet because internet service has become cheaper than cable service.--4) Point out the hypocrisy of critiicizing video games for their "violent" content but giving a free pass to movies, TV shows, music, books, & even the NFL--
People somehow think that video games are automatically bad because they're more interactive than the other entertainment media, ignoring that all entertainment is interactive. And when they whine about the fake "violence" in video games, they ignore the fake "violence" in movies, on TV shows, & in books.
In his own autobiography "Total Recall", Arnold Schwarzenegger says that he doesn't believe fake "violent" movies "causes" real world violence, which makes him look like a total self-righteous hypocrite for pushing California's anti-video game law.
People tend to forget that as long as humanity has existed, violence has always been a staple of our entertainment diet whether the violent actions were real or make-believe. In his book "Foley is Good and the Real World is Faker than Wrestling", Mick Foley pointed out the violence in some typical family favorite bedtime stories including:
-The Little Mermaid - amputation of tongue, suicide, impaling
-Jack and the Beanstalk - trespassing, robbery, cannibalism, murder by fall from beanstalk
-Hansel & Gretel - child abuse, child abandonment, trespassing, destruction of property, imprisonment, starvation, attempted cannibalism, murder by boiling in an oven
-The Wizard of Oz - decapitation, chopping off of both arms and both legs, breaking of necks, kidnapping, imprisonment, attempted murder, death by falling house, suggested drug use, contract killing, murder by melting
-Sleeping Beauty - rape, adultery, attempted cannibalism
-Little Red Riding Hood - attempted double homicide by eating, murder by drowning
-The Emperor's New Clothes - full male nudity
Even the Bible doesn't come away unscathed with stories of murder(Cain killing Abel), attempted murder(the Crucifixation & Resurrection of Christ), genocide(Noah's Ark), & destruction of property(Sodom & Gomorrah).
In his majority opinion of Brown v. EMA, Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out other books that minors read or have read to them have some gore in them. Besides citing Hansel and Gretel, Scalia also mentioned the stories of Snow White, Cinderella, The Odyessy, Dante's Inferno, and Lord of the Flies.
While people whined about video games, they also whined about how Mixed Martial Arts and the UFC was too violent for minors to view, yet they ignored that other contact sports like football and hockey are just as violent if not moreso. As I mentioned in my LJ post about the UFC's fight to overturn New York state's ban on MMA(which NY did overturn in 2016), Mick Foley, in his defense of WWE, pointed out that the NFL players themselves admitted how violent the sport of football is:
-"I like to think my best hits border on felonious assaults." - Jack Tatum in his 1979 autobiography "They Call Me Assassin"
-"I could never find a nonviolent way to hit a guy." - Conrad Dobler in his 1988 autobiography "They Call Me Dirty"
-"You hit hard and you hit first, where bashing someone unconscious is a badge of honor, and breaking bones is a treat. You need to be bad on the playing field, vicious and mean, that's part of the game. That is the game." - Tim Green in his book "The Dark Side of the Game"
-"I've always seen football as a sport like boxing where you get all your frustrations out and not be punished for it. We get to hit someone as hard as we want on every play and the man who beats the other man up worse wins. Bottom line." - former NFL player and WWE wrestler Darren Drozdov, who is best known for vomiting on the football between plays during a live broadcast of a preseason game on Monday Night Football, when asked by Mick Foley about the violence in an NFL game for Foley's 2nd autobiography "Foley is Good and the Real World is Faker than Wrestling". It should be noted that Drozdov became a quadrapalegic in 1999 when he was accidentally injured when D-Lo Brown slipped and fell attempting a running power bomb during a TV taping of WWE Smackdown.
-"Yeah, because you're not pulling hits in football. Whether you want to believe it or not, people are trying to hurt each other on every play."- Drozdov, when Foley asked him if the violence in football was worse than in pro wrestling as a follow-up question
To be fair, it's possible that Tatum and Dobler's statements were written by a ghost writer taking creative license even though they were known for being dirty players(Tatum is best known for a hit that left Patriots wide receiver Darryl Stingley paralyzed and unable to walk ever again, and both Tatum & Dobler were inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame), but Green and Foley(whose first two autobiographies hit #1
on the New York Times best seller list) wrote every single word of their own books.
-"What's football? It's chess. Tackle chess. And what's the quarterback? He's the king. Take him out, you win the game. So that was our philosophy. We're going to hit that quarterback ten times. We do that, he's gone. I hit him late? Fine. Penalize me. But it's like those courtroom movies, when the lawyer says the wrong thing and the judge tells the jury to disregard it, but you can't unhear and the quarterback can't be unhit." - Doug Plank(whose jersey number is the name of Buddy Ryan's 46 Defense he developed in 1981 as the Chicago Bears' defensive coordinator from 1976-1985) in an interview with Rich Cohen for Cohen's book "Monsters: The 1985 Chicago Bears and the Wild Heart of Football"
-"It's a word we're not allowed to use because of the concussions, but it's violence. Fans love to see the player wounded and even more to see that player get off the turf and stay in the game and strike back. Ben Roethlisberger limping across the end zone, Jack Youngblood playing on a broken leg in the playoffs, Emmitt Smith going on with his busted ribs and bruised lungs to carry the ball thirty times for almost two hundred yards in a big game against the Giants. He's dying, but he's playing. People can connect with that. It's how they want to be." -NFL Films producer Rob Ryan(no relation to Buddy Ryan or his sons Rex & Rob) when asked by Cohen why football became more popular than baseball as a response to then-Bears QB Jay Cutler leaving the 2010 NFC Championship game against the Green Bay Packers with a knee injury--5) Blaming fake "violent" video games for societal problems is just making excuses for someone's negative behavior--
Exactly as it says, the Blame Game is more popular than Grand Theft Auto or the NFL, simply because it's easier to blame tangible objects like video games or guns than it is to teach the public about how personal responsibility and personal accountability works or even teaching things like conflict resolution. How you act is ultimately your responsibility regardless of what you are exposed to in movies, TV shows, music, or video games. But it's become easier to feel good about yourself when you can divert the blame onto something else.
If fake "violent" video games or guns "cause" real world violence, then a pencil "causes" misspelled words.
It is not Anheuser-Busch's fault if a person abuses alcoholic beverages or drives drunk. It is not Chevrolet's fault if someone purposely breaks the speed limit and crashes their car. It is not Smith & Wesson's fault if someone uses a gun in the commission of a crime. It is not the NFL's fault when a high school football player dies from being tackled in a game.
And it sure as hell isn't the video game industry's fault or Hollywood's fault when a disturbed teenager shoots up their school.
It's not the video game industry's fault that parents today just don't understand that it is their responsibility to teach their child the difference between right and wrong, to monitor and control their child's consumption of entertainment media, and to teach their child that they are the only ones responsible for their behavior regardless of what they were exposed to both in entertainment and in real life.
The entire entertainment industry should not and cannot be held hostage by a small segment of the American public that wants to decide what the rest of us Americans can hear on the radio, watch on the television or in the movie theater, or play on the XBoxes, Playstations, or Nintendos. But what if a child should see, hear, or play something they probably shouldn't? Don't give me that bullshit about how parents can't control their children and can't be expected to monitor their children 24/7. Ultimately, it is the parents' responsibility to control their children's media consumption. The entire nation should not and cannot be held hostage so that everything in the entertainment media is suitable for 9 year olds who are still easily amused by flatulence, defecation, diarrhea, and urination.
It is not and it never was the entertainment industry's fault that the American public is seemingly disinterested in using the various parental control features that have been already offered to them for years whether voluntarily(like the various ratings systems) or involuntarily(the V-chip in TV sets was mandated by federal law in the mid-90s). And if they aren't interested in using those parental controls, it's either because they're comfortable montioring their own kids or they simply don't care. Plus, with the internet at our fingertips thanks to smartphones and tablets, it shouldn't take a parent no more than 5 minutes to do research on a particular game or movie or TV show so they could judge if it's appropriate for their own kids.
Ozzy Osbourne and Judas Priest each won lawsuits filed against them claiming their music caused people to commit suicide. Oliver Stone won a similiar lawsuit filed against him claiming that a young couple was influenced by the movie “Natural Born Killers” to commit a crime spree spanning three states. Even the video game industry itself has won every lawsuit that was filed against them over the years.
If we're going to expect people to respect personal responsibility, it starts with dismantling the Blame Game mentality, as well as demanding that parents take a more active role in their children's lives.
Can the XFL Succeed the Second Time Around?
The weekend before Christmas, news broke that Vince McMahon was giving serious consideration to resurrecting the XFL, the football league he started in 2000 and only lasted one season in 2001, because of the NFL's hit in the ratings mainly due to the National Anthem protests. Later in the week, VInce added more fuel to the rumor mill's fireplace by selling off some of his shares in WWE to raise $100 million for his new sports entertainment company called Alpha Entertainment. And finally, on January 25th, Vince finally announced that he is indeed bringing back the XFL in 2020 and in a way that will focus more on the game of football than on the sidelines.
But why would Vince McMahon want to bring back the XFL in the first place? Did taking part in the ESPN 30 For 30 documentary about the league give him the idea to bring it back?
I think the bigger question I have is can the XFL succeed the second time around? Does a relaunched XFL even have a chance to succeed? I think it could since it seems like VInce has learned from the mistakes he made in 2001.
One of the major moves he's making is starting Alpha Entertainment with the intent to keep that company completely separate from WWE(or as close to separate as it can get). Vince initially started the XFL as a part of WWE(just like he did with the World Bodybuilding Federation in the early 90s & WWE Films later on) with NBC coming in a month later as its partner in the league.
Also, it would appear that Vince must feel that his children Shane & Stephanie are now ready to run WWE without his input(the last couple of years, it does seem like Stephanie & Triple-H have been given more control of WWE, case in point would be the women's division being given equal footing with the men's division as it has reported that Vince isn't a fan of women's wrestling), so it looks like Vince will run Alpha Entertainment while Shane & Stephanie run WWE(with Stephanie & Triple-H running the wrestling product, Shane running the financial part). Vince still ran both WWE & the XFL while being the face of both products simultaneously.
Another thing helping Vince is the decision to start the new XFL in two years. The extra year should give the league time to develop players and the type of football they want to play, find cities to place teams, & Vince announced the XFL in 2000 to start play in 2001, but waited until a month before the season started to start training camps for the league with only two preseason games.
Vince will run into problems, mainly finding television partners & advertisers for the XFL. Has enough time passed that the XFL brand has lost its toxicity to advertisers & TV networks? While WWE has become much more corporatized in the last ten years, when Vince started the XFL, WWE was still in the middle of the Attitude Era. Which I think hurt the XFL just as much as the poor play on the football field and Vince & other WWE stars being involved in the product(WWE Monday Night Raw announce team Jim Ross & Jerry The King Lawler were calling NBC's B-game the 1st week before Vince quickly soured on Matt Vasgersian and moved good ol JR up to the main game with Jesse Ventura; Lawler ended up leaving WWE entirely weeks later because of a contract dispute between WWE and his then-wife Stacy "The Kat" Carter). Advertisers were skittish working with WWE to begin with(in part because of the Parents Television Council's campaign against WWE, though when the XFL season started, WWE had sued the PTC over its lies about the WWE product).
Also, the football landscape has changed dramatically since 2001. The original XFL had teams in New York/New Jersey, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Orlando, Memphis, Las Vegas, & Birmingham, Alabama. Los Angeles once again has two NFL teams(the Rams & the Chargers) and Las Vegas is getting the Oakland Raiders and got an NHL team. It helped that the league played games in Feburary, March, & April and it appears that will be the case again. Will the XFL keep the old eight teams or go with eight new teams?
And can Vince even find a willing TV partner? Dick Ebersol's no longer with NBC, NBC has been airing NFL games since 2006, and the XFL's other TV partners UPN & TNN no longer exist(UPN merged with The WB to form The CW in 2006; TNN was renamed Spike TV in 2002). While WWE has worked with ESPN on some ESPN 30 For 30 documentaries, like This Was The XFL and the Ric Flair 30 For 30, as well as letting ESPN do SportsCenter from WrestleMania & SummerSlam and the E:60 episode about NXT that focused primarily on Corey Graves and Adam Rose, would ESPN be willing to work with Vince on the XFL? Not to mention that the league will be once again competing for eyeballs against the NBA, NHL, NCAA(especially during March Madness), & NASCAR.
Then again, now that Vince has announced the new XFL and that the new XFL won't be like the XFL of 2001(no nicknames on the jerseys like "He Hate Me", for example), maybe that will help him get those sponsors & TV networks? Though it would be funny to see Bob Costas, the league's biggest detractor in 2000-01, working with Vince McMahon if McMahon's truly serious about focusing on the product on the field.
Recently, I read the book "How Trump Won" by Breitbart editor Joel Pollak & author/history professor Larry Schweikart about the 2016 Presidential election. While it did confirm a few things I pointed out in my LiveJournal blogs(how Donald Trump won the election), there were other things I was surprised by.
For example, the Access Hollywood "Grab them by the pussy" tape. While I was correct in assuming that NBC was saving the tape for the weekend before the election(as TMZ reported that NBC held the tape for "maximum impact"), I've always thought that NBC leaked it in a panic to 1)counter Wikileaks' release of the Podesta DNC e-mails and 2)because Tim Kaine losing the Vice Presidential debate to Mike Pence. Larry Schweikart points out in the book that he felt the tape("Sex Bomb #2
") was released early because polling data he was getting from PeoplesPunditDaily pollster Richard Baris & several Trump supporters showed that Trump was actually on his way to a much bigger win in the Electoral College(as high as 360 electoral votes) & a possible victory in the popular vote.
Schweikart noted that before the Access Hollywood tape dropped, Trump had Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, & Iowa on lock and was poised to win Michigan & Pennsylvania, while they still didn't seriously think Wisconsin would go to Trump despite having a few indictators. They even got an internal polling memo that showed Trump was within striking distance in Oregon(3 points down), Minnesota(1 down), Connecticut(2 down), & Rhode Island(2 down) & leading in Virginia & New Hampshire.
After the tape dropped, there was a pronounced effect despite Trump countering at the 2nd Presidential debate by inviting all the women that accused Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct. The tape ultimately cost Trump New Hampshire, Minnesota, & Virginia as well as the popular vote(Richard Baris' data had Trump potentially getting between 64 to 68 million votes before the Access Hollywood tape, but voters Baris called "wannabe elites" dropped plans to vote for Trump).
The book also showed how far off the polls were for the election especially in the states. RealClearPolitics had Hillary Clinton winning Florida by 3.2%, Pennsylvania by 1.9%, Michigan by 3.4%(Trump won by .3%), & Wisconsin by 6.5% as well as Trump winning Ohio by 2.3%(Trump won Ohio by 8.6%). Schweikart showed how one polling group that was considered an outlier got the election closer than the other polls. The Trafalgar group asked people participating in their polls, "How do you think your neighbor
will vote in the election?"
Another interesting point Schweikart & Pollak makes in the epilogue chapter is that Bernie Sanders would not have beaten Trump if he were the Democratic nominee, pointing out that Sanders' radical far left views would have cost him Nevada, New Hampshire, & Colorado among other states(Schweikart points out that Trump could have won Nevada, New Mexico, & New Hampshire if Gary Johnson wasn't the Libertarian Party's candidate).
There was also some funny mentions of Election Night stories on Twitter of CNN banning all "Hillary in the bunker" stories as the election results were coming in and increasingly in favor of Trump, including a mention of her blaming then-FBI director James Comey and even President Obama for her losing the election, a story of Hillary having to be physically restrained from violently attacking her campaign managers John Podesta & Robby Mook(whose friend built a computer program that simulated the election based on data inputs the Clinton campaign relied heavily on), and even Hillary in a drunken rage screaming psychotically about the Russians.
All in all, a good read. Highly recommended if you want to understand how the 2016 presidential election played out.
The special US Senate election in Alabama to replace current US Attorney General Jeff Sessions came and went on Dec. 12th and Democrat Doug Jones edged out Republican & former Alabama Supreme Court chief justice Roy Moore by roughly 16,000 votes, if I remember correctly. But while the far left are celebrating Jones' victory as a blow against President Trump, they should keep in mind that while Jones did get more votes than Moore, he didn't exactly earn the win. And it may not even hurt Trump's re-election chances in 2020.
If we're being honest with ourselves, Doug Jones would not have won the Senate seat if the sexual misconduct allegations against Roy Moore didn't exist. Jones' margin of victory was less than the amount of votes for various write-in candidates(about 22,000), so in a two-candidate race, Jones didn't even get 50% of the vote. Even though Moore is a far right Christian fundamentalist zealot who was kicked off the Alabama Supreme Court twice for his refusal to abide by the US Supreme Court's order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Supreme Court building(as it the violated the separation of church and state), Jones was still trailing Moore by double digits in the polls until the Washington Post published the first allegations against Moore. Moore was basically done after that no matter how many times he denied the allegations against him.
As Styxhexenhammer666 pointed out, Jones' victory shows how weak both the Republicans and the Democrats are. The GOP lost an election in a solid red state(just like in the Louisiana governor's race in 2015 where then US Senator David Vitter lost in a runoff to Democratic state representative John Bel Edwards in part due to Vitter being involved in the DC Madam scandal as a client), but the Democrats barely beat a guy who was accused of molesting teenage girls!
So there was no real winner last Tuesday night. Jones might have won the election, but he won in such a way that it turns off people that would have supported him if the allegations against Moore weren't in play. And he would have gained more support if he hadn't acted like a neverTrump Democrat. Jones may very well be a half-term senator if he doesn't become a more moderate Democrat or actually address issues important to the people of Alabama. That means Jones can't just play to the far left progressive base(i.e. the racist black women and other minorities).
