Why Oprah Will Never Be President…If She’s Smart

Posted by Troy on 10th January 2018 in Current Events, Political

If she were to run and get the Democratic nomination, I believe she would win.  She would win as she would have the same wind at her back (a lackey media and pop culture just spewing sugar all day for her) without the anchor of being the most unlikable person on the planet (i.e. she’s not Hillary Clinton).  So she would win (unless the economy is just exploding under Trump, in which case, there is nothing Democrats can do but cry… more money in your pocket always wins on election day).

1 – Oprah’s brand is her fortune.  Look at her empire.  Say what you will for Trump, his product is his fortune.  He builds real estate.  He has other little side ventures, but his name (as much as he would cringe at hearing this) is not really his fortune.  No one buys a building because Trump built it.  No one buys a wine because of Trump on the label.  They do for Oprah.  She may have some manufacturing of some sort in her portfolio, but her main income is from endorsing things.  Selling things.  Marketing things (including herself in her show).  If she gets into politics, she will instantly have 40% of the nation pretty much hating her.  This would destroy her brand and her fortune.  But let’s assume she doesn’t care about any of that.

2 – Being President means you are Commander in Chief.  That means you have to give orders that cause people to die.  Or withhold orders that cause people to die.  Their deaths are on your shoulders.  Could Trump give those orders?  Yes.  Could Hillary?  Shit Hillary could send 100,000 men to their deaths without batting an eye.  This is not a sexist remark.  Women can do it just as well as men (Queen Elizabeth, Margret Thatcher, Angela Merkle, Hillary Clinton…).  Could you imagine Oprah giving those orders?

If she were to become President, this country is pretty much toast.  While I am generally a non-interventionist, every country in the world is going to assume that she is unwilling to see men die at her command and would instantly start running roughshod over weaker countries.  We would have open borders.  Her way of dealing with every crisis would be to open the coffers either in aid to poor countries or as bribes to evil countries.  Trying the techniques she used to gain her status in the world: be likable.  Be generous.  Try to talk things out.  All these sound great.  But it’s one thing to talk things out with your friend who is mad at you.  It’s another to talk things out with an MS-13 member that’s about to kill you or Rocket Man.

Long Live the Constitution!

Why I’m Against Net Neutrality but For California Doing It

Posted by Troy on 20th December 2017 in Current Events, Political

Tenth Amendment, ya’ll!

Okay, this is one of the very few issues where I am truly on the fence.  I think it comes down to two things, really:

If you believe that the internet is a public utility, you probably support Net Neutrality because no one should have substandard service from a public utility.  In exchange for these restrictions, utilities also get certain benefits such legal monopolies and the like.

If you believe that the internet is a product, you are probably against Net Neutrality because you believe that companies should be able to set their prices and policies.

I think that the internet is becoming such a massive part of people’s lives, that you could easily make the argument that it is a public utility.  If there were a power outage, many people would be most upset about the loss of the internet, not power or water.  Of course, those people are absolutely stupid, but there you go.

However, I am not in favor of Net Neutrality.  Why?  Because I haven’t been shown that the internet companies have been unfair.  If they ever start doing the nightmare scenarios where Amazon pays Comcast the most money so they throttle down Walmart’s internet speed, well, that’s a problem.  Of course, that is anti-competitive practices and could be considered collusion or extortion or racketeering.  But let’s put all that to the side.  Anyone COULD do ANYTHING.  You can’t punish people for things they can do.  Until such practices become common place, I do not wish to place the heavy fist of government on it.  Once the government gets involved in something, it’s difficult to get them out again.  Also, after ten to fifteen years, you could find that the government itself may start using Net Neutrality (as a base law) to add in a “Fake News” clause or something to control content.  It’s the old, slippery slope argument, but it is a valid argument.  I am always very cautious when it comes to given the government more regulatory power.

