Archive for the ‘Current Events’ Category

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.

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!

What We Are Expected to Believe

Posted by Troy on 25th October 2017 in Current Events

Here is what you are expected to believe:

In regards to Hillary Clinton, it is all coincidence.  Her husband getting $500,000 for less than an hour of speaking.  That soon after that, the US government signed off on a deal where a Russian company acquired the rights to 20% of the uranium in the United States.  That soon after that 7 shareholders involved in the purchase just happened to think to themselves that the Clinton Foundation would be the best charity to give $150 Million dollars.  That leading up to the 2016 election, foreigners were dumping money into the Clinton Foundation out of the kindness of their hearts, but that this kindness ended pretty much immediately after Hillary lost.  That a Russian dossier was found which prompted the FBI to let Obama know that Trump was colluding with the Russians, which caused Obama to launch an investigation into this.  Naturally, they had to have surveillance over members of Trump’s team.  That Trump has DEEP ties to Russia.  That Muller is always on the verge of filing criminal charges.  That we have a sitting President who as been investigated for over a year with all these ties to our number one geopolitical foe…and he is left in power.

That’s what they expect you to believe.  Let me ask you as simple question…does any of that make sense?  Or do the fact patterns suggest a trail of corruption and abuse of power culminating with the abuse of power to influence the election, and when that failed, to undermine a duly elected President?

Long Live the Constitution!

Feminist Hypocrites

Posted by Troy on 15th October 2017 in Current Events, Human Nature

Jane Fonda came out and said she knew for a year about Harvey Weinstein, but she did think it was her place to tell about it.  Apparently, giving aid and comfort to the Viet-Con is cool, but trying to stop rapes and other sexual misconduct goes too far.  Her ilk are hypocrites.  Given the pervasive nature of sexual misconduct in Hollywood, I hazard to guess that they didn’t say anything because they were afraid of losing their livelihood.  Now that everyone knows Hollywood’s dirty little secret, these faux-feminists are afraid that their brand has become tarnished the the Truth.  Now, suddenly, they are sickened by Harvey Weinstein.  And I am sickened by their hypocrisy.  Now, Harvey Weinstein is offered up as a sacrificial lamb.  Hollywood is denouncing him at a record pace, but they only seek to do so to protect their industry, that business of usual may continue.  For these directors and casting agents and stars want the continued extra-curricular activities.  We should not believe there is any redemption until there is a cleansing.  A night of the long knives.  A culling.  Not just firings, but legal recourse.  People thrown in jail for rape and accessory to rape.  Financial restitution for sexual harassment.  Unless Hollywood turns into a figurative slaughterhouse, I will not believe them.

Long Live the Constitution!

Trump’s Healthcare Executive Order

Posted by Troy on 12th October 2017 in Current Events, Political

Sadly, it’s a bit unconstitutional.  But what has the Government ever done in healthcare that isn’t?  I wish the Republicans weren’t so useless and would have made this into legislation instead of it being an executive order.

That being said, this is a potential game changer in health insurance.  Basically, it allows a class of people (say, Plumbers, Accountants, etc) to form an association for which to buy health insurance.  So instead of a sole proprietor having to buy an expensive plan, they can buy it as a group, saving a ton of money.  He is also allowing this to go on ACROSS state lines.  So you are forming massive groups and increasing competition.  This is amazing.

He is also allowing for you to choose to buy what was once considered substandard plans.  Why does a healthy 23 year old have to buy full coverage when they really want a super cheap plan to cover catastrophic accidents and cancer.  This makes economical sense.  But what you want does not matter to them.  They know what is best for you.

That’s what really rubs me the wrong way…the sheer arrogance that they think they know what’s best for you.  What’s even worse is that there is a whole host of people that agree.  They clap their hands and say, “Yes!  You know what’s best for me.  Thank you for not making me think for myself.”

Long Live the Constitution!

A Real Conversation about Gun Control

Posted by Troy on 3rd October 2017 in Current Events, Political

All the late night comedians… sorry… experts demand a real conversation about gun control.  So… lets have one!!!!!

1 – The GOP is not beholden to the NRA.  Oh…they want to pretend that the Republicans are…but they are beholden to their constituents.  You see, we gun owners joined the NRA because we love our Second Amendment.  We do not love the Second Amendment because the NRA tells us to.  Instead, we joined them because we already did love our Second Amendment.  That is why the Republicans do not want to seek further gun control, because it would royally piss us off and they would lose in a primary.  What I will say is that this makes me suspect that the Left is beholden to THEIR special interest.  In other words, if you think the other side is beholden to a lobby group and not the voters, it is probably because your side is beholden to a lobby group over their voters.  This would explain why the Left is for open borders despite it hurting the black citizens they claim to care about.