I said before that there is not enough people on the far left or the far right to win a national election while the two sides do tend to cloister in certain parts of the country(the far left in the West Coast and the Northeast; the far right in the Southeast and Midwest). There are moderate Democrats, moderate Republicans, & independent voters in the center who reject the extreme views of the far left & far right, and they've been increasely marginalized over the years because the extremes on both sides have become the loudest voices.
As Scoot has consistently pointed out before & after last year's Presidential election, the GOP was in the middle of a civil war between the far right conservatives & the moderates over the direction of the Republican Party. And it doesn't appear to have settled even with Donald Trump's victory. Adding to the GOP's woes is that their base doesn't like that some politicians within the party have had little to no support of Donald Trump since he took office(in particular, John McCain & Lindsey Graham among others). Also, the GOP has spent the last seven years promising their base that they would repeal and replace Obamacare, and they still haven't done it. They might at least repeal the requirement that a US citizen had to buy health insurance or pay a fine to the federal government as part of the tax reform bill, but for some Republican voters, that wouldn't be good enough for them.
Likewise, I think that there will be a civil war within the Democratic Party over that party's direction between the far left progressives & the moderates(if there isn't one already and we're just not hearing about it because the corporate legacy news media won't report on it), especially if the Democrats lose in next year's mid-term elections despite the public's growing disapproval of President Trump's job performance as President. Even though it seems like the moderate Democrats have sided with their more progressive counterparts for the most part, that could change as the far left has become more authoritarian. What doesn't help the Democrats is their lack of a party platform beyond being against everything President Trump does in office. It didn't work for them against George W. Bush in 2004 and it didn't work for the Republicans in 2012 against Barack Obama. And being against Trump can only go so far for the Democrats, especially if Robert Mueller announces he found no evidence of collusion between President Trump and Russia during last year's Presidential election and clears Trump of any wrongdoing.
Also, the recent rash of allegations of sexual harassment & assault that have continued unabated since the beginning of October has arguably hit the Democrats harder than it has the Republicans so far. Two prominent Democrats in Congress, Senator Al Franken(Minnesota) and Rep. John Conyers(Michigan) recently resigned their seats over the allegations against them, as did Republican Rep. Trent Franks(Arizona). But it's the allegations in Hollywood that may end up doing the most damage to the Democrats as the vast majority of Hollywood are Democrats(or pretend to be to get work) and heavily donate to Democrats with a few exceptions(Clint Eastwood, James Woods, Tim Allen, Arnold Schwarzenegger even moreso since he divorced Maria Shriver). It stands to reason that the Democrats' ability to raise money for future elections might take a hit as more allegations surface.
Eventually, the actions and broken promises by both parties will turn off their respective bases. You would think that it would help third parties like the Libertarian Party or the Green Party. But the problem is that we have used the results of last year's election to become even more territorial with our political beliefs and have further justified our divisions to the point where we can't really call ourselves the "United" States of America.
While listening to the Saints getting royally screwed out of a game against the Atlanta Falcons in the Falcons' new stadium(C-O-N-spiracy theory being floated around at the time of this writing(Dec. 8th)) is that the NFL wanted the rematch two weeks later on Christmas Eve to mean something because a Saints win would have all but eliminated the defending NFC champions from playoff contention by then), the same two things that seem to plague the Thursday night games reared its head:
1) One team getting too many players injured during the game
2) The game just not being good to begin with
And that's mainly because 90% of the time, the two teams have only two days to prepare for the game. In fact, the Saints got shafted by the NFL's flex scheduling in that the team's game Dec. 3rd in the Superdome against the Carolina Panthers was moved from a 12pm kickoff to a 3:25pm start time because both teams are playing for 1st place in the NFC South division. And it wasn't the first time that happened(in 2014, the Saints played a Sunday night game vs. the Green Bay Packers before playing a Thursday night game against Carolina in Charlotte).
The NFL is not going end the Thursday night games anytime soon as long as they're getting millions of dollars from both the legacy TV networks(CBS & NBC in this case) and the internet streaming sites(Amazon Prime in this case; last year, the NFL had a deal with Twitter to stream Thursday night games online. While it was a one year deal, the NFL probably would have found a way out of a long term deal with Twitter losing users and having no user growth in the last year between the draconian rule changes, unjust bannings of certain people, and new similar platforms like Gab & MInds popping up).
So here's how the league can improve player safety and make the games more watchable:
1) Expand the bye weeks from Week 2 through Week 15. That way every team plays Week 1, Thanksgiving week, Week 16, & Week 17. And as LiveJournal user Freezer suggested, teams getting the bye week play the Thursday night game the following week. WWL Radio host Kristian Garic(also Saints radio sideline reporter) has suggested giving teams two bye weeks(which the NFL did try during the 1993 season).
2) Work out a deal with NBC to air a Thursday night doubleheader(like the Monday night doubleheader on ESPN) or even a Friday night game on opening weekend and have one team from each game play the Week 2 Thursday night game like the NFL already does with the Thanksgiving Day games(two of the teams playing on Thanksgiving Day play the following Thursday).
3) Expand the rosters to 60 players(and letting them all dress out for the game as opposed to having 46 for the game) and expand practice squads from 10 players.
Another way the league can improve player safety: Add the targeting penalty from the NCAA where any helmet-to-helmet hit gets a player ejected from the game(not just for hits on the quarterback or a defenseless wide receiver).
Also, there's no real difference between running into the kicker and roughing the kicker, so just do like they did with the face mask penalty(used to have a 5 yard penalty for inadvertantly grabbing the face mask, but the league got rid of it and just made all penalties for grabbing the face mask a 15 yard penalty) and make running into the kicker in the act of kicking the ball a 15 yard penalty regardless.
-Note: This was written before news came out about a former Falcons player being one of the referees for the Saints-Falcons game.-
The Sexual Harassment Allegation tidal wave & the hypocrisy swimming next to it
Over the last two months, there has been a wave of allegations of sexual misconduct starting with Hollywood studio executive & power player Harvey Weinstein(who is now being investigated for sexual assault in New York, where he has been accused of rape by actress Paz de la Huerta, & in London) and has continued almost unabated as the list of prominent public figures beyond Hollywood that are also being accused of or have admitted to sexual misconduct is starting to grow longer than Hillary Clinton's list of excuses for why she lost the 2016 Presidential election or Chris Jericho's list of wrestling holds he knows.
The list of well-known people accused of or admitted to sexual misconduct(that I can remember) included celebrity chef John Besh(who lost his steakhouse deal with Harrah's Casino in New Orleans as a result), actors Kevin Spacey(who used the allegation by actor Anthony Rapp to come out of the closet as gay, making him look worse in the process), Ben Affleck, Jeremy Piven, Dustin Hoffman, Slyvester Stallone, George Takei, Charlie Sheen(who apparently had sex with Corey Haim on the set of "Lucas"), & Ed Westwick(Gossip Girl star who is under investigation by the LAPD for rape), filmmakers Brett Ratner & James Toback, comedian Louis C.K., fashion photographer Terry Richardson, US Senator Al Franken(D-Minnesota), former President George H.W. Bush, & former Alabama Supreme Court chief justice and current US Senate candidate Roy Moore. Even musician Mariah Carey has been accused of sexual harassment.
Several prominent news media personalities & executives have lost their jobs over sexual harrassment & assault allegations in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal including NBC News political commentator Mark Halperin, Defy Media senior vice president Andy Signore, Vox editorial director Lockhart Steele, Ain't it Cool News founder Harry Knowles, The Atlantic contributing editor Leon Wiseltier, & NPR news chief Michael Oreskes.
And it wasn't just just women that were telling stories of harrassment against them. Even male actors like "Dawson's Creek" star James van der Beek & Terry Crews made statements on social media about being harrassed. Crews mentioned a time when a male studio executive grabbed Crews' crouch in front of Crews' wife at a party. Corey Feldman has begun naming people he claims assaulted him & Corey Haim as teenagers.
Roy Moore has denied all the allegations against him, even threatening to sue the Washington Post for defamation over the Post's publishing the allegations. In particular, it has since come out that one of his accusers is now herself being accused of lying about Moore by her own stepson.
But the allegations of sexual harassment & assault have become another example of the growing amount of hypocrisy that has been the biggest contributor fueling the deep political divide within America.
People on the left that were cheering over the last year when Fox News fired its founder Roger Ailes & its longtime anchor host Bill O'Reilly over allegations of sexual harassment from former female Fox News hosts inculding Megyn Kelly & Gretchen Carlson where Ailes & O'Reilly paying multi-million dollar settlements found themselves having to denounce Harvey Weinstein and they're now being forced to denounce former President Bill Clinton over the allegations against him that have hovered over Clinton since they first surfaced in the 1990s(after defending Clinton while criticizing current President Donald Trump over the Access Hollywood tape with Billy Bush last year). In fact, US Senator Kristen Gillibrand(D-New York) recently said that Bill Clinton should have resigned as President in 1998 after the scandal with Monica Lewinsky came out.
It is hypocritical for Democrats & their supporters to claim to champion women's issues, yet look the other way when Democrats like Bill Clinton & Harvey Weinstein use their positions of power to lure unsuspecting, unwilling females into sexual situations. I think this counts as irony that using their power to attempt to have sex with women who may not have been willing participants has put Weinstein, Bill Clinton, Ailes, & O'Reilly within the same group of people regardless of their political beliefs.
Going back to the allegations against Roy Moore, it is hypocritical for people to call for Moore to be expelled from the US Senate if he wins the special election to replace current US Attorney General Jeff Sessions if the allegations are proven to be true, yet not call for Al Franken to resign his seat after he admitted to groping Leeann Tweeden's breasts while she was sleeping on a flight back to the US from a USO tour overseas before his election to US Senate.
And if it is true that one of the accusers is lying and even faked Roy Moore's handwriting on her high school yearbook, then shame on her, because it damages the crediiblity of the other accusers regardless of if those accusers are telling the truth about Roy Moore.
But the biggest hypocrisy involves the whole idea of "listen and believe" that feminists like Anita Sarkessian & Zoe Quinn among others have pushed in recent years. Third wave feminists & the left have been stating that any victim of sexual assault or harassment must be believed without question. However, just like Colin Kaepernick & the other NFL players who refuse to stand for the National Anthem to protest "racial inequality", their ideals fly in the face of the US Constitution.
The US Constitution guarantees that when you are accused of a crime, you are considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that applies to every citizen of the United States regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or religious beliefs. And those words in the US Constitution must apply equally to all citizens of the United States or those words will mean absolutely nothing! The idea of "listen & believe" automatically presumes guilt regardless of evidence proving innocence beyond reasonable doubt. Modern day McCarthyism at its finest(even if "Tailgunner Joe" ultimately dindu nuffin).
Women's rights advocates like Sarkessian, Quinn, & Linda Sarsour and male feminists/SJWs like Steve Shives have seemingly abandoned the idea of equality to wanting women to have it both ways where women are both protected like they were in the old days and autonomous but only when it suits them. Sarkessian, Quinn, & Brianna Wu argue for equal treatment, but when the going gets tough, they go whining to the United Nations about harassment and abuse.
Society has created a problem by allowing the definitions of harassment and assault to be defined too broadly(and by conditioning people to automatically assume the worst in people). We've made it seem like women can't handle any sexual overture from men. We've allowed telling an off-color joke to weigh the same as unwanted and inappropriate physical contact, and as such, it really does a disservice to victims of sexual & physical abuse. Female comedians like Amy Schumer can make sexist jokes about men, but male comedians like Andrew "Dice" Clay get criticized and crucified if they make sexist jokes about women.
Is it equality they really want or do they want to replace a so-called "oppressive patriarchy" with an equally oppressive matriarchy? As long as the "war between the sexes" mentality continues to exist, equality between men and women will continue to be undermined by political opportunists. Respect is a two way street and if you want respect, you have show respect in kind.
We need to end this idea of guilt by association. Anita Sarkessian doesn't represent all women(or speak for all women for that matter) just as Harvey Weinstein or his behavior is not representative of all men. As Scoot posted on WWL.com on Oct. 11th, "There are many men who have never felt the need to use their position of power or their sense of male superiority to lure women into sexual situations.
There are those of us who do not define what it means to be a man by the number of sexual encounters we have had, and we also reject the notion that sex should be seen as a conquest of man. But I know those men exist.
Sadly, men like the Harvey Weinsteins of the world look down on the men who are secure with their masculinity and do not feel the need to have masculinity defined by a superficial and casual act of sex with a women who is not an equal and willing participant.
In the same way that women do not want to be defined by the women who use their P-power to get what they want(*cough*Zoe Quinn*cough*), there are a lot of men who are powerful, masculine and intelligent who do not want to be defined by the Weinsteins of the world."
One last thing about Roy Moore, who looks worse if Moore somehow wins the US Senate election? The people of Alabama or the Democrats? This election is becoming eeriely similar to the Presidential election last year in which accusations of sexual misconduct is more important than the issues and if Moore wins, it would show that the Democrats did not learn a damn thing from last year. Main difference is that, unlike Donald Trump, Roy Moore is a Christian fundamentalist zealot who actually has no respect for the US Constitution that he would be swearing an oath of office to uphold.
Over the last month, there were a couple of major mass shootings in the United States that once again caused the nanny-state liberals & the far left to push for gun control.
On October 1st in Las Vegas, a 64 year old man ambushed people at a country music festival, killing 58 people and wounding over 500 others from his Mandalay Bay hotel room with semi-automatic weapons that were modified to make the weapons automatic. while five weeks later in Sutherland Springs, TX(about 30 miles SW of San Antonio), a 26 year old gunman killed 26 people & wounded 20 others in a church before he killed himself after he was shot himself by a bystander who chased him until he crashed his car in an attempt to get away from the scene.
The shooting in Las Vegas in particular surpassed the Pulse nightclub shooting by a Muslim terrorist in Orlando last June as the deadliest mass shooting in US history.
The calls for more gun control in the aftermath of the shootings wouldn't bother me too much if there wasn't so much hypocrisy and stupidity behind those calls.
For example, there is washed-up has-been comedian Michael Ian Black whining on Twitter calling the National Rifle Association a "terrorist organization" just because the NRA defends the 2nd Amendment. Safe to say that scumbag wasn't joking.
While I do have my issues with the NRA & its supporters falsely blaming the entertainment industry, specifically the movie & video game industries, for previous mass shootings like Sandy Hook, calling the NRA "terrorists" (and thus equating the NRA to actual terrorist groups like ISIS & Al-Queda) does absolutely nothing to advance the conversation about gun rights. It's name-calling for the sake of name-calling & lessens the meaning of the word "terrorist". No surprise there as insane far leftists have lessened the meaning of the words "racist", "sexist", "Nazi", and so on. And also, blaming the NRA for mass shootings takes the responsibility for the shootings away from the shooters. Guns are no more to blame for a mass shooting as trucks are for for the terrorist attack in New York City by a Muslim terrorist days before the Sutherland Springs church shooting.
It also points out the hypocrisy of the left. When there's a Muslim terrorist attack, they expect only thoughts & prayers, but when a white man shoots up a church, a school, or a music festival, they demand more than thoughts & prayers.
There was also the CBS executive who got herself fired for a Facebook post where she said she had "no sympathy" for the victims of the Las Vegas shooting because they were "Republican gun-toters".
Jeff Holiday made a great point recently on his YouTube Saints podcast he co-hosts with Wizard of Cause that Hollywood is too obsessed with the quick fix for complex problems(then again, both the left and the right push for solutions that are politically expedient). The point that idiots like Michael Ian Black, Christopher Titus, or Michael Moore completely miss is that taking away guns from law-abiding citizens won't solve a gun problem that America doesn't really have to begin with.
America's problem isn't with easy access to guns, fake "violent" entertainment, or even the legacy news media's 24 hour coverage of tragedies like Las Vegas or Sutherland Springs, for that matter. They are symptoms of the actual problem America has and that is with instant gratification.
Scoot made a great point in a blog he posted on WWL.com on October 10th. We as a society have become a little too conditioned to expect things to happen in an instant. We can immediately post our thoughts about anything on social media like Facebook, Twitter, Gab, Minds, etc. We can order stuff online on Amazon or eBay and get it the very next day. And such, patience is losing its status as a virtue.
Because of instant gratification, people today, even if they are normally responsible gun owners, have become more willing to use a weapon or use any other form of violence to settle any dispute they may have.
America has another problem has exacerabated the problem with instant gratification and that problem is with rage. We've become rageaholics and not in a good way like Razorfist.
Scoot made another interesting point recently saying that there is an unprecedented level of hatred in society today. People try to blame President Trump for it, but he's ultimately not the cause, he's the product of it even though he has arguably benefitted from it to an extent.
These problems with instant gratification and rage are solvable by teaching personal accountability, respect, & conflict resolution.
The Trump Derangement Syndrome continues unabated as the National Football League became the latest to become infected by the disease when everyone involved in the league got butthurt over recent comments by President Donald Trump at a Sept. 22nd political rally in Huntsville, Alabama. President Trump took shots at the NFL and its continued allowance of players kneeling or sitting during the playing of the US National Anthem, The Star-Spangled Banner, to protest what they see as racial inequality and the behavior of police officers in the line of duty when it comes to black criminals, saying that the NFL team owners should fire any player that refuses to stand for the national anthem(referring to the protesting players as sons of bitches, which I can understand people complaining about the President using the term, but I think it's a trivial thing to complain about as I don't care what kind of language President Trump uses). President Trump also suggested that NFL fans should boycott NFL games if players continued to sit or kneel during the National Anthem.
( Read more...Collapse )
A new NFL season just started as of this writing(Sept. 8th) and the NFL is dealing with the same problems they were last season.