So why do I approve it for California?  Because California is a state and can do pretty much anything it damn well pleases as long as it does not conflict with Federal Law or the Constitution.  Boom.  If California is having problems, have your Net Neutrality.  If they are not having any problems and their citizens just want the law, have your Net Neutrality.  If it works out well, maybe other states will follow.  If it turns into a total shitshow, other states will learn from your example.

Long Live the Constitution!

Is it any wonder why we are starting to hate one another?

Posted by Troy on 15th December 2017 in Human Nature

We are always being played against one another.  Each side picks the worst example of the other side.  For instance, when the Tea Party was rolling strong, the media went out among the crowd and searched for the one guy holding a racist sign.  That’s they guy they showed, and they told everyone watching on the nightly news that the Tea Party was racist.  And the people believed it because they saw the guy holding the racist sign.  There was the proof.  Why did they do this?  Because the Tea Party opposed the Obama agenda, so they had to be destroyed.  Rather than deal with the Tea Party’s legitimate concerns about over taxation and the ever increasing size and power of the government, they knew that it would just be easier to paint them as racist.

The same could be said of the Black Lives Matter movement.  I guarantee you the vast majority of people in that movement have legitimate concerns that the police are killing unarmed young black men.  However, rather than deal with these legitimate concerns, they show the professional looters/rioters that use the movement as cover to do their misdeeds or they show the black equivalent of red necks screaming “What do we want?  Dead cops!  When do we want it?  Now!”  Likewise, rather than deal with the cop supporters who say that the cops are doing their job (etc), they want to talk about systemic racism or white indifference.

The fact of the matter is that if you ever went to a Tea Party event, you would have been amazed at the differences of opinion there.  They were not parrots.  They thought about issues and came to their own conclusions.  And their views were not rooted in racism but rooted in a fear of large government.  And when you get down to it, most of us have an innate fear of large government.  Likewise, if you talked to a black person calmly and rationally about their experiences growing up black and how these cop shootings look to them, then you would understand their point of view.

But even these cop shootings is a further example of media bias.  More unarmed whites are shot by police than unarmed blacks.  A black cop is more likely to shoot a black suspect than a white cop is.  These are statistical facts.  However, you never see when a white cop kills a white guy on the news.  You never see when a black cop kills a black guy on the news.  However, if a white cop kills a black guy, then that’s national news.   This does not excuse bad shootings.  But every time people turn on the TV, they see “white cop kills black suspect.”  They never see those other words.  Anytime they see this, it is always the same scenario.  White kills black.  Over and over and over again.  Again, what is shown to us is what becomes the truth.  How could blacks not learn to fear cops?  Every time they see it, it is confirmation of their belief.  Not only that, but these thoughts and feelings are more likely to make a black suspect nervous or angry which makes it more likely for an escalation during cop encounters which further confirms the belief, and the cycle continues.

And if you dare to discuss anything outside of the pre-determined, pre-approved narrative, you will be shouted down.  Take the cop example above.  If you try to point this out and have a rational discussion, you’re probably going to be yelled at.

I was recently talking to my brother-in-law and mentioned that Song of the South was the only Disney movie never made available to the public.  I’ve always wanted to see it just so I could see why this was.  He basically said it was because there was only one allowable way to depict slavery, and they did not do this.  ie, the slave in question was dance-walking down the road sing “Zippity-doo-da, zippity-aaaaa…”, which is a far cry from the renaming scene from Roots.  I had a conversation with a black friend of mine.  He asked me out of the blue, “Was there anything good about Nazi Germany?”  I had to preface the answer with “Well, it was far outweighed by the mountains of dead bodies and stuff… but he did make the trains run on time, they had national health care, paid for vacations to resorts, jobs for everyone…. but all of this is, as I said… outweighed by the 6 million dead bodies.”  But it’s crazy, isn’t it?   You are not allowed to say anything positive about that time of Germany’s history.  As though saying “The trains ran on time” some how excuses the SIX MILLION DEAD BODIES.  Again, there is only one way you are allowed to discuss the subject.  Anything outside that parameters is not allowed.

