SNL: Still Not Laughing

Saturday Night Live hasn't been funny in decades...and that statement itself is decades old. Even when the long-running sketch show was funny, every episode had 45 minutes of excruciatingly unfunny material.

Now, according to the Emmy's, and most people on my social media feed, SNL has returned to glory. They have always done political humor, and last year's election from hell gave them an incredible ratings boost. Like everything else these days, the overwhelming focus 12 months later remains on Trump's shenanigans. Sad! Especially since Baldwin's impression is horrible. Beyond that, it's impossible to satirize Trump. His words and actions are more ridiculous than any satire can hope to be. Baldwin essentially repeats what he has actually said, always to roaring laughter, which only serves to normalize Trump. He becomes just another goofball politician that SNL lampoons, no worse than Gerald Ford or George HW Bush.

If SNL was just a comedy that wasn't funny, I wouldn't really care. There's hundreds of unfunny comedies. I'm not gonna rant about Big Bang Theory because it's awful; there's no point in that. It's horrible, but ultimately it's harmless. The thing that bothers me about SNL is that they see themselves as having some value beyond comedy. Their most passionate fans think that these stupid skits mean something. They are part of #TheResistance! If you think I'm being harsh, think back to the episode after Trump won, with Kate McKinnon in character as Hillary Clinton singing Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah, the most serious sad song ever. This was beyond comedy. This was IMPORTANT! People were raving about how powerful it was. Fans shed tears!

Meanwhile, SNL literally had Trump on as a host; this was past normalizing, it was celebrating him. He danced to Drake! Haha he's just like us! A megalomaniac, billionaire, serial sexual harasser just like us!

SNL even made Dave Chappelle unfunny. That's almost impossible. The entire episode with Chappelle was a catastrophe. He was out there during the monologue talking about give Trump a chance (a statement he now regrets, to his credit). That was literally 5 minutes after Hillary McKinnon sang her little heart out and fought back tears while telling us she's not giving up. Mixed messages much?

If you want to watch SNL because you think it's funny, that's fine. You're wrong and why would you do that to yourself but thats cool. But if you watch because you think it'll accomplish anything or that it MEANS something or that these people really give a fuck, don't kid yourself.

To be fair to SNL, they are not the only ones who normalized Trump. CNN and NBC as a whole deserve more of the blame. NBC saved Trump's entire career and brand by allowing him to portray a successful businessman. He was on prime time television "firing" people during one of America's worst economic recessions, at the same time he was claiming President Obama was not an American citizen. Then Jimmy Fallon tussled his hair like a good little boy.

Celebrities and the rich are not on your side. They will make endless videos and tweets about the unprecedented dangers that Trump and Co. represent, but  the reality is they are not affected by his horrible policies like the rest of us. It's just a game to so many of these people. Sean Spicer hadn't been out of the administration for more than 3 months, and the "outraged liberals" were fighting over the chance to give him a big wet kiss at the Emmy's.

Fuck both of these guys.

I'm surprised Spicy hasn't hosted SNL yet. This is the guy who berated reporters and blatantly lied about things from crowd size to policies to basic history. But it's all good because he can laugh at himself! Awesome.

It hurts to say this because I am a fan, but it was Stephen Colbert who brought Spicer out. Colbert also had Trump on and took it easy on him. Now he has his highest ratings ever because he shits on Trump constantly. The sad reality is, that's what it's all about for the vast majority of these #Resistance celebrities. The head of CNN even admitted that Trump may be bad for the country, but he's great for ratings.  Some in the entertainment business probably care about certain issues, but again, most of them are not really affected like the rest of us.

But man, people really believe Alec Baldwin is out there protecting the Republic by scrunching up his face and wearing orange make-up.

Pretty sure I know the answer to this one, The Atlantic.

People have told me in all seriousness that Tina Fey helped Obama win by mocking Sarah Palin. I'd say that theory got shot to shit this past election. If comedy shows had any real impact on politics, Trump would have lost by 20 million votes and all of the major Republican politicians would never have a job. Just because someone hates the same person you hate doesn't mean they are a good person, and just because celebrities make fun of unpopular politicians doesn't mean they are fighting for you. And it definitely doesn't have any type of significant influence. In fact, you could argue that it has the opposite of the intended effect. Trump in particular feeds off the mocking. He uses it to paint himself as the outsider, an average Joe getting harassed by the Hollywood elite. He and his supporters ignore that he is part of the Hollywood elite, but that's beside the point. Every joke, every satire, every video mocking Trump is just another example of the "liberal" media attacking "real" Americans.