Just like then-San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick started during preseason last year(which spread as other players joined in), some players like the Seattle Seahawks' Michael Bennett and several Cleveland Browns players have taken it upon themselves to refuse to stand for The Star Spangled Banner, the national anthem of the United States, as a form of protest against what they perceive as racial inequality and injustice.
( Read more...Collapse )
Being Our Own Worst Enemy: The Extremely Politicized Reaction to President Trump's Response to Charlottesville
The continued push by both the extreme far left & the extreme far right to divide the people of the United States of America into several factions came to a head on August 12th when during a protest by white nationalists in Charlottesville, VIrginia over the city's planned removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee, an alleged white supremacist drove his car into a group of counter protestors, killing one woman and injuring others.
So naturally, the response became more politicized than the response to when white supremacist Dylann Roof murdered nine black people in a historic black church in Charleston, South Carolina ever was. Everybody felt the need to virtue signal that they were against racism, some Southern US cities like Baltimore, Maryland pushed to do like New Orleans and took down Confederate statues in their city in the middle of the night, and a group of Communist black supremacist racists in Durham, North Carolina pulled down a Confederate statue like they were members of ISIS(a judge in Georgia was unjustly suspended for making that comparsion of the counter-protestors in Charlottesville).
( Read more...Collapse )
Back in February, I posted about how the argument over whether the tabloid trash corporate legacy mainstream news media has become the enemy of the American people has actually made the American people our own worst enemy by focusing more on confirming our own biases and excusing the left's childish behavior since Trump won the election in November.
However, what CNN did recently just proved President Donald Trump right when he tweeted that the news media is the enemy of the American people.
On July 2nd, President Trump tweeted a gif he found online of him attacking Vince McMahon at WrestleMania 23 in Detroit with a CNN logo covering Vince's head. The tabloid trash news media cried foul like they always seem to do when Trump does anything, defending CNN while criticizing Trump for "inciting violence" against journalists, which is a laughable claim. The gif was meant to mock CNN because of recent videos from Project Veritas that showed a CNN producer and CNN political analyst Van Jones separately admitting that the alleged collusion between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia was "bullshit" and a "nothingburger", which it actually was and still is despite Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian attorney who falsely claimed to have information on Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Two days later on July 4th(America's birthday), a CNN reporter apparently was able to find out the identity of the person that originally posted the gif on Reddit and allegedly threatened to release his identity if he didn't apologize, which the person did. But in the story, CNN said that they reserved the right to release the person's identity at a later date.
It doesn't matter how old the person in question is(some reports had him as 15 years old, CNN claims he's over 30), CNN, a news organization owned by a multinational media conglomerate, can't just threaten to ruin somebody's life just because the network was butthurt over a joke. And what makes it worse is that if CNN could do that to one person, they, MSNBC, or even Fox News can do this to anybody.
It also shows how pathetic CNN is that they have no problem spending money and putting forth an effort to go after a Reddit user for making jokes about the network, but they can't put forth that same effort when it comes to investigating the corruption in Washington outside of the allegations against the Trump administration.
This blackmail by CNN makes it even harder for the corporate news media to regain the trust of the American people. A survey late last year showed that only 6% of the American people currently trust the news media and Fox News did a survey in Februrary that showed that more people thought President Trump was more honest & trustworthy than the news media is!
I've once posted that once you lose all credibility, it's very hard to regain it. The corporate legacy news media has lost all of its credibility by focusing more on being the first to break news as opposed to being accurate, as well as being too focused on pushing a preconceived agenda as opposed to being fair to both sides of any given argument.
If the role of the news media is to report the news in a credible manner & to see through political agendas to find the truth, then they have failed in that role, and CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc. should be replaced by networks that will report news accurately without bias. However, everyone(not just the American people) has to recognize that the news media is biased because we've conditioned ourselves to hear what we want to hear and see what we want to see instead of challenging our beliefs.
At the end of the day, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc. are all for-profit commercial enterprises run by multinational media conglomerates. If we really want them to change, we have to speak out against them. Even if it means cancelling our cable and newspaper subscriptions and just getting our news online.
June 27th, 2017 marked the sixth anniversary of the landmark Brown v. EMA decision by the US Supreme Court. For those that haven't previously read my past LiveJournal posts & for those on Minds.com, here's a quick summary of Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion:
-Video games are free speech under the First Amendment
-Video games can NOT be treated differently than any other form of entertainment like movies, TV, or music under the Fourteenth Amendment
-Fake "violent" content in all forms of entertainment is exempt from US obscenity laws
-People under 18 have a First Amendment right to view free speech with or without parental permission as long as the material in question is not judged to be obscene
In previous Brown v. EMA anniversary posts, I posted about:
-how the video game industry left it up to the gaming community(and leaving us high & dry in the process) in debating fake "violent" video games against the news media & the so-called parent advocacy groups (Two part post in 2013)
-how the gaming community started fighting amongst ourselves (2015)
-how the ship sailed on legislation against fake "violent" video games because of the SCOTUS decision, the entertainment industry having the video game industry's back, fake "violent" content in entertainment not being the major issue it once was, politicians having bigger issues to worry about, & the virtual impossibility of overturning a SCOTUS decision or amending the US Constitution (Two part post last year)
To be honest, I didn't think I'd have anything to write about this year. But then, a couple of stories, one that's been ongoing since February & one that came up recently, made me wonder if the focus of the both the moral panic profiteers and the corporate legacy tabloid trash mainstream news media has shifted away from the video game industry(especially since the entertainment industry has been taken over by SJW's) and towards new targets, specifically the Internet.
The recent story that drew my attention was about some group of idiots in Denver trying to put forth a ballot initative to ban the sales of smartphones to people under the age of 13. Really, Denver? Really?
To state the obvious, it's blatantly unconstitutional even if the proposed ban doesn't appear to be completely based on content, as it doesn't just violate the rights of the minors that want a smartphone, it violates the rights of the parents who think that their child is mature enough to handle a smartphone. The argument of the people pushing for the Denver smartphone ban is similar to the one rejected by the late Justice Scalia & the US Supreme Court in Brown v. EMA.
Not to mention the obvious question that is similar to the arguments against fake "violent" video games, and that is "What kid has $500 to buy an iPhone, an Android, or a Samsung Galaxy?"
The ongoing story that shows the news media and the moral panic profiteers' shift to new targets for their fake morality policing to continue playing the "Blame Game" is YouTube's recent mass demonetization of content creators.
Back in mid-Feburary, three reporters for the Wall Street Journal wrote a hit piece targeting YouTube personality Felix Kjellberg, better known as PewDiePie. The reporters watched several of PewDiePie's videos, taking several jokes about Nazis completely out of context, and presented their findings to Disney & Maker Studios, PewDiePie's business partners, before publishing the story. causing both to drop business ties with him & cancel his show on YouTube Red.
I've said in the past that there is a huge difference between being genuinely offended and just looking to be offended, and it's usually the latter. While there was criticism generated against the tabloid trash reporters by PewDiePie's fellow YouTubers and his subscriber base & the reporters' plan basically failed(PewDiePie actually gained at least two million more subscribers since the WSJ article was published on Valentine's Day), the problem with moral busybodies whether their outrage is genuine or not is that if you give them a single inch, they'll want to take a mile or more.
So it should have come as no surprise that about a month later, the same reporters at the Wall Street Journal started going after companies that advertise on YouTube before videos play if those content creators allow ads to play before or during their videos, claiming that their ads appeared before racist & terrorist videos. And as a result, dozens of companies pulled their ads, basically screwing over every content creator on YouTube that isn't backed by a multi-national corporation like Time Warner, Comcast, or Disney.
And the news media wonders why they've been losing the public's trust for so long.
While the advertisers have returned to an extent, the content creators have only gotten half as much ad revenue as they were getting before, at best. And it doesn't help when YouTube is demonetizing videos for any vague reason that they deem not friendly for advertising. Like for example, criticizing Islam & talking about current events like terrorist attacks.
The content creators that aren't backed by multi-national corporate entities have had to rely on their fans donating money through Patreon, GoFundMe, or through YouTube's Superchat format as well as posting videos on other video sites like Vid.me, Vimeo, DailyMotion, Twitch, or Minds to make up the difference.
It appears that YouTube has joined the long list of entertainment mediums that have been attacked by self-appointed "moral guardians" attempting to shove their beliefs down the public's throat. The same "moral guardians" that whined in the past about fake "violent" video games, WWE, rap music, heavy metal music, television, movies, books, William Shakesphere's plays, and so on.
And YouTube has been getting hit in recent months. There was controversy in late April/early May over a YouTuber named DaddyOFive who posted videos of him and his current wife playing pranks on their children, especially on his youngest son, that some felt were child abuse, including a video where his stepson destroyed the kid's tablet and he ended up shoving the child face first into a bookshelf, causing a nosebleed. He ended up privatizing all his videos except for an apology video he made when the story was featured on ABC's Good Morning America. And he also lost custody of his two youngest children to their mother.
Then there is this very recent news of a 21 year old YouTuber who convinced his 19 year old pregnant girlfriend to shoot him with a .50 caliber gun while he held a book to stop the bullet for a prank video. Unless that book was the size of War & Peace or an encyclopedia, a book wasn't going to stop a bullet like that, and it didn't. He died, and now his girlfriend is being charged with 2nd degree manslaughter & reckless discharge of a firearm.
There may be some people trying to blame YouTube for that guy's death, and while YouTube may have some culpability for that particular stunt because of the demonetization caused by the Wall Street Journal(and the Wall Street Journal should get some blame themselves), it seems like they would have tried to do the video anyway to get more views. That guy somehow thought it was a good idea to risk his life for a stupid video and now he's dead because of his own stupidity.
It goes back to personal accountability. The only person ultimately responsible for your actions is you. It doesn't matter what you watch on TV, what you listen to on radio, what books you read, or what video games you play, you still make the conscious choice to commit an action.
But why have the news media & the self-appointed moral guardians shifted its focus from video games to the internet within the last year? The simple reason is that the internet has become a much bigger threat to both the news media & their corporate masters than video games ever were. Fewer people are watching TV shows on the television itself, more people are canceling their cable TV services and getting just internet service(because in some cases, internet access has become cheaper than even the basic cable bundle), more streaming video websites like Netflix, Amazon, YouTube, & Hulu are offering original content in addition to the shows on broadcast & cable TV, & the television audience is getting older while younger people are tuning out and going to the internet.
Even the National Football League's ratings for regular season games were down for the most part last year, even factoring in that it was a Presidential election year and the NFL's ratings usually dip until after election day during those years. LiveJournal user Freezer made a great point about the NFL's ratings dip in October, explaining that the NFL has its own issues to take into account regarding their TV ratings with a diminished quality of play, rules changes that put bigger emphasis on the passing game(even if you have a Hall of Fame QB, if you don't have an average at best defense or an offensive line to protect said QB, you're always going to struggle to make the playoffs), the Thursday night games being unwatchable mainly due to teams only having two days to prepare, and the league's promotion of the Sunday Ticket package exclusive to DirecTV for $100 to $200 a year(it allows you to watch every game instead of just the games in your area) & the Red Zone channel available everywhere for $5 a month extra for a sports package(Red Zone is Sunday Ticket on one channel, but it switches games whenever a team is in a position to score a touchdown).
To paraphrase Freezer, just like the NFL, Disney, Comcast, Time Warner, CBS, Viacom, News Corp, & Discovery want to still scream "The Sky Is Falling" even as they're raking in all that money from Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, & Google.
It also doesn't help that the politicians outside the US, specifically & especially in Europe, are pushing for laws to restrict people's access to the Internet because they don't like that people can speak their minds freely, the one thing they fear the most about America.
Keep fighting the good fight. Just because video games aren't under attack now doesn't mean they won't be in the future. But it's become bigger than just video games.
Also cross-posted to my Minds.com account: https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/728617934926127104
On June 14th, another shooting made national headlines, this time in Alexandria, Virginia, a suburb of Washington, DC. However, unlike other shootings, even though nobody died other than the shooter, one of the victims was relatively well known as the shooter, a 66 year old Bernie Sanders supporter who hated President Donald Trump, targeted Republican legislators as they were practicing for a charity baseball game the next night at Nationals Park against the Democrats.
Rep. Steve Scalise(R-Louisiana*) was wounded along with several other lobbyists & Capitol Police officers. It was said that if Scalise wasn't there or didn't have a 24 hour security detail from being Majority Whip in the House of Representatives(the 3rd biggest job in the House behind the Speaker and the Majority Leader) with him, the shooting would have been a lot worse with many more victims. (As of this writing on June 17th, Scalise was still in critical condition, though his condition was improving to the point where he is awake, after taking a bullet to the hip, damaging internal organs in the process.)
Yet, the shooting brought Republicans & Democrats together, as it could have been the Democrats targeted if Hillary Clinton had won in November instead of Trump. The politicians' talk of unity is growing as the political violence that has become increasingly prevalent in the last year because of the political divide hit very close to home.
The talk of unity should also extend to the American people and the American news media. I've mentioned in the past on how we as Americans have become our own worst enemy. We've become our own worst enemy through our own confirmation bias, our reliance on a news media that seems more beholden to the interests of their multi-national corporate parent companies than the general public's, as well as our tendency to promote hysteria on any given issue.
As I previously pointed out as well, we've lost the spirit of the First Amendment when we have been made to be afraid to speak out against things we disagree with, especially on social media. (It doesn't help when the social media sites like Twitter, Facebook, & even YouTube, which are based and operated in the United States, are actively working with foreign governments like England & Germany to suppress people's criticism of certain topics such as the refugee crisis in Europe.) Again, being free to speak openly about any topic at any time without the fear of persecution or even prosecution allows society to stay civilized and functional.
This is probably the biggest reason we've become our own worst enemy. Because of this attitude, we have lost our civility & have become way too willing to be confrontational with our beliefs to the point of becoming violent towards those who dare to have an opposing viewpoint.
While I firmly believe in personal accountability and that the only person responsible for the shooting in Alexandria, VA on June 14th is the 66 year old Bernie Sanders supporter, I feel like the left-leaning news media, certain SJW's, & even some people in Hollywood must also bear some responsibility for James Hodgkinson's actions.
When reports came out after the Presidential election about people being attacked in the streets and in schools just for supporting Donald Trump's campaign, the left had both a legal & a moral obligation to denounce this behavior as wrong and nip it in the bud. However, not only did the left seemingly support this behavior, they outright encouraged it in some aspects. Here's some more examples:
-in January, CNN pundit Symone Sanders(a former press secretary for Bernie Sanders, no relation to him) defended the behavior of the four black people in Chicago who kidnapped and tortured a white special needs person simply because they hated Donald Trump. Sanders, who is black, two months earlier also mocked the report of a white girl being attacked by a black girl at school for supporting Trump when another panelist called her out for not condemning the violence.
-at the Screen Actors Guild Awards in January, during his acceptance speech, the creator of the Netflix show Stranger Things made reference to "punching bullies in the face" to a standing ovation.
-on Inauguration Day, white nationalist Richard Spencer was sucker punched in the face without provocation while being interviewed. The SJW response to the act was of glorification and justification because white nationalism was conflated with Nazism.
-in early February in Berkeley, CA, Milo Yiannopolous had his planned speech at the University of California-Berkeley canceled because of student protests that turned into full-scale riots led by scumbag far-left groups called By Any Means Necessary and Antifa, which included attacks on perceived Trump supporters. Due to fear of rioting, Ann Coulter had her planned speech in late April canceled as well.
-on the HBO show Real Time with Bill Maher, comedian Jim Jeffries told Piers Morgan to "fuck off" when Morgan was defending Trump from the false comparisons to Adolf Hitler that the far left ideologues have been pushing since Trump announced his Presidential candidacy in June 2015.
-in April, a free speech rally in Berkeley, CA run by Trump supporters turned into a fight with BAMN & Antifa when the far-left groups were allowed to jump barricades. The Trump supporters fought back and ran the Antifa scumbags off despite getting no help from the Berkeley Police Department, who were allegedly ordered to stand down by the scumbag mayor of Berkeley, an alleged supporter of those far-left groups.
Because the left, fueled by their irrational hatred of President Donald Trump, chose to encourage negative behavior at every opportunity, they essentially set the stage for what happened in Alexandria, VA. Steve Scalise's blood is on their hands.
Bridging the divide and keeping the bridge from being burnt down will take time. We can start building that bridge by denouncing violent behavior and groups that support violence against people that have opposing viewpoints and also by encouraging an open dialogue that challenges our views without fear of myopic labels("racist", "sexist", "homophobic", "Islamophobic", etc.) that are nothing more than cheap shots meant as a silencing tactic. Finally, cut the cord. Call Comcast, Cox, Charter, DirecTV, etc. and cancel your cable & satellite service. Just get internet service. CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, etc. are owned by multi-national media conglomerates and will maintain their biases until it affects their bottom line.
*- The district Scalise(who's from Metairie) represents covers the southern halves of Terrebonne & Lafourche Parish.
Also cross-posted to my Minds.com account: https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/723547176105418752
Between the Wall Street Journal's libelious hitpieces on PewDiePie & later YouTube and Stephen Colbert's joke about President Donald Trump performing oral sex on Russian President Vladimir Putin on his late night talk show, both sides of the political spectrum have complained recently that comedy is going too far.
There is a difference between being satirical & just being mean-spirited. PewDiePie's jokes about Nazi Germany that were taken completely out of context by three yellow journalists looking to make a name for themselves was satire. Stephen Colbert telling a series of jokes about President Trump culminating with Colbert saying that Trump's mouth was Putin's "cock holster" because Trump abruptly cut off an interview with the host of CBS' Face the Nation(a friend of Colbert's) was mean-spirited.
In the last week, however, one comedian took things so far, it made both sides call her out for her mean-spiritedness.