We are being trained to regard the other side as horrible human beings.  We are being trained to think the worst of each other.  If people actually sat down and talked, they would find out that we aren’t all that much different.

Long Live the Constitution!

I was wrong

Posted by Troy on 13th December 2017 in Current Events

It is rare that I have to admit I was wrong.  I had predicted that Roy Moore would win because Alabama voters wouldn’t want a Democrat representing them.  It didn’t pan out that way.  I guess there is a level of personal flaws that will cause voters to elect someone who will try to impede laws they want and push for laws they do not want.  In fairness, I do get it.  Also, it does not cost the Republicans the majority.  It’s only for two years before Doug Jones is going to get kicked to the curb.  It will also take away a major bullet the Democrats were wanting to use next year, so all in all, I can live with it.

Before Democrats gloat too much, just remember:  you ran against a creepy guy that chased under-aged girls, and you only won by about 1%.  You didn’t even get 50% of the votes.  A little humility may go a long way under the circumstances.

Long Live the Constitution!

Al Franken-stein and Roy Moore

Posted by Troy on 7th December 2017 in Political

His resignation brought a smile to my face.  It is so rare to listen to a master-hypocrite.  You have a serial sexual assaulter proclaiming both that victims should be believed…but he is totally innocent…but he’s going to step down anyway.  I especially loved the “ironic” line.  I wouldn’t say “ironic…”  maybe something like… “hilarious?”  Yes, that’s right, hilarious.

So, you’re going to ask me, “Are you for women being assaulted?!”

Of course not.

Here’s the thing.  This applies to Judge Roy Moore and President Trump:  People are not going to vote for a Jones or a Hillary.  They would prefer someone that they disapprove of that will pass laws that they will like rather than someone they like that will pass laws that people will be forced to live under that they hate.  That’s the important thing.  In Hillary, it’s a double shot: she was utterly unlikable in every way and wanted to pass laws that the majority of people in the majority of the states abhorred.  THAT is why she lost.  It had nothing to do with the Russians.  It had nothing to do with Comey.  It had nothing to do with America being misogynistic or racist or stupid.  Nope.  It was because they hated her stance on the issues.

The people of Alabama are going to make a decision.  They have the information on the issues and on the allegations.  In the end, they are going to vote for the person that they think will represent their interests, not their character.  They will pick someone that will vote for the laws that they want and vote down laws they do not want.

Also, let’s just say this: anyone can lay an allegation.  Until that allegation is prosecuted, they are not innocent or guilty.  In this particular case, the events happened 40 years ago and likely will never be prosecuted, doomed to fall into the realm of he-she said limbo, never to be resolved.  However, should it be proven that these allegations are true and the people of Alabama decide that they no-longer wish for Judge Roy Moore to represent him, they will recall him.  However, they would rather election someone that will vote for the laws they want (etc) and later recall them than to vote for a guy who will pass laws they are against.

It is not the Senate’s job to determine who can represent a State.  If past offenses were enough to disqualify people for office, then there would be precious few people there when you account for the crimes, sexual offenses, bankruptcies, corruption, bribery, drug offenses, rehabs, and other things that make people unsavory.  True, people can be expelled by the Senate…for CURRENT offenses.  It is totally inappropriate to do so for something that happened 40 years ago.  At that point, it is up to the people of Alabama.  You may disapprove of what Alabama does, but that’s frankly none of your business unless you live in Alabama.

Make no mistake, the Democrats are wanting to paint themselves as taking the high road.  They are not.  They are laying the groundwork for the 2018 and 2020 elections.  They want to paint themselves as the “women’s party” and try to get all the women to vote for them instead of Republicans.  I doubt it will account to much.  Again, they can brand themselves however they want, but people do not like the Democrats’ ideas.  Conyers, Franken, and any others that end up resigning are only doing so because they will be readily replaced by other Democrats.  It costs them nothing.  It’s the same reason why Democrats can come out now and rail against Bill Clinton.  It costs them nothing, and it is worthy of no respect.  If there was a chance that they would be replaced by a Republican, they would stay to the bitter end.  Just look at the case of the New Jersey representative that was on trial for bribery and corruption.  If he resigned, the Republican governor would have been able to appoint a Republican in his place, and you had pundits all lined up to say that the most moral choice if he was convicted was for him to STILL not resign rather than to have a Republican take that seat.