It's a shitty situation because everything seems to embolden Trump and his supporters. Make fun of them and they take it as proof of oppression from the liberal media. Break down Trump's lies and provide evidence, they claim it's fake news and take it as proof of a liberal conspiracy.

I don't know the solution, and I'm certainly not against satire or humor. I also think it's important to call powerful people out on their bullshit. I just think all of the Trump satire doesn't work that well and it definitely isn't effect as a political tool. I love John Oliver, and I think he does the best job of making fun of Trump and explaining all of the real horrendous shit the administration is doing. But I find myself not laughing that much at his show anymore. Frankly, the reality is too sad to laugh.

As far as SNL goes, the writing just isn't good enough to provide any unique, humorous insight or perspective that can't be found on Twitter the day before. Plus, Alec Baldwin is a huge piece of shit, so the social commentary they're going for turns into more of a meta comment on the ruling class. Instead of showing how horrendous it is to have a rich white asshole celebrity for a president, it's just reminding us that rich white asshole celebrities will always remain powerful and can reach the pinnacles of their professions despite their horrendous behavior.

Ha!

I Love You All (No Joke)...Class Dismissed.

6 Activities That Shouldn't Still Exist in 2017

I recently talked about the inherent absurdity (and danger) in eating competitions, and since then, I learned about another person who died trying to shove as much food in his face as quickly as possible for a meager award. A 42 year old man in Colorado choked to death when he tried to eat a half pound donut in less than 80 seconds during a bakery's eating challenge. The ridiculous yet harmful nature of these contests led me to ponder on some other types of activities that have remained in existence long past the time they should have been extinguished for the greater good or out of sheer common sense.

It's 2017. We all should know better than to let these activities continue....

Child Beauty Pageants

Seriously? We're still doing these? Yeah.

The worst thing about child beauty pageants is...well, everything. The best thing I can say about child beauty pageants is that at least their list of attendees provides the FBI with the names of all the leading suspects in any area child abduction cases.

Honestly, how do these things persist? It's not even just the creepy factor, although that alone should have left these things in 1920s Atlantic City where they originated. The modern day incarnation started in the 60s, and granted, the world needed a distraction at that time, but the same could be said for any decade (or right now?!?) so that's no excuse. You'd think maybe a child getting murdered would have lessened their popularity instead of increasing it. You'd think that a major expose on HBO might negatively affect the billion dollar industry. You'd hope for the sake of humanity that seeing the absolute disaster that is a family who participates in beauty pageants would make people realize the true horror of this event, but as always, humanity proves worse than possibly imagined.

If we don't stop these for the sake of good taste, we should stop them in the name of the child's future mental health.

But America doesn't care about children, or mental health, so I don't see anything changing any time soon.

Many countries have child pageants, but most other countries don't focus so much on the child's appearance, which perversely sexualizes them. For example, in Australia, their pageants are based on skills like singing and dancing, instead of looks. In fact, the American pageants are so different and so much more perverse, many Australian pageant parents have boycotted Universal Royalty, the main US pageant company.

Not that it has affected the business in the US. Over 250,000 children participate in child beauty pageants per year. Shows like Toddlers and Tiaras and the aforementioned catastrophe Honey Boo Boo, have helped the industry take in over 5 billion dollars a year. That's cocaine money. And the product is even more harmful for kids. At least cocaine makes you feel good about yourself; kids in pageants consistently show increased body dissatisfaction over time, among other issues.

These pageants teach kids that appearances are more important than anything else. People who don't look good don't deserve to win. And you should do whatever it takes to look good. I don't know the appropriate age for a child to wear makeup, but I'm pretty sure 6 years old is too young to be wearing fake teeth and getting botox injections.

Why are we sexualizing young children? For a little bit of money? A small amount of fame?

Yes. Yes, that's exactly why we are doing it. And it's fucking gross. Although it did make for a great movie and a hilarious episode of It's Always Sunny, so I guess we owe these pageants some gratitude.

"Do not diddle kids, it's no good diddling kids!"

The Circus

Abused animals! Poorly paid acrobats! Overpriced soda (and beer, if you're lucky)! Disgusting cotton candy and dry popcorn! The permeating aroma of warm horseshit! Fucking clowns! Welcome to...the circus!

We may not have to wait too long for the demise of this relic of the 19th century. Earlier this year, Ringling Bros and Barnum & Bailey Circus, the largest circus in town and the Greatest Show on Earth, announced it will be closing. In 2011, Feld Entertainment (owners of Ringling Bros) had to pay over a quarter of a million dollars in fines for violating the Animal Welfare Act, an incident that undoubtedly led to their eventual decision to shut down.

It's ok, we have Gucci to take its place.

No more animal abuse. No more stupid clowns. Good riddance.