So Kathy Griffin decided to pose for a photo with her holding a bloody knife in one hand and what appeared to be the severed head of President Trump in the other.
The backlash against her not just from President Trump's supporters & conservatives but also from liberals including Chelsea Clinton(the daughter of former President Bill Clinton & failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who I'm certain Griffin supported for President in the last election along with 95% of Hollywood) was so intense, not only did she have to apologize within hours of posting the photos on Twitter, she also lost several stand-up comedy gigs, an endorsement deal with some company called Squatty Potty(I had never heard of it, but my brother pointed out to me that the product was on Shark Tank), and her job co-hosting CNN's New Year's Eve coverage with Anderson Cooper(who also disavowed her & her actions). And the Secret Service is said to be investigating her.
However, during a press conference on Friday, Kathy Griffin lost any & all credibility & respect she had left, as well as any goodwill she might have gained through the contrite apology she gave after the initial backlash to the photo by appearing unapologetic despite offering a second apology and even trying to blame President Trump & his family for HER behavior towards him.
Griffin gave a lame excuse for the photoshoot, claiming that it was in response to Trump's comments about then-Fox News reporter Megyn Kelly(who has since moved to NBC) having "blood coming out of her ears & wherever" in regard to Kelly being moderator of the first debate amongst the Republican Party's Presidential candidates that Fox News hosted & aired in July 2015.
So Griffin waited almost two years to respond to some throwaway line that the tabloid trash mainstream news media used as one of many soundbites during the election to make Trump look worse than Hillary Clinton? And then decides the logical response is to make herself look exactly like an ISIS terrorist?
And then as if it wasn't bad enough, she turns around and tries to falsely accuse the Trump family of "trying to ruin her career" because President Trump himself called her sick, his current wife First Lady Melania Trump questioned Griffin's mental health, and his older sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump also criticized her behavior. Griffin also complained of receiving death threats herself and even falsely accused the Trumps of orchestrating it.
To quote Ron White, Kathy Griffin, the next time you have a thought, let it go. And to paraphrase Chris Jericho, Kathy Griffin, SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!!!!!!!
You're the one who chose to have photos taken of you holding up what appeared to be the severed head of the President of the United States of America.
You're the one who chose to post those photos on the internet thinking you were going to get a positive response. Well, other than from the Hollywood scumbags who already don't like Trump.
You damn well knew those photos would cause controversy and get you in hot water, because you told the photographer "We may have to move to Mexico" and "We may end up in prison", because those photos could be perceived as a death threat against the President of the United States of America!
WHAT DID YOU FUCKING THINK WAS GOING TO HAPPEN, YOU STUPID BITCH?!
If Kathy Griffin somehow thinks that something that could be and was seen by some people as a death threat to the President of the United States of America was supposed to be seen as a joke, then Melania Trump is right to question her mental health & President Trump is right to call her sick.
President Trump & his family didn't ruin your career, Kathy Griffin. You ruined your career the second you clicked the Tweet button and you fucking know it. Then you burned down what was left of the bridge between you and the American people by falsely blaming Donald Trump for something you did. President Donald Trump didn't screw Kathy Griffin. Kathy Griffin SCREWED Kathy Griffin. You reap what you sow.
Recently, the city of New Orleans started removing four Civil War monuments roughly two years after the New Orleans City Council voted 6-1 to remove the monuments as "public nuisances" and several attempts in the court system failed to overturn the decision. Within the last month, the Liberty Place monument and the statue of Jefferson Davis were removed and placed in a storage facility with the statues of PGT Beauregard & Robert E. Lee still left to eventually come down.
However, was there really any good reason to take down the monuments beyond New Orleans mayor Mitch Landrieu wanting to make a national name for himself as a recent report of a 2020 Presidential bid suggests?
The NFL, the NBA, and the NCAA apparently had no qualms with those monuments when New Orleans was hosting Super Bowls, NBA All-Star Games, Final Fours, & BCS National Championship Games on a semi-regular basis. In fact, the NBA handed New Orleans this past season's All-Star Game after pulling the game from Charlotte because of the North Carolina bathroom bill. And WWE is holding WrestleMania at the Mercedes-Benz Superdome in April 2018 for the second time in five years.
So, why are those statues a problem now if those major sports leagues seemingly didn't have one to begin with? It started with the racially motivated mass shooting at a historic black church in Charleston, SC in which nine black people were murdered by a white supremacist. After the South Carolina state legislature voted to permanently remove the Confederate battle flag from the state Capitol's grounds in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, it seems to me like Mitch Landrieu saw an opportunity to one-up then-South Carolina governor Nikki Haley(a Republican who has since resigned after being appointed by President Donald Trump as US Ambassador to the United Nations). Landrieu, who is a Democrat from a very prominent political dynasty in New Orleans, apparently saw a way to break out of the shadows of his father Moon Landrieu(a former mayor of New Orleans) and his sister Mary Landrieu(a former three term US Senator who lost her re-election bid in 2014 to then-US Rep. Bill Cassidy in a runoff).
So it can be argued that the push to remove the Confederate Civil War monuments was not a grassroots effort by the people of New Orleans, but came from the whims of a power hungry term-limited DemoCuck mayor looking for greener pastures. To paraphrase the late Justice Antonin Scalia in the majority opinion he wrote in Brown v. EMA, it's like Mayor Landrieu's goal in removing the statues was what he thinks the people ought to want as opposed to letting the people decide for themselves.
And knowing of the widespread corruption within politics whether it's in Louisiana, New York City, Chicago, Washington, DC, or even Berkeley, CA, even though we live in a representative republic, were the members of the New Orleans City Council that voted for removing the monuments really representing the people of New Orleans or were they acting on their own self interests?
When you give self-appointed moral guardians such as the Parents Television Council & the Wall Street Journal(see the WSJ's recent attacks on PewDiePie & YouTube) an inch, they're going to want a mile or more in return. And the racist black supremacist groups supporting the removal of the statues want that mile as they want the statues of President Andrew Jackson & Bienville taken down as well as wanting Tulane University & Touro Hospital to change their names.
And as such, the Louisiana state legislature is looking at bills to keep other monuments from being taken down to draw a line somewhere. The decision to take down the monuments is increasingly unpopular within Louisiana & outside New Orleans as a recent survey by LSU showed that over 70% wanted the statues to remain.
Regardless of the reasons why the statues were even put up in the first place(I tend to think it was as an act of defiance stemming from the Southern states being treated like conquered territories after the Civil War by the Radical Republicans in the US Congress going against the plans of President Abraham Lincoln after he was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth*), removing them will not change history and also won't change what's in the hearts & minds of individuals.
And if the monuments really are nothing more than "consolation prizes", then there's no point in people celebrating the removal of the statues. Geaux to hell, Mitch Landrieu.
*-which in itself begs the question, if the South was treated better than they were after the Civil War, would those statues even had been built in the first place or would there even be as much pride in the Confederate battle flag as there has been? Also, on that same thread, if Germany had been treated better than they were after World War I, would Adolf Hitler have risen to power as quickly as he did?
I mentioned in a previous post on LiveJournal
about how the Republican Senators' refusal to even consider President Barack Obama's appointment of Merrick Garland to the US Supreme Court after Justice Antonin Scalia's death was the result of the GOP betting on both winning the White House and keeping control of the Senate to give their party's nominee(which ended up being Donald Trump) the chance to replace Scalia with a similiarly conservative judge to maintain the ideological balance of the Supreme Court. And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ended up winning that bet when Trump won the election and the GOP maintained control of the Senate.
With Neil Gorsuch's confirmation and swearing in, the Court is back to full strength and to its 4-4-1 split, keeping the Court center-right as opposed to a center-left shift.
While the Republicans started the fight by not giving Garland hearings, by attempting to block Gorsuch's nomination with a filibuster to keep the Senate from calling for a final up-or-down vote where Gorsuch needed 60 votes to be confirmed, the Democrats allowed the GOP to finish the fight. The GOP Senators voted to change the rules to make it where Supreme Court appointments now only need 51 votes for confirmation instead of 60 votes, and Gorsuch was confirned by a vote of 54-45(1 GOP Senator was unable to vote due to having back surgery; 3 Democrats voted for Gorsuch in part because they face re-election bids in states that Trump won decisively in the 2016 election).
The Democrats made a huge mistake in filibustering Gorsuch, regardless of whose bright idea it was to filibuster. Senate Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer, DNC chairman Tom Perez, and any Democrats that agreed to filibuster Gorsuch are idiots for having done so.
The Democrats claimed that filibustering Neil Gorsuch wasn't about getting some form of payback against the Republicans for their treatment of Merrick Garland, but it appeared that it was indeed payback from last year. Not to mention that the Democrats and their supporters are still butthurt over Trump winning the election. The Democrats allowed their increasingly far-left ideology to get the best of them.
Even if Neil Gorsuch is going to be nothing more than a carbon copy of Antonin Scalia or worse than Scalia or Clarence Thomas as the Democrats claimed, then it wouldn't change the ideological balance of the Supreme Court one bit. There would still be four conservatives on the court with four liberals and one moderate that leans conservative.
The filibuster shows that the Democrats were not as confident in their claims that Gorsuch would not have gotten the 60 votes needed even though more than 40 Democratic Senators publicly stated that they weren't going to vote for Gorsuch. They knew that there were some moderate Democrats up for re-election in 2018 and at least three of them did say that they were voting to confirm Gorsuch(and those same three did). They also knew the Republicans threatened to use the so-called "nuclear option" to change the rules for Supreme Court appointments from 60 votes needed to 51. President Trump even told McConnell & the other GOP Senators to change the rules if they had to.
If the Democrats were confident that Gorsuch would not win confirmation, then they didn't need to filibuster. But by filibustering, they gave the GOP reason to change the rules, thus making the Democrats look like they were the ones unwilling to compromise instead of the Republicans. Perception is reality.
Not only that, by filibustering when there really was no need to do so, the Democrats made it so much easier for President Trump's future appointments to the Supreme Court to join the bench. They made it easier for Trump to replace aging Justices like Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Anthony Kennedy, or even Stephen Breyer, potentially pushing SCOTUS further to the right with 7 conservatives to 2 liberals. It stands to reason that there is now some internal pressure on Clarence Thomas to retire so Trump can go ahead and replace him on the bench. By choosing to fight Gorsuch's nomination, the Democrats basically forfeited any future fights against replacing Ginsberg or Kennedy.
Not only did Chuck Schumer drop the ball, moderate Democrats also dropped the ball by not challenging Schumer and staying silent when the party decided to filibuster Gorsuch. Moderate Democrats should have been telling Schumer and other far left Democrats that it was a bad idea to filibuster Neil Gorsuch.
Moderate Democrats need to start fighting the extreme far-left within the party if the Democrats expect to regain a foothold in American politics. The Democrats have lost almost 1,000 seats in the fifty state legislatures since Obama became President. There is not enough people on the far left or the far right to win an election in the United States.
The Democrats have not learned anything from their loss to Trump. The far-left extreme faction within the Democratic Party have pushed moderates and even regular liberals to the other side by refusing to compromise and work with the other side.
The recent confirmation of President Donald Trump's appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the US Supreme Court to replace the late Antonin Scalia continues to show that there may be no end in sight to the partisanship in politics.
Scoot recently posted a blog on WWL.com
about President Donald Trump's recent tweet calling the news media, specifically CNN, msnbc, ABC, & CBS, "the enemy of the American people," asking if it was the news media or President Trump that is the enemy of the American people.
I did tweet back to Scoot that it was both, but by continuing to let our own biases divide us, we the American people are becoming our own worst enemy.
But the more I thought about it, the more I agree with President Trump about the news media.
I have brought up on numerous occasions how the news media on both sides promote negative stories because they know people will tune in to those stories and believe what they see, especially when it comes to laying blame for society's ills. Even though I would have agreed with Trump about the news media anyway based on my own criticisms of the news media, President Trump is really a product of our divided society, not the cause of it as the SJWs would have you believe.
The problem with the news media is that it's not as independent as it once was. A few years ago, a study came out claiming that the 7 biggest media conglomerates(Discovery, Disney, Time Warner, Comcast, News Corp, CBS, & Viacom) own 95% of what we watch on TV(but in reality, it's around 62% than 95%). And according to Wikileaks through the Podesta DNC emails and OpenSecrets, some of those media companies donated millions of dollars to Hillary Clinton's campaign. When the news media's corporate masters have a vested interest in what they cover, it's highly improbable for the news media to remain unbiased.
The news media will always have a liberal or conservative bias to it as long as we continue to seek out the media that most reflects our own views. While it doesn't help when both sides call each other "fake news" and they don't even try to hide those biases anymore, the mainstream news media put themselves in that position by being so biased that only 6% of the American people even trust them according to a recent survey.
And it don't help the news media's cause when they're caught misrepresenting facts or outright making false statements about the subjects of their stories. We have the freedom of the press in our First Amendment, but that doesn't mean you can defame someone because you don't agree with their political views.
Another problem is the left's continued refusal to acknowledge or even accept that President Trump won the election fair and square.
The left continues to behave like spoiled, petulant children in their protests over Trump's victory, whether it was the so-called "Women's March" the day after Trump's inauguration that was really nothing more than a leftist feel-good festival* in the words of Blaire White, the violent riots at Trump's inauguration and at University of California-Berkeley, or the recent hijackings of town hall meetings organized by Republican members of Congress.
You can yell "You work for us" all you want at these town hall meetings, but it's your behavior there that determines whether your Congressperson or Senator will even listen to your grievances. Especially if you're going to ignore their answers to your questions or get yourself thrown out of the meeting by being a disruptive jerk.
And while your childish behavior gets publicity through the news media, it continues to turn off potential allies. The far left has already pushed classic liberals and moderates into supporting President Trump with this McCarthyist "with us or against us" mentality, and that's going to continue as long as the far left continues to justify its behavior.
Basically, if you act like a child, you get treated like one. Act your age, not your shoe size. You've become your own worst enemy by behaving this way.
*-When one of the march's main organizers supports Sharia law, which is incompatible with women's rights, let alone Western civilization, the protestors lose their credibility.
In my post-election essay on how Donald Trump won the election and how Hillary Clinton blew it worse than the Cleveland Indians blew their 3 games to 1 lead in the World Series the week before the election, I posted this at the end:
"It's funny how people were criticizing Donald Trump and his supporters for not wanting to accept the results of the Presidential election if he lost the election, yet people are protesting and refusing to accept the results of the election because Donald Trump won the election convincingly. It's also sad and it's pathetic. What's also sad and pathetic is that these protestors are claiming to be protesting against "hate" when these protests have stemmed from their hatred of the President-elect.
This is the UNITED States of America. Let's act like we are deserving of that name. Let's quit using the election results to justify staying divided and acting so territorial with your political ideologies just because your Presidential candidate lost the election. We are all Americans first, everything else is second. The world is watching, and they are watching you behave like 5 year old children throwing temper tantrums in Wal-Mart because you didn't get the toy or candy bar you wanted.
So let's become an United States of America that we can be proud of. Accept the results of this year's Presidential election and move on with your life."
It's been close to six weeks after Donald Trump won the Presidential Election, and the whining from the left is still going strong, whether it's the SJW's, the Hollywood celebrities or even the political establishment itself being a bunch of sore losers. It'd be funny if it wasn't so damned sad and pathetic. At least they're no longer protesting in the streets. Progress?
While President-Elect Donald Trump does carry the burden of uniting the country, Hillary Clinton's supporters still carry their own responsibility of keeping an open mind towards Trump as Hillary did say in her concession speech the morning after the election and work with Trump's supporters as Americans even if they disagree. However, while Trump has arguably kept up his end of the bargain of bringing the country back together(meeting with President Obama two days after his victory to start the transition, and even having multiple meetings with Mitt Romney, one of his biggest detractors during the election, about being Secretary of State, a job Trump ultimately picked ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson for), Clinton supporters have failed the country by willfully refusing to give Trump an open mind.
Oh, yes, the left have kept themselves busy over the last six weeks, blaming everyone and everything other than Hillary Clinton for her defeat at the hands of Donald Trump.
Hillary Clinton bears the ultimate responsibility for her losing the election, not third party candidates like Gary Johnson & Jill Stein, not the people that voted for Johnson, Stein, or other third party candidates like Evan McMullin, and not FBI Director James Comey for temporarily re-opening the investigation into Hillary Clinton's private e-mail server while she was Secretary of State in the final two weeks of the election because the FBI found e-mails involving her in an unrelated investigation of the estranged husband of one of her advisers.
And no, President Obama, it is also not Fox News' fault Hillary lost. Or Russia's fault. Or "Fake News" sites. Or even the Electoral College's fault.
Being a sports fan who has my favorite teams, the Hillary Clinton supporters sound no different than some of us sports fans after our favorite team loses. I should know, I've done my share of that numerous times, moreso when LSU plays Alabama. The Republicans blamed everyone other than Mitt Romney for his loss to Obama in 2012, and now the Democrats are doing the same with Hillary's defeat.
The media didn't determine the outcome of the election. What happened on November 8th was that many Americans in the middle of the country away from the shining seas demanded change, not caring what anybody living in Los Angeles and New York thought, while the Democrats either became complacent and chose not to vote thinking Hillary Clinton had it in the bag or decided to vote for Donald Trump or a third party candidate instead or didn't vote at all because they didn't like Hillary Clinton.
It's Hillary Clinton's own fault that she lost six states worth a total of 99 electoral votes to Donald Trump. Six states that voted for Barack Obama in the last two elections, including Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, which the Republican Party candidate hadn't won since Ronald Reagan's landslide victory over Walter Mondale in 1984. It's Hillary's own fault she took the American working class for granted and allowed Donald Trump to swoop in and win their votes.