Long Live the Constitution!

Time’s Person of the Year

Posted by Troy on 6th December 2017 in Current Events

The Silence Breakers/the #metoo movement.  I’m a bit of a stickler… the silence breakers is not a person.  They are either a group of people or a movement.  However, that aside.

I am glad that women (particularly in the entertainment industry where I believe such offenses are rampant).  However, I have less sympathy for many of these women.  As I’ve said in other posts, a lot of these women made a conscious choice to trade their virtue for a part in a movie or a single for the radio.  Now, you might could convince me that they did what they thought they had to do.  They could have shot down Harvey Weinstein, but they would have to give up the possibility of a career/of their dream.  Well, that’s fair enough.  But let’s look at one case in particular.

Ashley Judd came out HARD against Trump.  She gave some speech about being a NAAAAAAASTY Woman.  Well, ya know what?  You ARE a nasty woman.  You know why?  Not because of your blood stained sheets and blah the blah blah blah.  You are a nasty woman because you claimed that these events happened to you.  You claim that you were sexually assaulted by these people.  Then you remained silent.  Oh, sure, “I would have to have given up on my dreams.”  But what about after you had made enough money that you wouldn’t have to work another day in your life if you wanted to?  You could have waged a scorched earth campaign leaving nothing sacred as you did everything you could to bring these people down.  But you didn’t.  You left all these other young actors and singers (male and female alike) to be abused in this way.  And then you want to act pious!  The only reason you came forward is it suddenly became trendy.

You know what, Ashley?  Maybe you and the other “feminists” should send Trump a thank you note.  His election made standing up to sexual predators trendy, and apparently justice only appeals to you if it is trendy and has a cute hashtag.

Swamp Fox… OUT!

Long Live the Constitution!

Faux Outrage from Fauxahontas

Posted by Troy on 27th November 2017 in Current Events, Political

I’ve always favored Fauxahontas over Pocahontas.  It’s a little more clever and sidesteps some of the criticism that people want to level at Trump for calling Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas.

So a reporter is giving Sarah Huckabee Sanders hell because Trump used the “racial slur” “Pocahontas” to refer to Elizabeth Warren.  First of call: being called Pocahontas is hardly a slur, racial or otherwise.  If someone calls you Shakespeare, Washington, Lincoln, or Patton, it is hardly an insult.  Pocahontas was actually a pretty cool person.  Being compared to her is usually a compliment.  For reference, a racial slur for a Native American may be “redskin” or “savage” or something to that effect.  The insult in “Pocahontas” comes from the irony of the use.  That is to say, he is calling someone who claimed to be Native American “Pocahontas” as a way of pointing out her appropriation of the Native American culture.

This particular reporter demanded to know if Trump saw some sort of political value in calling people out in racially.

Well, what I can tell you is that Elizabeth Warren saw a lot of economic gain from telling people that she was a Native American when she was not.  She took a job, a position, away from a REAL Native American.

The reporter also wanted to know if it was ever appropriate for the President to use a racial slur in any context.

But I guess it’s okay to fake being a member of a different race and take away a job from someone of that race?

And that’s why I have zero respect for anyone who wants to paint Trump as a racist for calling out a CLEARLY white person for PRETENDING to be a Native American.  You cannot convert “Pocahontas” into a racial slur.  The only time that this is an insult in the highly specific fact patterns you have before you: where the term is applied to someone who PRETENDED to be Native American for their own gain.  If you are not massively OFFENDED at that, then you are not allowed to pretend to be offended by the other.  This is a case of someone just being mad that someone is calling out Elizabeth Warren because the reporter LIKES Elizabeth Warren.  I guarantee you, if Trump had ever put on a building application that he was Native American to score a job, this same reporter would be OOOOOUUUUTRAAAAAAAGEEEEED!!!! by his actions.  And if Elizabeth Warren called Trump “Shitting Bull,” this reporter would be yucking it up.  Faux outrage.  Period.