The biggest attraction of many traveling circuses were their elephants, and once public opinion turned against the use of elephants, the end of the circus was inevitable. When Ringling Bros phased out the use of elephants in 2015, many circuses followed suit, and they all saw a drastic reduction in sales. And that's ok. It's a remnant of a different era that just doesn't make much sense anymore. Take the best elements of it, the acrobats for instance, and adapt to the times. Cirque du Soleil, for example, is great, and it only rarely smells like horse dung.

Due to natural selection, and large fines, circuses seem to be slowly dying out, but there are many around the US and the globe that still use (and inevitably abuse) animals. The performers aren't exactly living the life of luxury, either, but at least they have some choice in the matter. Some circuses in Great Britain still tour with camels and reindeer. These animals face cramped, temporary housing, dangerous transport, forced performances, and loud obnoxious crowds. Think living in a college dorm room, but without the perks of keggers and Playstation tournaments.

No living creature deserves that.

Bullfighting

I learned about bullfighting as a naive young kid in middle school Spanish class. I thought the running of the bulls was insane but also awesome. Bullfighting looked cool as hell. Then I learned the ugly truth behind it all. Those bulls aren't enjoying the spectacle nearly as much as the other participants.

While bullfighting has fallen out of favor in many countries, it is deeply ingrained in Spanish culture and therefore difficult to let go for a good portion of their population. Many places have continued the practice with less lethality, allowing the bulls to live. In 2011, the region of Catalonia, where bullfighting essentially began, lawmakers banned the practice of bullfighting altogether. However, earlier this year, the courts in Spain overturned the ban.

Much like guns in America, bullfighting is considered integral to Spanish culture and any moves to ban it are severely divisive. Whenever momentum swings against it, it eventually swings back the other way. Bulls just don't have good lobbyists.

Their former lobbyist didn't last too long.

Most bullfighters don't mind the inherent danger, and most of the fans crave it, so bullfighting is probably here to stay. This year, a rookie bullfighter was gored twice in the neck and twice in the jaw. This happened in front of 10,000 people. And it's not an uncommon sight to see. In fact, a fighter was gored in the ass just days before that event. In 2013 alone, 31 fighters were gored, and 16 of their assistants were injured; many had life-threatening injuries. And yes, some do get killed, like this young man in 2016.

Yet, Instead of calls to end the practice, much like other dumb sports (see next entry) where catastrophes are the real underlying reason people watch these events, the inevitable death and destruction only encourages more spectators. Bullfighting in Spain is a roughly $2.5 billion industry; it's not going anywhere soon.

Unfortunately, the same can be said of...

Nascar/racing

I may be (definitely) biased, but Nascar is dumb. Really dumb. "Turning left for 500 miles" yada yada, but see also: wasting precious natural resources, adding to pollution, causing injuries and death. Even if it was enjoyable, at what cost? I can make the assumption most Nascar fans don't believe in global warming, but do they really like being advertised to that much? There's no where else they can go to drink and hear loud noises? I mean, a Toby Keith concert has to be going on somewhere nearby. That is way better for the environment, not counting the discarded condoms and empty beer cans in the back of pickup trucks.

Maybe "wasting natural resources" is a bit overstated, considering the amount of fuel and rubber used for one race compared to the resources used for travel in most sports. But it does add up, and I still think it's a valid complaint.

However, let's take a look at some figures we can more easily verify and compare to other sports. Side note: it pains me to call Nascar a "sport," but that's what society has determined, and I'm nothing if not aware of socially accepted terms and definitions.

Did you know that more than 520 people have died in 25 years of U.S. auto racing? That's wayyy more than I thought. It's like history has already made my point for me!

We all probably heard of Tony Stewart killing Kevin Ward on a racetrack. But apparently, most deaths are not intentionally caused by absolute shitheads: most are just accidents. Accidents that could probably be avoided, but still, most drivers aren't steering towards unprotected people in an effort to kill them.

Most die like Dale Earnhardt; victims of a system that prioritizes speed and danger over driver safety.
To be fair, after Earnhardt's very public death, Nascar mandated some more safety features. However, that does not apply to most "short-track" races, where the majority of Nascar races take place. It's no coincidence that most deaths occur at these short-tracks. And they don't want proper safety. The former president of Charlotte Motor Speedway explains: "Short track racing is usually mayhem, hopefully controlled. That's what people want. It's like ice hockey with cars."

To be honest...I would watch that. 

Far be it from me to defend ice hockey, but I don't think more than 500 people have died playing hockey since Mario Lemieux won back to back titles in Pittsburgh. I could be wrong, though, I haven't really followed the sport since then.