It's Hillary Clinton's own fault that she had more political baggage than Trump did and that she wasn't as popular or even charismatic as her husband still is. It's also her own fault that she refused to take responsibility for her actions, which didn't help her with voters.
It's Hillary Clinton's own fault that she didn't provide a platform beyond "I'm not Trump" and "I'm a woman" and allowed herself to be dragged away from the center, making Trump appear as the more moderate candidate between the two.
It's Hillary Clinton's own fault that she was the most unpalatable and unlikable Democratic Party Presidential candidate since Al Gore, with only Trump having a worse unfavorability rating during the campaign even though Trump's supporters were much more enthusiastic about Trump than Hillary's supporters ever were for her.
And it's Hillary Clinton's own fault that she and the DNC thought that Donald Trump would be the easiest candidate to beat out of all the Republican Party's nominees even though Trump's Q rating topped hers because he built his brand longer and more successfully than she built hers.
But the Democrats still chose to give her the nomination over the more popular Bernie Sanders. And Bernie Sanders still chose to support her even though the DNC e-mails released by Wikileaks showed that the DNC actively screwed him out of the nomination, burying him like she was Triple-H. But no, it's not Hillary's fault that she lost, it's everyone else's fault for rejecting her, Obama's, and the Democrats' ideology. And it's gotten really pathetic watching the left continue to make excuses for Hillary's shortcomings. And it also shows a completely ridiculous lack of respect for the electoral process.
For example, Jill Stein asked for recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, states that Donald Trump won to clinch the Presidency for him, complaining about voter fraud, yet she didn't ask for recounts in Minnesota and New Hampshire, states Hillary Clinton won. Nor did she ask for recounts in Illinois, California, or New York, states Clinton decisively won where political corruption is rampant. While Wisconsin did recount its votes(even though they probably already recounted them before certifying the results) and found that Trump gained over 100 extra votes, judges in Michigan and Pennslvania rejected attempts to recount votes in those states mainly because Stein barely got 1% of the vote.
It's gotten more ridiculous as President Obama is now trying to claim that the CIA told his administration that their intelligence showed Russia and Russian President Vladimir Putin tried to interfere in the election on Donald Trump's behalf. The Obama Administration pushed this narrative a month before the election, but everybody was probably too busy focusing on the Access Hollywood tape to even notice.
The intel is only as good as the source it comes from. This statement isn't a knock on the CIA itself, but rather on the sources they gather the intel from.
How does the CIA know its intel is genuine? How do they know that their sources in Russia aren't giving them false intel for making those assumptions? How does Obama know if Putin isn't playing him and the CIA by providing false intel based on the assumption that Obama and Hillary Clinton would just blame Putin for her losing to Trump fair & square? How do we know that China and Saudi Arabia didn't try to interfere in the election themselves on Clinton's behalf? And can we the American people even trust anything Obama even says about the election at this point, especially when he and his wife both openly campaigned for Clinton and he's apparently still bitter over them losing?
And while that's going on, the left are apparently trying to get the members of the Electoral College to reject the will of the people in a final desperate bid to keep Donald Trump from occupying the White House for the next four years.
It's getting beyond pathetic and it's become disgraceful. America made its choice on Election Day. Everyone that ran for President knew the rules going in. The popular vote of each state determines how the electoral college votes and the first candidate to reach 270 electoral votes wins the election. Kind of like a football game. It's not Donald Trump's fault that Hillary Clinton fumbled six states to him and made so many mistakes running her campaign, allowing him to win the election with 305 electoral votes. It doesn't really matter how many votes Hillary got across the country(and her popular vote total is just as artifically inflated as Katy Perry's breasts) as she couldn't win where it mattered just like Al Gore in 2000.
It's like retroactively changing the rules of the game immediately after the Super Bowl ended just because the team favored by the NFL and/or Las Vegas bookmakers didn't win the game. Presidential elections should never be treated like the Kentucky Derby and people shouldn't put money down on who the polls tell them will win.
The bottom line is that Trump won the election fair and square, and it's pathetic that people are still bitching about it six weeks after the election even though Clinton was a worse person than Trump. That's saying something.
I'll finish this essay with something Scoot wrote in an open letter to his listeners on his blog on WWL.com which was posted on Election Day:
"My hope is that America unites after this divisive election and I, too, hope that our audience unites with me and the show. Presidential elections have always yielded only one winner and this year will be no exception.
No one likes when the candidate they so strongly supported in conversations, calling radio talk shows or in conversations with friends and family loses the election. You don’t have to be happy about that, but what we should do as Americans is accept that one side wins and the other side loses.
Accepting the winner does not mean you have lost your values or political ideology – it simply means you understand the system in which we all participate. Accept the advice you would give to the other side if your candidate wins, and that is to understand that respecting the outcome of an election in America doesn’t change who you are – it only means you have the courage to face defeat without feeling defeated. And you work hard to support the next candidate the most reflects your views."
The Left Have Only Themselves To Blame For Donald Trump Becoming President of the United States
So, Donald Trump did indeed beat all the odds like he was SuperCena and won the 2016 Presidential election, beating Hillary Clinton in what some people are calling the biggest upset in US political history and becoming the first member of the WWE Hall of Fame to become President of the United States. And it wasn't just that Trump won the Presidency, he won it decisively. He won the electoral college 305-233, even though Clinton won the popular vote by over a million votes, roughly double the margin of victory Al Gore had over George W. Bush in the popular vote in 2000! Guess they finally counted all the votes of the illegal immigrants and the dead people in Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles, Denver, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, and Albuquerque.
Trump won despite everything being against him. In fact, even sports results that were considered reliable indicators of how the election would turn out were in favor of Hillary. The Washington Redskins won their last home game before the election(a 27-20 win over the Philadelphia Eagles on October 16th)*, Alabama beat LSU 10-0 on Nov. 5th**, and the Chicago Cubs won the World Series in a thrilling Game 7 on Nov. 2nd, beating the Cleveland Indians 8-7 in 10 innings***.
And Hillary Clinton, her supporters, the Democrats, the mainstream news media, the political establishment, Hollywood celebrities, and even the social just us warriors only have themselves to blame for Donald Trump's victory on November 8th, because the left took everything and everyone in America for granted.
The left basically assumed that Hillary Clinton was destined to win, especially after Donald Trump won the Republican nomination. The left assumed that the same people that voted for Barack Obama twice would also vote for Hillary. The left assumed that people, especially women, would vote for Hillary Clinton simply because she's a woman and make more history because she would be the first female US President. The left assumed that by attacking Trump on his negative image, it would somehow negate Hillary's own equally negative image by making him look even worse than Hillary did.
Assumptions are the mother of all fuck-ups and the left made the wrong assumptions, grossly underestimating the mood of the American people. And there are several reasons why Hillary Clinton lost a Presidential election she was expected to win.
Hillary Clinton lost because she couldn't get as many Democrats to vote for her as they did for Barack Obama in 2012 & 2008, especially in states that Obama won in both 2008 & 2012: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, & Iowa. She took it for granted that she would win those states. Or she focused too much on Florida and Ohio(as well as on solid Republican states like Arizona and Georgia) that she ignored Wisconsin and Michigan for the most part. It cost her big time.
Losing Ohio as early as she did was the first domino to fall. Losing Florida was the next domino and it really damaged her chances of winning. Even though she got more votes in the Miami area than Obama did in 2012, Trump got more votes in the rural areas of the state, especially in the northern panhandle around Pensacola and Tallahassee as well as in central Florida. What also doomed her in Florida was the Cuban-Americans that escaped from Fidel Castro's tyranny who were very upset that President Obama was attempting to end the trade embargo on Cuba and that Obama even met with Castro.
What really clinched the Presidency for Trump was Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is seen as Alabama sandwiched inbetween Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Clinton had a very big lead in the state early, but as the votes were being counted, Trump was gaining ground on her, and eventually surpassed her with 80% of the vote counted. When the media realized that all the votes in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh had already been counted at that point, that's when the realization set in that Trump had won. Especially after the Associated Press called the state for him at around 12:40am CT Wednesday morning. Then at 1:30am, the AP called Wisconsin for Trump and declared him the next President as CNN began reporting that Hillary called him to concede.
Hillary Clinton lost because Democrats just weren't as excited for her candidacy as they were for Obama's in 2008 and his re-election bid in 2012. Even though she won the Democratic party's nomination, it was only after she got an unforeseen and unexpectedly strong challenge from Bernie Sanders. Sanders had the grassroots crowd while the Democratic political establishment favored Clinton. Even though Sanders campaigned for Hillary after the Democratic Convention, most of his supporters refused to follow suit. They either decided not to vote, voted for a third party(most famously Susan Sarandon voting for Jill Stein), or even voted for Donald Trump.
Hillary Clinton lost because fewer minorities voted for her than they did for Obama in 2012. In fact, turnout among black voters was down from 2012. And not only that, even though more women voted for her than they did Trump(53% to 41%), fewer women voted for her than expected. And think about this: A slight majority of white women(52%) voted for Donald Trump!
Hillary Clinton lost because she was seen as part of the Washington political establishment that Americans were getting increasingly fed up with because they felt like no one in Washington was even listening to them. They felt like Obama was (Brother) Nero playing a fiddle while Rome burned and Hillary would take over playing that fiddle. A caller to Scoot in the Afternoon on WWL radio months ago said that Trump scared her, but she was more afraid of the status quo. Americans put more faith in a billionaire businessman because he was a political outsider and they were afraid of nothing changing or things getting worse under Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump was seen by many Americans as a bigger embodiment of change than Hillary Clinton was.
I made an observation in my essay about whether fake "violent" media would even be a campaign issue in the election(turns out my instincts were right and it wasn't) that I felt like Hillary Clinton was trying to avoid making the same mistakes Al Gore made in 2000 along with whatever mistakes she made when she lost the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama in 2008. However, it seems like she fell into the same trap Gore did in 2000. While Gore fell into a trap when he distanced himself from President Bill Clinton after the Monica Lewinsky scandal when Gore actually needed Clinton to champion him, Hillary ended up falling into the same trap by embracing President Obama and his policies.
In 2000, the Republicans made it more about Bush vs. Clinton than Bush vs. Gore and talked about how Bush would bring morality back to the White House after Clinton was impeached by the House over the Lewinsky scandal, but was acquitted by the Senate, mostly along party lines. And since Gore distanced himself from Clinton and also started campaigning against fake "violent" media, he was seen as being no different than George W. Bush.
In this election, it seemed like it wasn't just Trump vs. Hillary, but also Trump vs. Obama and Trump vs. the World while the GOP was just along for the ride. Hillary campaigned that she was going to continue Obama's policies while Trump campaigned that he was going to end those policies.
Even though President Obama championed Hillary and he and First Lady Michelle Obama campaigned for her, it's like the Democrats that voted for Obama the last two elections just weren't as enthusiastic about Hillary's campaign as they were his campaigns. More people attended Donald Trump's rallies than they did Hillary's rallies, even though Hillary had so much support from Hollywood celebrities like Katy Perry, Beyonce, Jay-Z, Bruce Springsteen, and Jon Bon Jovi and sports stars like LeBron James. Donald Trump had little, if any, support from Hollywood celebrities or even Nashville celebrities. And Trump, being a major celebrity in his own right, didn't need them.
Hillary Clinton lost because the mainstream news media focused more on scandal and gossip than on the issues. The left-leaning news media outlets thought that by promoting more negative stories about Donald Trump(like the Access Hollywood tape that NBC leaked) while sweeping negative stories about Hillary Clinton under the rug(like Wikileaks' release of hacked Democratic National Committee e-mails), it'd make more people support Hillary. All it really did was solidify the public's growing perception that the news media is biased against conservatives, and to use one of Hillary's campaign speeches in a ironic way, it offered a dog whistle to Hillary's biggest and most hateful supporters, the SJWs being the most hateful and the Hollywood celebrities being the biggest names.
The left spent more time complaining about how Trump was unqualified, how he was a "racist", a "misogynist", a "homophobe"(which is a blatant lie since he came off as more pro-LGBT than Hillary Clinton ever did), an "Islamophobe"(what exactly is irrational about fearing an unreformed ideology that promotes murder of non-bellevers and LGBT people?), and calling Trump's supporters "racists", "misogynists", "homophobes", and "Islamophobes" just for supporting Trump, while flatout ignoring Hillary's own actions. Hillary herself called Trump's supporters "a basket of deplorables". While she later retracted that statement, the damage was done. People hated seeing the hypocrisy of the left, especially the Hollywood elite and the SJWs.
SJWs like Steve Shives, Laci Green, Anita Sarkessian, Jonathan McIntosh, Bob Chipman, Ana Kasparian, Cenk Uyger, etc. and Hollywood celebrities like Christopher Titus and Nancy Lee Grahn among others knowingly or unknowingly created a culture where, by passing judgment on people and industries, they were making people afraid to be judged just for supporting a certain person or an industry these SJWs don't like. On Election Day, the people smelled what these SJWs were cooking, took a few bites, and promptly puked it back in their faces.
Point is, the left took it for granted that Hillary would win and acted like 1)Trump had no chance of winning and 2)the American people's valid criticisms of Hillary didn't matter. But the American people's voice was heard loud and clear on Election Day and Trump won the election.
Since Trump won, however, while both Hillary Clinton and President-Elect Donald Trump as well as President Obama have called for the people to accept and respect the results of the election and come together as Americans, some idiots(mainly Millenials) decided to protest the results, as if their whining will change the results of the election.
Sorry, crybabies. Donald Trump won the election fair and square, and won it in convincing fashion. Donald Trump will be the President of the United States, therefore, he IS YOUR President whether you like it or not. He will be OUR President. Deal with it.
American parents, these protests against Trump's victory are your fault. This is what happens when you coddle your children, when schools and youth sports leagues give out participation trophies to everyone, and when some youth sports leagues refuse to keep score in games played to protect children's fragile feelings. As Razorfist put it, you have fostered a generation of Faberge eggs.
I wonder how many of these protestors actually voted in the election. While I have said that not voting is a form of protest, if you chose not to vote because you were so sure that Hillary Clinton was going to win, then I honestly think that you have no room to complain about the results at all. And these high school students that walked out of their classrooms to protest Trump's victory don't exactly have room to complain about the election results either as 95% of them aren't even old enough to vote!
Former President George W. Bush actually didn't vote for President, but he still voted since there were other races going on besides President. There were races for US Senate, US House of Representatives(which all seats are up for re-election every two years), and various local races and ballot measures such as judgeships, city councils, amendments to state constitutions, etc. If you didn't want any part of the Presidential election, that's fine, but there were other races you could have voted in and possibly made a difference.
Also, some idiot on Twitter suggested that California should pull a Brexit and secede from the United States over Trump's victory, except there are two major problems with that:
1) The Democratic Party would never win the Presidency again, since California carries the most electoral votes in the United States and the Democrats consistently win that state in almost every Presidential election. And the inverse is also true with the Republican Party if Texas ever seceded again like they've threatened to do in the past. Hell, there were calls to do so after the Brexit vote was successful.
2) After the Civil War, the US passed a law that requires any state wishing to secede from the US to have unanimous consent from all the other states.
So, yeah, that ain't gonna happen.
It's funny how people were criticizing Donald Trump and his supporters for not wanting to accept the results of the Presidential election if he lost the election, yet people are protesting and refusing to accept the results of the election because Donald Trump won the election convincingly. It's also sad and it's pathetic. What's also sad and pathetic is that these protestors are claiming to be protesting against "hate" when these protests have stemmed from their hatred of the President-elect.
This is the UNITED States of America. Let's act like we are deserving of that name. Let's quit using the election results justify staying divided and acting so territorial with your political ideologies just because your Presidential candidate lost the election. We are all Americans first, everything else is second. The world is watching, and they are watching you behave like 5 year old children throwing temper tantrums in Wal-Mart because you didn't get the toy or candy bar you wanted.
So let's become an United States of America that we can be proud of. Accept the results of this year's Presidential election and move on with your life.
*-The Redskins rule goes that if the Washington Redskins win their last home game prior to the Presidential election, the party in control of the White House wins the election, but if the Redskins lose, that party loses the election. However, this indicator hasn't been as reliable as it once was since the rule failed in three of the last four elections: this election, in 2004(Redskins lost, but George W. Bush still won re-election), and in 2012(Redskins lost, but Barack Obama still won re-election). Actually, this might be the first time the Redskins won their last home game before the election, but the party in control of the White House still lost the election!
**-Since 1984, if LSU beats Alabama, the Republicans win the Presidential election, but if Alabama wins, the Democrats win the White House. However, while I heard about this months ago, I started having my doubts about its reliability when I found out before Election Day that half the time the LSU-Alabama game was played after the election. Plus, the crooked SEC referees usually find a way to screw LSU out of a victory because when you're a SEC team playing football against Alabama, you have to play both the Crimson Tide and the referees.
***-This one I heard about on the radio on Election Day. If a World Series goes the full seven games in a Presidential election year, if the American League team wins, the Republican wins the election, but if the National League team wins, the Democrat wins.
I mentioned in my recent three part essay on the bizarre state of the 2016 Presidential Election how President Obama was wrong for telling Steve Harvey on Harvey's radio show that voting for a third party candidate or not voting at all was no different than voting for Donald Trump.
I find that statement to be ignorant and ridiculous as it reeks of taking the right to vote for granted and it continues to feed the political divide that plagues the United States(and the world). Even though President Obama is pushing for people to go out and vote, he's still shilling for fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton to be his successor. And I understand that even though I think it's wrong to tell people that they're wasting their vote if they vote for someone other than the person you want to see win.