Here’s an example, dumb-dumbs.  Calling someone who lied about serving in the military “Who, Braveheart?” is not a Scottish slur.  It’s a slur by comparing one person with a certain virtue against another who lacks that virtue.  In this case, a noble Native American from history contrasted to a lying white person.

Hope this helps!

Long Live the Constitution!

Of Virtue and Vice

Posted by Troy on 14th November 2017 in Current Events, Human Nature

In light of the multitude of sexual scandals mounting in Hollywood and DC, with more and more no doubt in sight, I think of CS Lewis and his discussion of virtues and sins.  How every sin is merely a perversion of something good that God has given us.  Sex, in particular in this case, being a good between husband and wife.  Or at the very least (not in CS Lewis’ book, but by modern convention) between two willing parties.  In particular, I look at Hollywood.  They are so willing to pass judgement on the rest of us.  They are so willing to decry the plight of women.  Meanwhile, the constantly peddle negative stereotypes for women.  They objectify women.  They frequently portray women as nothing more than sex objects at worst or a hollow love interest, a mere plot device.  Jane Fonda stood up to the entire United States by giving aid and comfort to our enemies…but chickened out when it came to standing up to Harvey Weinstein.  Same thing for Jon Stewart and C.K. Louis.  These people all knew that was going on, and yet they said nothing.  Why?  Simple… cowardice.  In particular, financial cowardice.  They were afraid that they would wind up on a blacklist.  That they wouldn’t get parts.  Far better to sacrifice girl after girl to the casting couch.  What’s sad is these girls went on to be big stars.  And rather than stand up and demand justice, to show what went on, instead they swallowed Hollywood’s line.  They condemned the entire nation for a host of sins that Hollywood declared, meanwhile giving tacit approval to the sick practices that went on and on.  Letting new girls suffer the same disgusting treatment that was inflicted upon them, like some sort of disgusting hazing ritual.  “You can star in a movie, but first you have to have sex with Harvey.”  And why?  For a little bit of money.  Was it vanity that caused them to turn their backs on the side of good?  The desire to be liked being more important than anything else?  Or was it mere greed?  Was it just dollars?  Turning them into pimps and prostitutes, mere actors in a modern day human trafficking drama?

C.S. Lewis said, “Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of very virtue at the testing point.”  The testing point came to them, and they failed.  They were cowards.

Let’s contrast this to Buddy Ebsen.  During the depression, an office executive told him “Ebsen, in order to give you the parts you deserve, we must own you.”  He replied, “I’ll tell you what kind of fool I am, Mr. Mayer, I can’t be owned.”  He quit.  He turned down a lucrative job just on the principal that he wouldn’t be owned, probably more of a splitting of hairs and wordplay–not as though he would have actually been a slave and been owned by someone.  But the idea of being owned, in any sense, disgusted him to the point that he quit.  He struggled because of this decision.  It would have been far easier for him to just sign the paper, sell himself over to the studio, but he didn’t.  Meanwhile, these Hollywood people, some of them who hold themselves out as feminists, watch as women were abused, harassed, or even raped, and didn’t say a word.  In some cases, these so called feminists were the ones assaulting these women.

Cowards.

Long Live the Constitution.

The Democrat Wave

Posted by Troy on 9th November 2017 in Political

In special election after special election, the media declared “This is referendum on Trump!”  Remember that?  In Kansas and Georgia and other red states?  The resistance was going to conquer Trump?  Remember the Trumpslayer Ossoff?  And each time, they failed.  It would appear that they learned their lesson.  So this time, they waited for the races to be in blue states, declare that it’s a referendum election, and when the Democrats won, say “See!  The Democrats are back!”  Because the Media is all about the narrative.  Unfortunately for them, they lost all their credibility in the last election because they kept peddling a narrative.  Once you lose that credibility, you lose your power to craft the narrative, especially when you have a President that really doesn’t care about you and your supposed power.  It’s like Trump has said to the Media “Through dangers untold and hardships unnumbered, I have fought my way here to the [White House in the Swamp] to take back the [country] you have stolen,   For my will is as strong as yours, and my [voice] as great.  You have no power over me!”