2 – This shooter (as most shooters in recent history) acquired their guns subject to background checks.  In fact, all the measures the Left demands would not have prevented these shootings.  Assault weapons ban?  Did nothing to reduce crime.  Background checks?  Don’t seem to be working.  The Left demands we do SOMETHING!  Sorry… but why do something if it is going to be ineffective?  That’s just stupid.

3 – The Second Amendment is about protecting yourself from the Government.  It is not about hunting.  It is not about self-defense.  Those are nice perks, but they are not the main reason.  I am much more worried about an out of control government than I am about a random madman.  As long as that is the case, you will never convert me to the side of gun control.

4 – As far as mental illness goes, there is a reason why I am hesitant to support these measures.  I actually know people that suffer from depression and anxiety, and they refuse to get help.  Why?  Because they know it will go on their record and they fear the government will use it to take their guns.  Also, if a spouse or family member suffers from these conditions, their rights would be forfeited as well.  As such, I can understand why they wont’ get help, and that is a shame.

5 – If you don’t like people having the right to keep and bear arms, then you have an option.  Amend the Constitution.  Until you do so, you have no right to abridge the freedom to keep and bear arms.  But they will never do this because they know they cannot win this argument.  The Left wants a totalitarian government.  They just want one they agree with.  Could you imagine if the Right sought the same liberty to change the First Amendment at whim?  The right to an abortion is nowhere in the Constitution, but they will declare that that is absolute.  Amazing, really.

6 – All the people calling for gun control are in big cities.  They are not isolated by large tracts of land.  Police are nearby.  Or they live in gated, nice communities.  Or they have their own armed guards.  What about the rest of us?

7 – More people are stabbed to death in any given year over being killed by long guns.

8 – They are being disingenuous.  Granted, an AR-15 has the range can accessories (drum clips, etc) to make the long range, open venue ambush a reality.  But do you think the Left would stop the push to gun control if it was just a guy showing up in a crowded store on black Friday and using a sawed off shotgun/pistols/etc to kill people?  Of course not.  Let’s be honest: any gun control measure must at the end of the game conclude with a total gun ban.  Otherwise, it would be a waste of time.

9 – Which brings me to the final point.  Guns should be made illegal…that way, no one can buy them…like drugs.  Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Long Live the Constitution!

Trump is not dividing us. YOU are dividing us.

Posted by Troy on 26th September 2017 in Current Events, Human Nature, Political

Those who hate Trump declare that he is dividing us.  I will say that Trump is not the one dividing us.  What might me more accurate is that the media is dividing us.  Hollywood is dividing us.  Sports are dividing us.  Politicians are dividing us.  But all of this is wrong.

YOU are the one who is dividing us.

When you decide to break off friendships base on whether or not someone supports Trump, you are dividing us.

If you have a friend who has been there for you for the last ten years, and you find out that he supported Trump or hates Trump, and you dump that friend… what does that say, exactly?

You will say “Well, his supporting of Trump is proof that he is a racist and a sexist and anti-immigrant and pro-Nazi…”  HOLY SHIT!!!!  He was that horrible a human being and managed to hide it from you for ten whole years?  Tricking you by helping you move and giving you rides to the airport and shit like that?  Gotta watch them Nazis.  They are tricky as hell.

Or might it be that your friend is perfectly fine?  That outside forces have told you that this is what you should believe because believing such things allows you to shut your mind to them, to avoid conversations.  After all, what can you learn from a Nazi?  You can’t convince a Nazi.  So why talk to them?

As such, you divide us.  Where there is no conversation, there can be no growth.  There can be no reconciliation.  The worst things is all that’s left when people stop talking is violence.

This is why it’s important NOT to unfriend people.  Why you shouldn’t divorce your husband regardless of what the View tells you.  Talk to the person with an open mind.  Maybe you will learn something, even if is just that they have reasons for their beliefs and they are not monsters.  Hell, maybe you will change their mind.

Long Live the Constitution!

The Truth About DACA

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

Who can be against giving citizenship to people who were brought here since they were two?

First of all, I think that’s probably the minority of cases, but let’s deal with things logically:

Leftists say that they want to look at the children that are brought here by their parents, but let’s be honest, if you let the children stay, the argument automatically changes to “How can you separate families?!”  Also, if you give them a legitimate path to citizenship, you also open up them sponsoring their family members.  De facto, if you give the children citizenship, you will end up giving the parents citizenship.