So when the Huffington Post reports that actress Susan Sarandon(who I think won an Oscar) elected to endorse Green Party candidate Jill Stein for President(after supporting Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination) over Hillary Clinton, and other Hollywood Democrats who are supporting Hillary Clinton for President criticized Sarandon for her decision, like General Hospital star Nancy Lee Grahn(who's won a Daytime Emmy)*, because "it does nothing to help against Donald Trump", even though Sarandon isn't supporting Trump, it bugs me:
So even though I like and respect the genre of daytime soap operas, and have watched General Hospital off and on over the years, I still am going to criticize someone if I think they're wrong, even if they are much more famous than I will ever hope to be.
Even if Nancy Lee Grahn didn't parrot President Obama's suggestion that voting for someone other than Hillary Clinton was a vote for Donald Trump, the implication was still there.
I'll reiterate what I said about President Obama: No, Mrs. Grahn, voting for Jill Stein is not a vote for Donald Trump, a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Jill Stein. No need to read anything else into it. While it's a vote Hillary Clinton is not getting, it's still a vote Donald Trump's not getting. So it actually does do something against Donald Trump even if you think it somehow does nothing against a "psychopath".
Susan Sarandon is not wasting her vote, contrary to your opinion. The right to vote is the ultimate form of freedom. If Sarandon was so dissatisified with Hillary Clinton that she thinks that Jill Stein would do a better job as President than Clinton would(or Donald Trump, for that matter) and she feels that voting for Clinton would compromise her beliefs, that is not only Susan Sarandon's right as a citizen of the United States, it's also her responsibility.
By voting for Jill Stein, Sarandon is basically speaking out against the Democratic Party for giving her(and her fellow Democrats) a candidate that she didn't want to vote for. Hillary Clinton is not entitled to every Democrat's vote just because she happens to be the Democrats' nominee for President, whether it's Susan Sarandon's vote or any other registered Democrat's. It is not Susan Sarandon's fault that she wasn't given any good reason to vote for Hillary Clinton, it's Hillary's fault and it's also Tim Kaine's, President Obama's, Michelle Obama's, Elizabeth Warren's, Vice President Joe Biden's(who is still able to walk around after kicking himself in the ass so many times for not running for President this year), and even Bernie Sanders' fault.
And for the record, Pharrell Williams, Hillary Clinton is also not entitled to every woman's vote just because she's a woman. In fact, even though I'm a man, I find that statement to be a fucking insult to women! Even if that was not his intent, by saying that every woman should vote for Hillary Clinton just because she's a woman, Pharrell Williams basically insulted their intelligence. He may as well have said, "I don't trust you to make your own decisions."
Also, it's pathetic seeing Hillary use celebrities like Pharrell, LeBron James, Beyonce, & Jay-Z to try to get people to vote for her. It shows one of two things: a lack of self-confidence or over-confidence. Ever seen the episode of The Simpsons where Bart ran for Class President? He lost because nobody remembered to go vote. Hillary's Bart Simpson right now.
The point is, be informed. Don't vote for someone because of their gender, their skin color, or their party affilation like they're Crips or Bloods. Vote for who you believe is the best person for the job. The female vote, the black vote, the white vote, the male vote, etc. is equal in its diversity.
I get that virtually everyone in Hollywood or associated with Hollywood either is or pretends to be a liberal Democrat, whether they're a studio executive, an actor, an actress, a director, a writer, a producer, a hairdresser, or even the guys that build the sets. I get that virtually everyone in Hollywood has to publicly support a Democrat for President even if they don't personally like that person and even if that Democrat supported censorship of their medium in the past** or risk getting blackballed from working there like R. Lee Ermey(Sgt. Hartman in Full Metal Jacket) allegedly was.
But anybody acting like your vote only matters if you vote for a candidate they're supporting is wrong, regardless of how famous they are.
And by the way, Mrs. Grahn, if you're going to use the word "fuck" unedited in a later tweet about not giving a fuck about Hillary's e-mails, then have the courage to use the word "pussy" unedited:
And one more thing, as it turns out, according to Britain's ambassador to Uzbekistan, the DNC's e-mails were hacked by someone in Washington, DC, so Russia actually might not have anything to do with those real e-mails at all. Key words are "might not":
But, hey, at least the Cubs finally won a World Series in our lifetimes. Safe to say, we've almost seen it all.
*-Comparing an Oscar to a Daytime Emmy is like comparing a Rolls-Royce to a Honda.
**-Like Hillary Clinton did(even filing legislation against the video game industry in 2005 that went nowhere) and Al Gore and Joe Lieberman even made it a campaign issue in 2000. And Hollywood still gave those jackasses money for their campaigns.
The Wacky 2016 Presidential Election
Part 3: Is South Park right about neither Trump nor Clinton wanting to be President? And Why We're All To Blame For The Shape of The Election
South Park has been hitting the nail on the head about some issues in the past two seasons. But are Trey Parker and Matt Stone correct in pointing out how it seems like neither Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton even want to be President? I think they are right.
It does seem like every time Trump or Clinton pulls ahead in the polls, something they or their supporters do causes them to be pulled back into the margin of error of the polls(if those polls are even legit to begin with*). Scoot pointed out how pathetic the Presidential race had become when both Trump and Clinton's images are so highly negative that they've both figured out that the only way either one of them can win is to make the other person look even worse than they are. In fact, both Clinton and Trump are lucky that they're not running against different candidates other than each other because if they were running against different candidates, they would be losing badly. For example, if Bernie Sanders or Vice President Joe Biden were the Democratic nominee, they'd be well ahead of Trump. Or if another moderate Republican like John Kasich, Marco Rubio, or even Jeb Bush were the Republican nominee, they'd be well ahead of Hillary. A extremely right wing Republican like Ted Cruz, Rick Santorum, or Bobby Bitchcakes Jindal would have no chance against Clinton. Even Hillary would appear more moderate next to them.
Hillary lost ground when she called Trump's supporters "racists" and double downed on it by using the term "basket of deplorables" to further describe Trump's supporters. It ended up backfiring on her as all it did was galvanize Trump's supporters with some of them on Twitter adding the word "Deplorable" to their usernames(Trump supporters also did it on Facebook, but Facebook apparently cracked down on it, enforcing a rule that Facebook users can't use nicknames in their usernames). Kind of like how on GamePolitics.com, Jack Thompson invented the word "pixelante"(a combination of the words pixel and vigilante) as an insult to describe gamers defending the video game industry and fake "violent" video games, but the gamers on the site embraced it and made the word their own, considering it a compliment to the point of having "Pixelante" T-shirts made.
But Trump lost it back to Clinton with a poor showing in the first Presidential debate on Sept. 26th despite starting strong in the first 30 minutes. Then later that week, assuming this was an attempt to get Trump to release his past income tax returns(he has consistently denied all requests to do so, saying he is still under an IRS audit and can't release them until the audit is completed, even though the IRS has said he could release them if he wants), an old federal income tax return of Trump's from 1995 was leaked to the press showing Trump claimed a loss of nearly one billion dollars with the writer claiming that Trump could have avoided paying federal income taxes for almost two decades using the claim.
The leaked tax return just points out the flaws in the US tax code. Every American, whether it's a billionaire like Donald Trump or the average ham and egger(Bobby The Brain Heenan reference FTW), tries to find as many deductions as they legally can to either pay less taxes, not pay taxes at all, or even get a tax refund from the feds. If the rules allow for Americans to take advantage of loopholes in the system regardless of how much money they make, is that Trump's fault for taking advantage of the system? Or is it the lawmakers' fault for having and leaving those loopholes in the system in the first place?
But then, the pendulum slowly started to swing back towards Trump as at the same time of that old tax return being leaked, President Obama made a stupid remark during an interview on Steve Harvey's radio show, saying that not voting or voting for a third party candidate was a vote for Donald Trump. No, Mr. President, not voting means you didn't believe any of the candidates for President is worthy of your vote and thus, being President. Voting for a third party candidate means you believe that third party candidate is more deserving and more qualified of being President than either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.
Even though the Republicans are probably saying the same thing Obama did, that comment is not only an example of the "us vs. them" mentality that the two major political parties have towards each other, but it also shows how pathetic the Democrats are as they apparently still haven't gotten over former Vice President Al Gore's loss to George W. Bush in 2000. It's pathetic that it seems like they still blame Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate that year, for taking votes that would have normally gone to the Democrats rather than blaming themselves or Gore himself for his own defeat because of the way they ran Gore's campaign. And the Democrats also fear the possibility that the same thing that happened in 2000(Gore won popular vote by over 500,000 votes, but Bush won enough states to win the electoral college 271-266, one more than the 270 needed to win) will happen again in 2016 where Hillary Clinton wins the popular vote, but Donald Trump wins enough states to win the electoral vote. (Projections on fivethirtyeight.com showed that scenario happening before the first debate and on Oct. 11th, CNN.com briefly showed an electoral college map showing Trump winning the electoral college 374-163 with one undetermined, because Maine and Nebraska aren't winner take all states.)
However, considering that the Green Party is basically further to the left than the Democrats with their biggest focus being on environmental issues, it seems more likely that Nader was getting more votes from the far left fringe than from moderates in 2000. Remember, Al Gore chose to alienate the MTV crowd that Bill Clinton embraced in 1992 & 1996. Those voters likely chose to stay home and not vote at all rather than vote for someone they didn't like or respect. A vote for a third party candidate or not even voting at all is a sign of dissatisfaction towards both the Democrats and the Republicans.
The right to vote is considered to be the ultimate form of freedom. Just because a voter happens to be registered as a Democrat doesn't mean Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat is entitled to that person's vote. Likewise, if that voter is registered as a Republican, it doesn't mean Donald Trump or any other Republican is entitled to that person's vote either. In fact, it doesn't even mean that you have to like the candidates your party nominates. If a voter, whether they're registered as a Democrat or not, doesn't think that Hillary Clinton is the best person to be President of the United States because she is not liberal enough, green enough, progressive enough, or even pro-First Amendment enough(or if a registered Republican voter thinks Donald Trump is not conservative enough or pro-2nd Amendment enough), then that voter is right to vote their conscience and vote for the person they feel is the best person for the job.
Just like Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein earned the right to be on the Presidential ballot and they will earn every vote they receive on November 8th. (Even if third parties continually get screwed over by the two main parties.)
Plus, people don't like it when you tell them they can't do something because they're going to do it anyway.
Hillary herself also made a stupid comment around that same time. Gary Johnson did a town hall meeting on MSNBC hosted by Chris Matthews and was asked to name one leader of a foreign country outside the US that he respected. And Johnson couldn't answer as he drew a blank. So a reporter with ABC News asked Hillary if she could name one as a joke. The first name Hillary said: German chancellor Angela Merkel, whose government tried to cover up over a thousand sexual assaults of women and young girls by male "Syrian refugees" in Cologne last New Year's Eve. No mention of French President Francois Hollande, who has helped the US in the war on terrorism, fighting ISIS since the terrorist attacks on Paris last November.
Then Hillary's running mate US Senator Tim Kaine lost the Vice Presidential debate to Indiana governor Mike Pence, Trump's running mate, by continually interrupting Pence like Trump did with Clinton in the first debate. It also didn't help Kaine that LGBT people and supporters of LGBT rights felt that Kaine competely dropped the gay rights ball by not calling Pence out on his being anti-LGBT and in particular, the "religious liberty" bill Pence signed into law last year months before the US Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states(even though Pence did sign a watered down version of the law after national public outcry and threats to boycott the state of Indiana over it).
While I do agree that Kaine did drop the ball there, I feel like it would have actually hurt Kaine and Clinton much more if he had because Pence would have turned it around on Kaine, using the Clintons' past support of the Defense of Marriage Act and the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy as well as the Clinton Foundation accepting millions of dollars in donations from countries in the Middle East that put homosexuals in jail or to death and treat women as second class citizens or slaves, like Saudi Arabia(which Trump jumped on Hillary about in the last debate when Hillary mentioned going to China in support of women's rights, in which Hillary had no answer, no witty retort, and no smug bitch smile). Pence would have also used both President Obama's cash payments to Iran this past summer and the nuclear deal with them last year, another country that punishes homosexuality with the death penalty, making Donald Trump and even Mike Pence look more pro-LGBT than Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine are**.
Then the morning after the Vice Presidential debate, news came out that Al Gore would be campaigning for Hillary Clinton to promote his signature platform of climate change. As if pro-First Amendment voters needed another reason to not trust Hillary on First Amendment issues. Remember how Gore ran his campaign in 2000 and remember what Gore's wife tried to do with the music industry in the 80's. And when Gore did start campaigning for Hillary, they went back to blaming the third parties for his loss in 2000.
Finally, I don't think it's a coincidence that an unreleased videotape from 2005 was leaked to the press two days before the second Presidential debate with Donald Trump talking privately and off the record
with Access Hollywood host Billy Bush on the way to the set of Days of Our Lives to shoot a cameo appearance on the soap opera about using his fame to have sex with women, to put it lightly. And everybody had the nerve to act shocked by this even though these same people were bashing Trump as a sexist, a misogynist, a racist, or an Islamophobe since the day Trump first announced his candidacy for President. Everybody also acted like nobody ever talks like that in private without microphones around. Or even in public. Either way, Trump did apologize for his remarks. While I do agree with Sargon of Akkad that Trump should not have apologized, I feel like Trump had to apologize, if only to stop his own female supporters from leaving him.
Though I think it's not actually hurting Trump as much among voters as people may think. Even if some Republicans who are mostly unknown to the general public are using the tape to justify not supporting their party's own Presidential nominee to their constituents. Then again, those same Republicans probably didn't want to support Trump to begin with but felt an obligation to because Trump's the GOP's Presidential candidate. Even if some Republicans like House Speaker Paul Ryan believe that it has already cost Trump the election. Even if some people think that words somehow equal actions. After all, America is a forgiving society to an extent. We Americans have given people second chances, and even third, fourth, and fifth chances. People can change especially if they're allowed to, especially when they get older. And after Trump apologized again during the second debate, everybody outside of the news media pretty much stopped talking about the tape when Trump broke with Pence on whether the US should send ground troops to Syria. And Trump was apparently still seen as the winner of the second debate despite all of that.
However, I fail to see how this videotape was even relevant today. All Trump did on that audio was talk bullshit with Billy Bush, doing an R-rated take on Nature Boy Ric Flair's standard promo talking about how he's "styling and profiling" and "a limosuine-riding, jet-flying, wheeling-dealing, kiss-stealing son of a gun". Hell, I don't even think NBC should have suspended Billy Bush over a tape from 11 years ago. Even if he did egg on Trump as Trump's current wife Melania believes. Especially when NBC owns the tape in question to begin with as NBC Universal produces and distributes Access Hollywood for syndication to TV stations that want to air the show(for example, WGNO, the New Orleans ABC affilate, airs the show after Nightline at 12:05am or at around 1:05am on Fridays after the Friday Night Football high school football SportsCenter show from September through December). So, it stands to reason that NBC may have already known about Trump's remarks on that tape for a long time. Their Standards & Practices department had to have known about it even if their news department didn't. And if the higher-ups at NBC knew about those comments, the network still allowed Trump to host the Apprentice and Celebrity Apprentice and still aired the beauty pagents he owns(Miss USA, Miss Teen USA, & Miss Universe) until he decided to run for President last year.
If this videotape was supposed to be the Trump card(pun intended) that knocked out Donald Trump and handed Hillary Clinton the Presidency, the question now becomes, was this card played too soon? A lot can still happen between now and November 8th and things can change based on what's happening in the US and in the world. I think if Tim Kaine had won the Vice Presidential debate, that tape wouldn't have been released until hours before the election when Trump would have had no time to adequately respond to it. Imagine if it came out that Hillary Clinton cheated on Bill while she was Secretary of State or as US Senator, or even while Bill was still President(even before Monica Lewinsky?). Or what if it comes out that while Bill was President, he and Hillary let fellow politicians and even world leaders have sex with their daughter Chelsea to close deals?*** Would it still matter? It might. The media has spent more time talking about the stupid videotape from 11 years ago than on Wikileaks' release of the hacked DNC e-mails that shine a very negative light on Hillary Clinton and her campaign because 1) sex sells and 2) their excuse for not covering Wikileaks is "they can't independently verify the authenticity of the e-mails". Bullshit. All they have to do is do their jobs and keep asking the authors of the e-mails to verify them. Simple Yes or No question, "Did you write those e-mails?"
So, it's OK to criticize Donald Trump for alleged sexual misconduct and his current wife Melania Trump for standing by him(and for the naked photos she posed for when she was still a model), but it's not OK to criticize Hillary Clinton for standing by her husband Bill Clinton despite his own alleged sexual misconduct? All abroad the hypocrisy train. Choo-choo.
And now, the media has shifted to asking whether or not Donald Trump will even accept the results of the election if he were to lose because Trump is saying that the election and the polls are rigged against him. I wonder if Trump is really just trolling everyone, the media, Hillary Clinton, her supporters, and even the GOP at this point. Vince McMahon may indeed be Donald Trump's secret campaign manager.
Donald Trump is creating two narratives, one if he loses the election, the other if he wins. If Trump loses, he will claim that he was cheated out of the Presidency by the political establishment in both parties. This is the narrative he wants people to focus on as he is rallying his supporters that helped him win the Republican nomination. Trump did try to work with the GOP establishment after winning their nomination, but after the release of that Access Hollywood tape and some GOP politicians turning on him as a result, he's kind of gone back to presenting himself as the anti-status quo candidate he was in the nomination process despite his shift further to the right.
It's funny how President Obama and Hillary Clinton both criticized Trump for "whining" about the process being rigged when the establishment in the Democratic Party actually did screw Bernie Sanders out of the Democratic nomination. And when Trump was saying in Feburary/March that the process is rigged, there was a very real possibility that if Trump had the most delegates, but was short of the 1,237 delegates he needed to win the Republican nomination outright, the GOP would have tried to find a way to screw Trump out of the nomination. And it worked for Trump as the people weren't happy with what they were seeing behind the curtain when Trump pulled it back and exposed the political establishment at the controls like in the Wizard of Oz. He's gone back to that well hoping that it will work again.