This wasn’t a wave.  This was Democrats winning races that they were supposed to win.  Nothing more.  Maybe you’d like to predict that Democrats are going to win in California next?  Go ahead if it makes you feel good.

Long Live the Constitution!

In Defense of Blackface

Posted by Troy on 28th October 2017 in Current Events, Human Nature

It’s Halloween time again, and people have trotted out the list of costumes that cannot be worn without offending people.  Topping the list, Moana (based on a Hawaiian girl).  Of course, I find this silly, and of course, the instant comeback is “Well, I guess you are okay with blackface,” or some similar remark.  Now, I am the type of person who demands my thought process be consistent.  So I have decided to explore this issue and come to a conclusion… can I defend blackface, as this is the backstop of all such arguments.  In addition, I will cover some other costumes which have been outlawed by the PC police.  Let’s go with… Indian Chief with headdress and Border Patrol Officer.

First, let’s look at Moana.  Why would a white girl want to dress as Moana?  Probably why she admires her.  I doubt she is trying to appropriate Hawaiian culture.  Instead, she wants to emulate the aspects of this character.  This admiration would increase the child’s desire to learn about Hawaiian culture.  It would also make the child less likely to discriminate against Pacific Islanders.  So why on earth would you want to stop her?  Okay, so what if a black child wants to dress like Braveheart or a knight?  What’s wrong with that?  Maybe he loves freedom.  Maybe he loves chivalry?  Does anyone want to tell the child that he cannot be a knight because only whites can be knights in shining armor?  What the hell kind of message does that send?  Can only Japanese dress as samurai?  Now if you say “Well, these are relics from the past and the rules do not apply to knights (etc).”  How does that argument stand up against the Indian Chief?

Well, that brings to my next point.  What if someone wants to dress as an Indian Chief?  Well, the first thing I would want to determine is…why would someone want to dress up as an Indian Chief?  Are they trying to mock Native Americans?  Probably not.  They probably want to dress like that because Native American headdresses are so badass and flashy.  Let’s be frank.  They are awesome.  Why would a blonde want to dress like a Japanese geshia?  Probably because she thinks she’ll look smoking hot in a sleek kimono.  I don’t believe that these people’s first thought is to offend.

Let’s assume then that you can be a black Superman.  You can be a white Storm.  Let’s also assume that you are allowed to paint your face as long as it does not have to do with race.  So a girl can paint her face green to be the Wicked Witch from the Wizard of Oz.  So can a black guy paint his face white to be a more accurate Superman?  Can a white girl paint her face to be a more accurate Storm?  Does the intent matter?  Does wanting to be more accurate (which is really no different than painting your face green for the Wicked Witch) matter?  I think most people would say “No, you cannot do this without offending people.”  At this point, I have to ask why?  Well, I think we need to look at the history of blackface.  As with most things, it’s hard to really pin this down.  I have heard that it was a case of not having black actors and having to make do with blackface.  This was particularly true in England (etc).  It’s important to remember that this wasn’t JUST an American phase.  I have also heard that it was because white actors didn’t want to act with black actors.  Another thing I have heard was that they wanted to make fun of blacks (would conjecture that this goes along with the last point and/or they didn’t think they could hire blacks to make fun of blacks).  So, the history of blackface is closely tied to a history of mocking blacks.  The question then becomes, “Well, is it FOREVER tied to mocking blacks?”  And… “Since there is no history of whiteface for mocking whites, is that allowed?”  If Chris Rock decided to use whiteface to mock whites, do you think that would be allowed?   I think it WOULD be allowed.  Should it be allowed?  Eh…I think not.  If we are going to have prohibitions on transrace, then we cannot have that.  What about if someone wants to paint their face black but not because they are trying to pass for a black person, but because they are going as some sort of inanimate object which happens to be black (say, like a scorched tree or some such thing).