You can never actually verify anything.  You find a twenty-three-year-old who is here illegally.  You ask him, “When did you get here?”  If he has a brain, he will say, “Oh, my parents brought me here when I was two.”  There’s no way to verify this.  He is illegal.  Any lack of paperwork/evidence can easily be chalked up to being here illegal and fear of deportation.  He will no doubt have several people willing to lie for him, or he can say something vague like “We lived in the shadows…always moving…”  Unless you want to allow a “liar liar pants on fire” methodology, there’s no way to counter this.  This is actually the main reason not to do DACA.  There is literally no way to verify eligible people.  If you can’t identify who is or is not eligible, then everyone is eligible.

But let’s assume you find two illegals who came here and had a child on American soil–also known as an anchor baby.  They will say that you can’t separate the family.  I don’t want to separate them.  The child goes with the parent.  Citizenship confers to the child.  A child born on American soil to Mexican parents are Mexican.  They are also American as we have a strange law saying if you are born here, you’re a citizen.  The only reason we have this law has to do with slavery and making sure no state denied citizenship to the children of slaves.  But it is the law on the books.  If the parents go, the child goes with them unless they have a relative they wish the child to stay with or someone adopt the child (etc).  When the child reaches the age of majority (18), they get to come back.  If you say it’s cruel because this is the only country they have known…parents move ALL THE TIME against the wishes of the children.  If doesn’t matter if all their friends are there!  They way to graduate from that high school!  etc.  It does not matter.  The desires of minors are at the whims of their parents.  If the parents move, the child goes with them.

Long Live the Constitution!

Now It’s Just Getting Sad

Posted by Troy on 13th September 2017 in Current Events, Political

Hillary’s book is going to be little more than an object of ridicule.  I am of the mind that the Clintons are all about the payday.  If I was very cynical, I would say that she was purposefully making a total mockery of herself to sell books, as no one in their right might would read this drivel without the spectacle.  However, they read passages out of this book, and then Clinton supporters are forced to defend these near paranoid rantings and whole scale slander of Americans who disagreed with Hillary and even Democrats who didn’t do enough to get Her Majesty elected.

In an ideal world, the loser acts dignified.  They put themselves above the fray.  You shake hands and walk away and never speak of it again.  This allows your supporters to say “What REALLY happened was…” and they can feel free to insult any group or blame Russia or whatever.  However, she’s the one acting crazy, forcing her supporters into the role of defenders to things that they know are absolute bogus.  In the short-term, it’s awkward.  In the long-term, it drives these supporters away.  I hate to break it to Hillary, but she actually would have lost by a wider margin if the election were held today.  No one likes her.  The more you see of her, the less you like her (as I said at the beginning).  The way she is staying in the public eye, she will soon become one of the most hated people in America.  What she is doing is showing people why they are lucky she lost.

Long Live the Constitution!

The Death of DACA

Posted by Troy on 5th September 2017 in Current Events, Political

I shall not cry for the death of DACA.  Let’s be honest: DACA was more or less an unconstitutional veto of a law.  It’s really no different than when Andrew Jackson said “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”  In fact, Obama said over and over again that he could not do anything on his own and that his action would be unconstitutional.  Ergo, he knew that he was acting outside the law.  It’s no surprise as he received more 0 and 9 decisions against him, and that is with having appointed 2 of the Justices.

Why is it that illegal immigrants get to be exempt from the laws of this land?  I live in the country.  If I wanted to convert an AR-15 into a full auto machine gun, do you think the courts would say, “Well, he’s otherwise law abiding.  We don’t want to separate him from his family.”  Nope, they would throw my ass in jail.

And yet, illegals are getting a free pass on any non-capital offense.  Even serial rapists are getting off.  In New York, they will not enforce public decency laws when nude females beg for cash on the street.  Why?  We can’t have them deported.  At this point, you are slanting the law against the citizen.  This is insane.

So what did Trump do?  He said DACA will end in six months and ordered Congress to get off their ass and figure something out.  Wait…demanding a law be made or repealed by the Legislative Branch?  What a Fascist!  No…wait…um…that’s following the rule of law and also accepting the limit of his Constitutional power.  Someone ignoring the limits of power to make their will the effect of law (as Obama did)…well THAT actually sounds Fascists.

This goes back to what I’ve been saying for years.  The Left WANTS a dictator.  They just want a dictator they agree with.

Long Live the Constitution!