The other narrative Trump is creating by saying the election is rigged is that if he wins the election, Trump can turn around and say that he overcame all the odds, defeating not just Hillary Clinton and her supporters, but also the liberal news media, the political establishment in both parties, and everybody who doubted that he could win the election. Almost like he was John Cena or Hulk Hogan. In my mind, I think Trump will leave the GOP win or lose.
Anyway, this is the reality TV world we live in. Would anyone really be paying as much attention to this Presidential election if Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were actually talking about the issues and only
about the issues instead of dredging up Trump's past, Hillary Clinton's past, or even Bill Clinton's past? Probably not. But it shows that both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have major albatrosses around their necks and with the current society where everything you've done and said is fair game whether it's true or not and regardless of how long ago it was, they only have themselves to blame for the negative content of the election. And so are we. We are the ones who voted for Donald Trump & Hillary Clinton to be the nominees of the two major parties despite their highly negative images.
I don't think we realized just how ugly and divisive this election would get. And we should have known because this election is a reflection on us as Americans. We are all ultimately responsible for the content of the election. We have become a tabloid nation that cares more about gossip and scandal than we do about the actual issues. We've been focusing too much on what divides us rather than on what unites us as a country, and we only have ourselves to blame for that. But we find it much easier to blame everything else instead of looking at ourselves in the mirror.
We would rather blame the news media for only reporting on gossip and scandal, when we're just as responsible for their reporting since we respond more to the muckraking than we do the actual issues. Because it's human nature to focus more on negatives than on positives, we respond more to negative headlines that promote fear and hysteria than on headlines that show that our fears are unfounded. We would rather blame the news media for being biased when everything and everyone is biased, even our own selves, and we always tend to gravitate towards news that share our own viewpoints. otherwise known as confirmation bias.
While I do criticize the news media for being biased and too focused on sensationalizing stories, they're still doing their job in reporting the news to an extent. However, the news media always treats a story like it's feeding a pig, constantly feeding it until it explodes, then turning around and reporting on the explosion acting like they had nothing to do with the pig exploding. The news media can't report on stuff if it's not being presented to them on a silver platter. If Trump and Clinton don't like what's being reported about them, then they and their surrogates should quit feeding the news media by constantly insulting each other.
Some people might feel that there's too much risk in having Donald Trump being President over Hillary Clinton, but some people may feel the risk might be worth it since Hillary still represents the status quo. Being President is an awesome responsibility that is life altering. Only Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton know for sure how they'll react once they take the oath of office and the gravity of being the President of the United States and the leader of the free world sets in. We'll see what happens in November after the election and in January on Inauguration Day.
And then the question becomes, will we Americans ever truly unite as a nation regardless of who wins the election? Considering that the ugliness of this election has exposed the political divide that's always been there****, as long as we continue to justify staying in our own personal echo chambers and justify attempting to silence those we disagree with, it's highly unlikely we will unite as a nation deserving of the name of the United
States of America.
*-Polls aren't exactly that accurate. While I've said that the people taking the poll are reliant on the people they're polling being honest with them, there are a few things to consider. Remember, earlier this year in the Democratic primary in Michigan, Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton despite trailing in the polls by double digits in the days before the primary.
Also, during the #Brexit
campaign, which was a referendum in Great Britain asking the British people to vote on whether or not to leave the European Union, polls showed that 80%
of likely voters surveyed said they'd vote to remain in the EU. But in the election, the people voted to leave the increasingly authoritarian EU by roughly 52% to 48%. And showing that the political divide isn't just an American phenomenona, the Remainers in the UK almost immediately demanded a re-vote even though Parliament has said there will be no re-vote. Although, Scotland might decide to hold a 2nd referendum on whether to leave the United Kingdom to become an independent nation over the #Brexit
vote(the majority of voters in Scotland voted to stay in the EU).
And finally, during the 2000 election, the news media originally called Florida for Al Gore as soon as the voting booths closed based on exit polls, but when all the votes were initially counted, George W. Bush won the state, its electoral votes, and the Presidential election.
**-Even though Donald Trump already appears to be pro-LGBT; for example, when Ted Cruz complained about the outcry over North Carolina's law to keep transgendered people from using the public bathroom of the gender they most identify with, Trump said he didn't care which public bathroom transgendered people used and even invited Caitlin Jenner to use the restrooms at Trump Tower, in which she accepted the invitation).
***-To be fair, I highly doubt that ever happened. I wanted to give an example using something that seems unlikely, but still likely at the same time, given the nature of politics.
****-And at the same time, the political divide has also contributed to some of the ugliness of the Presidential election.
The Wacky 2016 Presidential Election
Part 2: Trump and Clinton accuse each other of bigotry and how the political correctness bug biting Clinton could make Trump President
Just when people thought the 2016 Presidential election couldn't get any more bizarre and any crazier after Donald Trump was accused of calling for Hillary Clinton's assassination, a couple of days later, Trump decided to start calling Hillary a bigot after referring to her as "Crooked Hillary" since becoming the presumed Repbulican nominee and Hillary called him a racist in response as well as suggesting his supporters are also racist.
So it looks like the evil political correctness bug I've mentioned in past essays has struck again. And it could still be a fatal wound to Hillary Clinton's campaign.
When Trump called Hillary a bigot, he said it was because her and the Democrats' policies that were supposed to help ethnic minorities are actually hurting them instead. When Hillary called Trump a racist, she justified it by making the claim that Trump was making hatred of ethnic minorities mainstream, using his past comments on illegal immigrants and Muslims as well as using video of Ku Klux Klan members saying they supported Trump(including former Louisiana state representative and 1991 candidate for Louisiana governor David Duke, a former KKK Grand Wizard who is one of the 24 people currently running for David Vitter's US Senate seat, though Trump denounced his endorsement). Hillary's kind of ignoring the idea that the KKK and groups like theirs would support any white person if they thought that person would be beneficial to their cause, like Ted Cruz, who once said on the campaign trail something about finding out if sand glowed in the dark.
This all stemmed from polls showing Trump far behind Clinton amongst potential black voters(originally Clinton had like 90% support, while Trump had 2% or less, now Clinton had 81% to Trump's 7%). Although, I think the polls might be off because of a theory Scoot's brought up on his WWL radio show. Some people might not be willing to publicly admit to anyone, even someone conducting a poll over the phone, that they're going to vote for Donald Trump(or anyone else) for fear of someone finding out and being unfairly and falsely labeled, or being falsely accused of "betraying the cause" or some bullshit like that.
I'll explain it like this: People do feel pressured to vote a certain way by their friends and even their family if they say that they plan to vote in the election. But when you're in the voting booth on Election Day, once the curtain closes, you're free to vote for anyone you want because nobody else is allowed in the booth with you. After you finish voting, you can say anything or nothing at all to your friends and family. If your father is a hardcore Republican, you can vote for someone else and say "I voted for Trump" to get him off your back. And the same rule applies if your parents are hardcore Democrats instead.
However, when a pollster calls someone and asks them, "Who do you plan to vote for?", that person might not be alone in the house. That person probably doesn't want their significant other or another family member to overhear them on the phone telling the person conducting a poll that they're going to vote for Donald Trump. So rather than risk fighting with their family, they'll either say they're voting for Hillary Clinton or they haven't decided yet.
Compounding the problem is that recent polls are showing that race relations between whites and blacks in the US has deteriorated back to its levels in 1992 during the riots in Los Angeles over the police beating of Rodney King. This despite the election and re-election of the first black President in US history. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is spinning in his grave along with George Carlin and Edward R. Murrow as we speak.
If Hillary is banking on the idea that people will stop supporting Donald Trump just because some group whose ideas they disagree with is also supporting Trump, I think it's a mistake on her part. After all, I'm sure there are people that will vote for Hillary despite some group whose ideas they disagree with also supporting her(*cough*blacklivesmatter*cough*). But as some people won't vote for Trump because of his antics or for Hillary because of her actions as Secretary of State, some people that still considered voting for Hillary might get turned off by her attempt to lump all of Trump's supporters together as racists and vote for someone else, even for Donald Trump.
Has Donald Trump said some things that some people have been offended by? Yeah, but that's why Trump has become so popular. He doesn't really care who gets offended by what he says. Trump has railed against the idea of political correctness as it's gone beyond its original intent of not saying things that purposely offend an individual or a group to the current idea that no one should ever say anything that might even remotely offend another individual or group.
Like Vince McMahon, Trump doesn't really care from an entertainment aspect whether you love or hate him because you're still talking about him. Like Vince McMahon, Trump will attack and belittle anybody who he thinks slighted him. Just like Howard Stern, whether you love or hate Donald Trump, you still want to hear what he'll say next. And just like Jesse Ventura, Trump has said and done things on the campaign trail that would have probably killed at least 200 normal politicians by now.
When Donald Trump first announced his candidacy for President, no one really gave him a chance to win the Republican nomination, let alone the Presidency. The political experts thought he'd top out at 30% of the vote, but those experts, as well as the political establishment, really underestimated both Trump's appeal and the current mood of the American people.
Just like the news media and the entertainment media, political candidates for public office are a reflection of their audience. Donald Trump is a reflection of Americans who now feel disenfranchised because they feel that the federal government is no longer representing them as well as Americans who are sick and tired of the current political status quo and have said "WELL ENOUGH IS ENOUGH AND IT'S TIME FOR A CHANGE!" like Owen Hart. The Americans who are tired of the status quo might be afraid of what Donald Trump might do once he gets into office, but they're more afraid that nothing will change or even that things will get worse if America stays on its current path with Hillary Clinton as President.
While Donald Trump isn't a career politician, he's playing their game better than those career politicians with far more experience holding public office than he has. Even though he's a certified billionaire who lives a lifestyle the average American can only dream of, when Trump talks to average Americans on the campaign trail, they're left feeling like Trump does understand their fears and concerns about the United States. With his charisma, Trump is able to get support from people that like him even though they don't necessarily agree with him or like what he says.
Donald Trump won the Republican Party's Presidential nomination because he was able to generate mass appeal beyond the far right conservative base of the Republican Party. While Trump may lean to the right on some issues, he comes off as a moderate because he leans to the left on other issues, in particular, the rights of LGBT people. While Trump's comments about illegal immigrants and Muslims at the beginning of his campaign attracted hardcore conservatives, being a political outsider far removed from the political establishment in Washington, DC attracted moderates and independents. He gained votes from moderate Republicans and independent voters and even some Democrats that were able to switch parties before a primary or caucus to just to vote for Trump, while Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio were too busy fighting each other over who was the more conservative of the two.
Recent US political history has shown that candidates that appear to be moderate win national elections because the majority of voters in the United States are moderates, despite the Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks of the world always referring to moderates as "weak". While these moderate voters may have registered with either party, they don't necessarily agree with everything the party they registered with says or does. Barack Obama and Bill Clinton portrayed themselves as moderate Democrats* and George W. Bush referred to himself as a "compassionate conservative". While people will go to their inner ideology once they get into office, campaigning as an extreme left wing or extreme right wing candidate won't win them a national election because nobody really likes zealots. Nobody likes it when you try to force them to see the world exactly as you do.
By voting for Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders in the primaries and caucuses, the American people showed the political establishment in both parties that they were sick of the way the country is being run and tired of the political establishment being more interested in staying in power than working for the American people. And that scares the power brokers in Washington. The American people are starting to reject them and they're also starting to reject attempts by the news media, conservative talk radio, and other groups to divide the United States and segregrate the people into groups of only extremes.
And what's keeping Donald Trump in the campaign against Hillary Clinton despite losing ground to her in some recent polls even though those polls have gone back and forth between the two is that Clinton still represents the political status quo that many Americans have become disgusted with. And that while Trump is still somewhat seen as a moderate despite conservative Indiana governor Mike Pence being his running mate, her fight with Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination basically pushed Hillary further to the left despite Hillary wanting to be seen more as a moderate like her husband is.
So supporters of Hillary Clinton and haters of Donald Trump(like, for example, comedian Christopher Titus, who has referred to Trump as "Sarah Palin with a penis") have tried to claim that because Trump has never held public office, it somehow makes him unfit to serve as President of the United States. The Trump haters even use analogies like "You wouldn't go to a doctor who's unlicensed" or "You wouldn't hire a plumber who's never worked as a plumber before."
First off, the doctor analogy is weak as a doctor has to have a license to practice medicine(and on that same note, an attorney has to have a license to practice law as well). In fact, there are laws against practicing medicine or law without a license. Likewise, you're not going to call a plumber as you're more likely to do it yourself or ask a family member to help to save money. And how do you know if the guy won't do a good job despite never working as a plumber before?
A sports analogy would have been better, but that analogy would actually have hurt their cause rather than help it. I'll say it like this: "Would you rather have a guy who's never been a head coach before(Trump) or a guy with head coaching experience with three different teams, but has never had a winning season or made the playoffs, despite having tremendously talented rosters at his disposal(Clinton)?"
And the biggest problem with the whole "Trump can't be President if he's never served public office" argument is that holding public office is not and was never a requirement to serve as President of the United States.
Under the Constitution of the United States, anybody is eligible to run for President as long as they meet three very simple requirements mandated by the Constitution:
1) be a natural born citizen of the United States, which means being born within the borders of the United States or its military bases and embassies or have at least one of your parents be an American citizen at the time of your birth
2) be at least 35 years old at the time of the election
3) live in the United States for at least 14 years.
Anybody can run for President if those requirements are met. To use a wrestling example, Chris Jericho could run for President if he wanted to as he was born in the US in New York(his dad, pro hockey player Ted Irvine, was playing for the New York Rangers at the time Chris was born), he's at least 35, and he's lived in the US for almost 20 years since 1997(a year after signing with WCW). However, Bret Hart couldn't run for President because while he's a US citizen from his late mother Helen Hart being an American citizen from New York, he's never lived in the US as he's never even moved out of his hometown of Calgary(far as I know).
And since the President of the United States is also the Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces, that whole argument against Trump can also be turned against Hillary Clinton, as whoever wins will be the fourth straight President to not have served one single day in the United States military. There's probably more than a few veterans who would like to see that changed.
Some people think Clinton should not even be eligible anyway because of the investigations over her using a private e-mail server while she was Secretary of State even though she wasn't charged with a crime(and she should have been) as well as the questions about her health and whether she can even handle the rigorous job of being President, but that's beside the point.
Point is, some people are tired of the status quo, they're tired of nothing getting done. and they're tired of feeling like their voices are not being heard by anyone in Washington. As Dave Mustaine famously said in the Megadeth song "Peace Sells (But Who's Buying?)", it's still "We, the People", right?
*-Bill Clinton, who was governor of Arkansas at the time he became President, probably came off as more moderate than Obama ever did as Democrats in the Southeastern US tend to be more moderate than the rest of their counterparts.
The Wackiness of the 2016 Presidential Election
So who would have thought that in 2016, both major party Presidential candidates, both of whom the majority of people think can't be trusted, would not only accuse each other of being bigots and racists, but also one of them would be accused of calling for the assassination of the other?!
This election cycle has been so bizarre that some people are actively hoping for a giant meteor to hit the Earth before the election but after the Chicago Cubs finally win the World Series. That's how bad it's gotten. And we all knew or should have known that it was going to be bad. Even though people initially thought that Donald Trump had no chance in hell to beat out 16 other candidates in a battle royal to win the Republican nomination, he did exactly that. Trump won the Republican nomination and is in the position he's currently in because the political pundits completely underestimated the mood of the American people, and I would argue that they still are.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton held off Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination with outside interference from now-former DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who Clinton quickly brought into her campaign after Wasserman Schultz was let go by the DNC when hacked e-mails showing that the DNC worked to help Hillary win the nomination were made public, cheating Bernie Sanders out of it in the process.
Why did I use wrestling terms? Well, besides from being a wrestling fan and the election feeling like it's no different than pro wrestling, in an issue of Pro Wrestling Illustrated earlier this summer, writer Harry Burkett wrote an op-ed column suggesting that Vince McMahon was Donald Trump's secret campaign manager, similar to how I suggested in a previous essay that Tipper Gore was her husband Al's secret campaign manager in 2000.
I do kind of agree with that assessment. Trump and McMahon both share similar mindsets and Trump has worked with Vince before, so he probably learned a few things from McMahon. More on that later.
This essay will be split into three parts. Part 1 will focus on Trump's comments on the 2nd Amendment which some people saw as a call for Hillary's assassination and why I think the 2nd Amendment will stay intact even if Hillary wins the White House and despite her and the extreme left's best efforts. Part 2 will focus on both Trump and Hillary calling each other bigots and racists and how wrong it is for Hillary to lump all of Trump's supporters as being racist when both Trump and Hillary have a melting pot of supporters, as well as explaining how Donald Trump got as far as he did in the Presidential campaign. And Part 3 is basically how the events of the last month have led people to believe that both candidates are tanking the election, Trump more than Clinton, and how we have allowed ourselves to get to that point. The last two parts may be seen as defending Donald Trump, but again, we're the ones that voted for Trump and Clinton to lead their parties.
Part 1: The 2nd Amendment will survive even if Hillary Clinton becomes President
During a campaign rally on August 9th, Donald Trump made a speech suggesting that if Hillary Clinton does become President of the United States, there would be nothing that the American people could do to stop her from appointing liberal judges to the US Supreme Court in an attempt to dismantle the 2nd Amendment.
While some people saw Trump's speech as an appeal to the people that strongly support 2nd Amendment rights who aren't already members of the National Rifle Association to vote for him, others saw it as Trump calling for American gun owners to kill Hillary in part because he's already said and done things on the campaign trail that were controversial and crazy.