Transrace… what about transsexual?  Can a man dress up as Wonder Woman?  Can a woman be Thor?  Can a man just dress as a woman just for kicks?  This used to be just fair game.  Did the rules get even more complicated by the whole transsexual movement?  Is a man dressing up as a woman offensive to both women and men who identify as women?  Can only a transsexual man dress as a woman now?  What if you’re not transsexual but your a transvestite?  Whooooa… this whole thing is getting tricky.  Is even worse if the man does a very poor job dressing as a woman so that it’s actively making fun of transsexuals/transvestites?

So what about purposefully provocative outfits like the Border Patrol agent?  Well…are you saying that the Border Patrol is the new SS?  Is the Border Patrol a hate group?  A bunch of storm troopers?  What does that say about the traditional “cop” outfit?  Is that taboo as it might be offensive to the Black Lives Matter crowd?  But let’s go into something worse than that.  What about someone who goes as an abortion doctor?  Or Hitler?  Or the twin towers with flames and airplanes coming out?  All of these have really happened.   What about someone that dresses as culture or blackface with the expressed purpose of making fun of them (think drunk Irish, inbred hick, or blackface)?

Then there’s this.  What if only one person gets offended.  If one modern day Wiccian says “Witch costumes are offensive because they perpetuate stereotypes.”    This this happens, I hazard to think that no costumes would be left in short order.  Do you say, “Well, one person being offended is unimportant, but 20 million being offended is important!”  Basically, do you feel that freedom of speech should be abridged?  Make no mistake, dressing up as anything is merely freedom of speech in another form.  That’s all.

Eminem did a god-awful freestyle rap against Trump.  In it, he gave an impression of at Trump supporter being an ignorant hick, and I was offended.  But if someone dressed up as a hick for Halloween and acted like an ignorant redneck, I would not be offended.  Why?  Because it’s Halloween.  Because it’s all in good fun.

So, there are two types of offensive costumes.  There is the unintended offensive.  This is mostly cultural appropriation offensive.  If your only reason for picking a costume is that it looks cool or you actually appreciate the culture you are “appropriating,” then I’d say carry on.  If you mean no offense.  No offense should be taken.  If we don’t have this very basic level of tolerance, you may as well just cancel dressing up all together, for it will never end.  Then there is there is the intentionally offensive.  When someone dressed up as the world trade towers on fire, they are trying to get people offended.  This is probably the same thing when someone does blackface.  Honestly, the best course of action is to ignore them.  Giving them attention of any kind is exactly what they want.  I would say that any costume whose sole point is to mock people shouldn’t be done.  But good people probably realize this.  Even though I would argue for having a sense of humor over “banning” a costume, good manners would dictate that you shouldn’t mock someone.  If you’re design of a costume is trying to piss anyone off (let alone a specific group of people), you’re probably going down the wrong route.  If you are trying to make people laugh by mocking a group of people (like a drunken leprechaun costume), you’re probably going down the wrong road.  That being said, again, I’d prefer you choose to laugh rather than to get angry if someone dresses in such a manner, as I would laugh at someone making fun of Southerners (in any number of ways).  That leaves the final question then: what about the case of a white girl doing black face to go as Storm wherein she intends NO offense and is merely wanting to show off her makeup prowess and be more authentic?  Will I defend this?  Yes.  I would defend this.  There is no ill-intent in her heart, and I cannot assign her blame for what actors did way over fifty years ago.  However, I would advise her NOT to do it.  Blackface is a trigger offense.  Regardless of intent, it will instantly offend, and you will have to explain yourself.  Your explanations will fall on deaf ears, and your night will be ruined.  Just don’t do it.  Besides, wearing thick make-up all night is terribly uncomfortable and and leads to blemishes.

Long Live the Constitution!