Scoot in his WWL blog pointed out that he learned from a class he took called Communication Theory that there are two parts to any communication: the intent of the speaker and the reception of the speech by the audience. And he also learned that the speaker's intention doesn't always match how the audience reacts to the speech. Only Donald Trump knows for sure what he intended by that particular speech and he has said that he was appealing for votes from 2nd Amendment supporters and that he didn't directly or indirectly say that Hillary should be assassinated.
While most Trump supporters were blaming the tabloid trash news media for assuming the worst of Trump(because they see the liberal news media as biased against Trump and conservatives in general), the news media is always going to look for ways to sensationalize the story. If we were in a parllel universe where Hillary Clinton made the exact same speech Trump made about the 2nd Amendment, the news media would be saying that Hillary called for Trump's assassination.
All in all, if Donald Trump really did call for Hillary Clinton's assassination, he would have been arrested right then and there, because the First Amendment does not protect speech that specifically creates a "clear and present danger" to the populace. Trump did not tell the crowd at that rally at any point to "Go get your gun, find Hillary Clinton, and shoot her until she dies!" Donald Trump didn't even say that Hillary Clinton should be killed. But because we as a society have become so sensitive about any type of speech, anything Trump said in that speech about the 2nd Amendment could have been perceived as a death threat against Clinton.
Point is, you have to ask yourself what you first thought when you heard about Trump's comments about Hillary Clinton and the 2nd Amendment before hearing all the analysis and rhetoric from either side. What your first thought about that comment was is what you thought Trump's intentions were. *My first thought was that he was trying to get votes from a conservative audience. Not even Trump is that crazy to call for the assassination of another Presidential candidate even if it would clear the path to the Presidency for him because he didn't need to do that to beat 16 other people for the Republican nomination.*
But I have to question whether or not a Hillary Clinton Presidency would actually lead to the abolishment of the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. And I don't think that it would.
As I've pointed out in a past essay, I've said that the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is based on the responsibility of the arms-bearer to use his or her weapons for the good of the American people whether it's acting in self-defense, protecting other innocent people from harm, or defending our country. While I do support expanding background checks and making sure people who can't legally own a gun can't get one, it is both foolish and delusional to think that human beings will never have the need to protect themselves or their families and friends from harm.
The US Supreme Court ruled in Heller v. District of Columbia in 2008 with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the majority opinion that the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right.
While Hillary Clinton could appoint more liberal justices to the US Supreme Court in an attempt to possibly overturn the Heller ruling, it won't be as easy as Trump and the NRA might think for these reasons.
1) The Supreme Court has been stuck with a vacancy on its nine member bench since Justice Scalia's death in Feburary because Republicans in the United States Senate have steadfastly refused to grant hearings to decide on confirming President Obama's appointment of Merrick Garland to replace Scalia as it would potentially shift the ideological balance of the Supreme Court from right-center to left-center, using the excuse of "it's a election year, let the next President appoint Scalia's successor."
Now keep in mind when Scalia died, both major parties' nominations were still very much up in the air. Even though they knew that both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders would probably appoint more liberal judges, I feel that the Senate Republicans at that time were betting both on maintaining control of both houses of Congress and on their party winning the White House. Recent US history has shown that, except for 1988 when Vice President George H.W. Bush won to succeed his boss Ronald Reagan*, control of the White House has basically shifted between the two major political parties since the 22nd Amendment was ratified to limit a person to just two terms as President after Franklin Roosevelt won four straight terms until his death in 1945. In fact, before Republicans Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, the last time one of the current major political parties held the White House for more than two terms at a time was FDR and fellow Democrat Harry Truman for five straight terms from 1932 through 1952.
Like I said after Scalia died, if it had been Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg or Stephen Breyer that died suddenly instead of Scalia, Senate Republicans would have more likely to confirm another justice even in an election year because it wouldn't have affected the ideological balance of the Supreme Court. Now, if it had been Justices Clarence Thomas or even Anthony Kennedy that died suddenly instead of Scalia, Senate Republicans still would have refused to grant hearings for whomever Obama appointed to replace Scalia. And if Trump wins the Presidency and the GOP maintains control of the Senate, they'll just wait for Trump to name somebody else to replace Scalia.
But what if Hillary wins and the GOP loses control of the Senate in the process? Senate Republicans might decide to go ahead and confirm Merrick Garland before January 3rd when the new term of Congress starts just to keep Clinton from nominating another more liberal judge to the Court. There is also the possibility that if the GOP maintains control of the Senate, they'll just block any of Hillary Clinton's appointments to the Supreme Court and keep it at eight justices until they lose control of the Senate(which Senator John McCain, who is running for re-election, has said the Republicans would do).
I should point out that I'm not really familiar with Garland's political leanings in his court decisions, so I essentially went into this part blind.
And this scenario doesn't even take into account the likelihood that Louisiana's US Senate race, which has 24 people running to replace David Vitter(who announced his retirement effective when his term ends on January 3rd after he lost his bid for Louisiana governor last year to Democrat John Bel Edwards in a runoff), will end up in a runoff election in December**. A runoff in Louisiana between a Democrat and a Republican leaves open a possibility that Republicans could be left after election night with only a 50-49 advantage in the Senate, needing the Republican left standing(or an independent candidate who would be willing to caucus with the Republicans) to win just to keep the Senate from a 50/50 split. Which, if Hillary wins, the Democrats would gain control via tiebreaking vote by the Vice President, which would be Tim Kaine. Or even if Trump wins, there's the possibility that the GOP could be in a 50-49 disadvantage in December, needing to retain Vitter's seat to force a 50/50 split with Mike Pence casting the tiebreaking vote.
2) I mentioned in Part 1 of my Five Years After Brown v. EMA essay on the fifth anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. EMA that in a 4-4 split decision, the Supreme Court had to let stand the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling that President Obama could not use an executive order to go around the two houses of Congress in his attempt to change immigration policy. (And it has been said that if Scalia were still alive, he would have sided with the Fifth Circuit.) It is possible that the issue of how far executive orders should extend will end up back before the Supreme Court once Scalia's vacancy is filled, moreso if Clinton wins the Presidency than if Trump wins, and if the GOP keeps control of one or both houses of Congress.
Right now, as it stands, the President can't use executive orders to go around Congress to enact a law. He or she has to wait until both houses of Congress passes a bill so he or she could sign it into law or veto it.
3) The Supreme Court rarely reverse themselves on its interpretation of the US Constitution. There are only two major instances, maybe three, where they have reversed a previous Supreme Court ruling(they initially ruled that racial segregation in public schools was constitutional in Plessy v. Ferguson, but reversed itself in Brown v. Board of Education; they also initially ruled that gay men could be charged with sodomy even if the sex was consensual, but later reversed itself in Lawerence v. Texas).
4)I also have constantly said if the US Supreme Court says that something cannot be banned, then that thing simply cannot be banned, and the President of the United States cannot overturn a US Supreme Court decision(or even an amendment to the Constitution), especially on a whim. The only things that can overturn a Supreme Court decision is the Supreme Court themselves or an amendment to the US Constitution.
While Hillary Clinton would probably look into a Constitutional amendment to re-word or repeal the 2nd Amendment if she had to(she did say in her nomination acceptance speech at the DNC that she would consider a Constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United SCOTUS decision to enact campaign finance reforms), the way the United States elections have gone in recent years would make that plan virtually impossible.
As I pointed out in the Five Years After Brown v. EMA essay, Constitutional amendments need to be approved by two/thirds of both houses of Congress(290 Representatives and 67 Senators) and three/fourths of the states(38 states) to be added to the Constitution. Aside from the GOP currently having control of both houses of Congress, most of the states lean towards the Republican Party. Also, look at each state legislature and the governors of each state.
Does anybody that thinks rationally really see either party ever gaining a 2/3rds majority of both houses of Congress or having almost all the state governors and control of almost all of the state legislatures? Yeah, I didn't think so, either.
Ultimately, the 2nd Amendment is too ingrained in American society for it to disappear completely to the dismay of the gun control Nazis. As long as there's going to be a need for guns, they're always going to be around. There's no way to magically make every weapon of destruction disappear from society. Gun control should be the gun owner's responsibility, not the government's. And prohibition never works. Look at when America tried to ban alcoholic beverages entirely. Again, a lot of the problems today could be resolved to an extent if parents did their jobs and actually be parents by teaching their kids things like conflict resolution.
*and 1964 when Lyndon Johnson won after finishing the term of John F. Kennedy after JFK was assassinated even though JFK was in his first term at the time of his death.
**Louisiana's elections require a candidate to get 50.1% of the vote to win outright, otherwise the top two votegetters go to a runoff election.
As promised, here's the rant on parenting today. Back on June 22nd, there was an incident where a 19 year old black male shot and killed a white detective with the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office during a pedestrian stop because he was afraid of going back to jail for violating his probation for illegally carrying a gun. When it was announced at around 1:30pm that the officer had died, Scoot went on a rant on his WWL radio show "Scoot in the Afternoon", saying that people need to quit making excuses for other people's behavior, saying "Don't tell me that they're hungry. Don't tell me that they can't get a job." Then Scoot said that a lot of the problems today stem back to when the sperm penetrates the egg. Scoot also had to reiterate this same point the following week when there was an armed robbery at a Raising Cane's in Kenner where a black male stabbed 21 year old white female manager Taylor Friloux to death.
Scoot wasn't referring to people having sex just to have sex, he was talking about the mentality that some men have when it comes to sex, where they see a woman as nothing more than a "sexual conquest" and then walk away afterwards, More often than not, the sex is consensual. And then, if the woman becomes pregnant as a result of that one night stand, the man wants absolutely nothing to do with her or the kid, if the woman decides to even have the child. And our society, for some reason, does not consider these actions to be shameful. And if there is shame involved, it's almost always shoved onto the woman, not the man, even though it takes two to tango. Also, consider that there are stories about some men, in particular a few athletes and even a well known rap artist, having multiple children with multiple women.
And I agree, a lot of the perceived ills of society today stem back to parenting or the lack thereof.
While FBI statistics show that violent crime in the USA has fallen by half since 1991, research has consistently shown that there is a much stronger correlation between an unstable home life and crime than there ever was between fake "violent" video games and crime. Now, it doesn't mean that all parents are bad whether they're single parents for whatever reason or in a committed relationship(doesn't necessarily mean married). However, it would be foolish to expect that all parents have to be nearly perfect like Ward and June Cleaver, Ozzie and Harriet Nelson, Cliff and Claire Huxtable, Steven and Elise Keaton, or Philip and Vivian Banks. But then again, it seems like it's always bad people doing negative things that get to be on the front page of the newspaper or the top story of the nightly newscasts("If it bleeds, it leads"). And you don't see people going on daytime TV talk shows like Dr. Phil, Dr. Oz, Jerry Springer, or Maury Povich saying, "My dad was great, my mom was great, I'm just a shithead!"
Before and even after the success of the NBC sitcom he starred in, The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, actor Will Smith originally made his name as a rap artist known as the Fresh Prince with his best friend DJ Jazzy Jeff and one of their first major hits was a song called "Parents Just Don't Understand". A major contributor to today's issues with society is that parents today just don't understand the responsibility that comes with raising a child. Maybe it was because, as YouTube personality Razorfist said, parents chose to take parenting advice from Oprah Winfrey, who has no children and trained her quasi-husband to answer to a dog whistle.
Parents today just don't understand that it is their responsibility to teach their child the difference between right and wrong. Parents today just don't understand that it is their responsibility to monitor and control their child's consumption of entertainment media. Parents today just don't understand that it is their responsibility to teach their child that they are the only ones responsible for their behavior regardless of what they were exposed to both in entertainment and in real life. And parents just don't understand that it is also their responsibility if their under 18 child does something wrong(For example, Lionel Tate's idiot mother; go find the episode of A&E's old show American Justice about that case).
Parents today are more interested in having kids than actually taking the time to raise their kids. In an extreme example, some parents actually see parenting as a career choice, whether it's giving birth to their own kids or through adoption agencies and foster care, because they tend to get more money from government assistance programs.
Part of the reason parents today don't understand the responsibility of being a parent is that they've been becoming parents at a younger age than their own parents had. Even though statistics are showing that teen pregnancy has actually fallen in recent years, teenagers and most young adults are always going to be sexually active. However, teenagers today, especially in the southeastern United States, still aren't exactly being educated on how to practice safe sex outside of abstinence until marriage. Which actually shows another problem that hurts sex education in America today: Americans for the most part still see sexual activity and nudity as taboo, especially in entertainment media, unlike in Japan, Australia, the United Kingdom, and basically all of Europe and Asia.
Now, as I mentioned on numerous occasions on this blog and on Twitter, solving these problems with parenting today is not as simple as certain people make it out to be.
Attempting to ban tangible objects such as fake "violent" video games or guns is not a viable solution as prohibition never works and it would just be a waste of time and taxpayer's money thanks to several court decisions including in the US Supreme Court.
Some so-called Christian conservatives have tried to claim on social media that America started losing its "moral compass" when SCOTUS removed prayer from public schools, but that is a steaming pile of bullshit. While SCOTUS ruled in Engel v. Vitale in 1962 that public schools, which are run by government and gets state and federal funding, violated the First Amendment's guarantee against government endorsement of any religion("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion") by leading the students in prayer, then ruling a year later in Ablington School District v. Schempp that public schools couldn't force its students to read the Bible, those decisions didn't actually ban students from praying if they wanted to. In fact, public schools still allows their students to voluntarily join religious clubs sponsored by teachers such as Christian Insight or Campus for Christ(I graduated from Terrebonne High School in 1998 and those two clubs were actually listed in my senior yearbook), and allows students to openly pray around the flagpole if those students want. In fact, there was some controversy earlier this month when some public schools(including one in Utah!) allowed a Satanist group to start an after school club on their campuses since those schools do allow Christian groups to have after school programs there.
It is also very naive to think that forcing Christian prayer back into public schools would somehow heal America and solve a complex problem. Scoot himself pointed out in a blog on WWL.com back in March that there too many other powerful factors going on in the United States at the time the Supreme Court banned public schools from leading its students in prayer:
-America was in economic prosperity after winning World War II, creating the Baby Boomer generation
-more people were moving out of the cities into the suburbs as it became easier to buy houses
-the sexual revolution began as the birth control pill was introduced(which ultimately led to the Supreme Court rulings in Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird that barred states from banning birth control pills)
-the civil rights movement began as well as the Supreme Court reversed itself and ruled that public schools could no longer separate students by race
-women began to feel more empowered as they entered the workforce....well, actually, they stayed in the workforce after World War II. They were basically the domestic workforce while the men were fighting in Europe and in the Pacific. And with the introduction of birth control pill, women could now control when to have children, as it removed the risk of getting pregnant from casual sex
-the entertainment industry became much bigger as rock n' roll music and television became more and more popular, leading to the start of America becoming defined by the entertainment media(doesn't mean that the entertainment media ever stopped being a reflection of society)
-Crime started going back up as the youth of America began to rebel against authority, leading to John F. Kennedy being the youngest and only Roman Catholic to be elected President of the United States in 1960, beating Richard Nixon.
Does it count as irony when public schools leading students in prayer and forcing students to read the Bible were ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court under the watch of a Catholic president?
Scoot also made a great point in the blog by saying that "a school-led prayer is meaningless unless the concept of praying is taught and reinforced at home by parents and families." And considering that more and more Americans are not following any particular religion at all, you have to wonder whether such a naive proposal would even work today with the country at least 50 years and three generations removed from the Engel v. Vitale decision. And also, the First Amendment has to be considered. Who would decide which faith gets represented by the prayer the school decided to use? Scoot pointed out that there was a case in 1890 where the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that public schools could not use the King James version of the Bible because some Catholics complained it was too Protestant.
And honestly, I firmly believe that the Supreme Court made the correct decision back in 1962. As a government entity, a public school has no business using its authority to advocate for or against any religion. As Jesse Ventura said in "Do I Stand Alone?", "the quickest way to ruin genuine (religious) faith in this country would be to try to force everybody to worship in a way that wasn't of their own choosing or in a way that was contrary to their upbringing."
You can't solve a social problem with legislation as you can't force morality on people and as Ron White eloquently says, you can't fix stupid. And the United States of America is not and should not be run according to religious doctrine, nor should any other country in the world for that matter. The United States is run according to a set of principles that guarantee equal rights, freedom, and privacy to every citizen.
So, with that out the way, how to solve the problems with parenting today? For starters, society should start demanding that parents take responsiblity for their children's actions and the children they already have until they turn 18, as well as start demanding that if a man gets a woman pregnant, he has to do the honorable thing and help her raise that child. If parents don't want to accept responsibility for the care and well-being of their child for the next 20 or so years, then they shouldn't have children to begin with. To paraphrase Jesse Ventura, If all you want is something sweet and cuddly that will adore you, keep you from being alone, and is only there to fulfill your own needs and not the other way around, then you shouldn't have a child either, you should go to the SPCA or the Humane Society and adopt a dog or a cat.
Should we start requiring people on government assistance to take some form of birth control so that they can't have more children while they're accepting government assistance for children they already have, to go along with the already implemented requirements mandating job training and/or community service for at least 20 hours a week? But again, if you're going to have children, you should responsible enough to plan ahead for their care.
Also, our society should stop encouraging irresponsible behavior by playing the "Blame Game". All you're doing is making excuses for someone's bad behavior and handing that person a "Get Out of Responsibility Free" card. Society should start demanding that individuals be held accountable for their own actions regardless of what they were exposed to in entertainment and in real life. Just because something is available in the free market, like a fake "violent" video game or a option on Snapchat to add your vehicle's speed to your photo, does not and should not excuse a person's failure to apply basic common sense when they decide to act irresponsibly or with evil intentions.