Airshows/Flyovers

Airshows are similar to Nascar, except instead of racing around a circle wasting natural resources, this is just some guys doing loop de loops and avoiding death (or not) while wasting natural resources. Accidents are rare (so, not too similar to Nascar after all) but they do occur and they're often tragic for the participants and spectators. In Reno, 11 people were killed and dozens injured when a stunt plane crashed into a grandstand.

Tell 'em, Bob.

There are only about 300 airshows in the US per year, though, so the damage is minimal.

However, military flyovers are the real financial and moral Hindenburg. These idiotic, overly macho, and incredibly short events are most popular at NFL games, but the five major sports leagues in the US all have utilized them. Teams have taken in more than $10 million in marketing deals with the military since 2012 alone; except, this is the US military, so the Department of Defense can't actually account for all of the money. In fact, they can't even account for all the contracts. Oh, and the $10 million estimate doesn't even include Nascar, which may take in as much as $100 million from military contracts.

So, US taxpayers are paying literally millions of dollars for military propaganda in the form of 4 second flyovers. Beyond the moral and financial questions that brings up, who even cares about these things? Fans hardly care, especially when they can't even see the damn thing happening. One time, the US Navy's Blue Angels did a flyover at a stadium WHEN THE ROOF WAS UP! It was so loud inside no one could even hear the jet engines.

Maybe it's more for the viewers at home? Sure, if seeing planes for 4 seconds is worth the approximately $36,000 in taxpayer money that it cost to fly the planes from their base to the stadium and back.

Defenders of this absurd practice, when completely out of other excuses, will proclaim: "Well it provides training for the pilots at the very least! Are you against the troops bro?!"

To that, I simply reply, "Baloney."

Ok, that wasn't my reply. I stole it from an analyst with the Center for Defense Information. He claims that it's "atrocious" training, and the pilots themselves call it, "converting gas to noise." That's not exactly turning pilots into the Red Baron.

There is literally no good reason for these things. I'm sure sports teams will stop taking free money from the military after reading my hard-hitting expose.

Golf

Hey did you know that water is rather important for the continued existence of life? You probably did. My readers are a smart bunch. Well, water is also rather important to keep greens and fairways green. And fair, I suppose.

Well, those two facts are crashing towards either at the speed of Tiger Woods' SUV heading towards a tree.

Yet with severe droughts across much of the country occurring for longer periods of time and with more frequency than ever, golf courses are hogging water like Immortan Joe at the Citadel.

Never before seen pic of the PGA's Board of Directors. 

While watering your own lawn is bad enough (seriously, if nature wants your yard to be yellow or brown, let it be) watering golf courses to please old rich white men in ridiculous outfits should be considered an environmental crime.

On average, an American family of four uses about 400 gallons of water per day. That's a lot, and we should all do what we can to lessen that amount. Then again, it won't matter much if golf courses stay on their course (ha!) of H20 decimation: the average golf course wastes 312,000 gallons of water per day. In places next to literal deserts, like Palm Springs, golf courses use about a million gallons a day.

Meanwhile, families in Flint still can't get clean water to drink. In fact, 5,300 water systems in the US exceed acceptable levels of lead. Not sure why any level of lead is "acceptable," but that's a whole other article. In the midst of their drought, many Californians had to take showers every other day, unless you're name is Tom Selleck of course (he has to keep that mustache glistening somehow). Even in places like Connecticut, residents have been asked to limit their water intake.

But not golf courses. They don't have to play by residential rules. They can bulldoze forests and natural environments and re-route waterways and use up millions of gallons of water daily with no problem because...I'm not really sure. People with money like to golf? Yeah, that's pretty much it. People with money like to golf and as long as that remains true, the rest of us will have to get used to brushing our teeth with dry toothbrushes and bathing once a week so that shitty people can continue to cheat at a so-called sport they claim to love but really only enjoy because it gives them an excuse to get away from their wives and jobs they don't like.

So let's ban this silly hobby. At the very least it might encourage our president to get to work. Although, that might not be such a good thing either considering his policies.

Ok, nevermind. I guess golf is good for something after all. Let's keep those greens green and that Orange buffoon occupied with correcting his slice rather than completely dismantling our democracy.

I Love You All...Class Dismissed. 

The Power of Protest

This past weekend saw the stunning, worldwide success of the Women's March.

The spirit of 60s protest has been revived in America over the past few years, starting in earnest with Occupy Wall Street and picking up steam after the killing of Trayvon Martin and subsequent release of his killer. Since then, there have been numerous national protest movements, largely directed at stopping police brutality. After the election of the charlatan-in-chief, protests have gone further mainstream, with celebrities and regular Americans showing up en masse to Saturday's Women's March. 

As much as it was a stand against Frump, it was also a sign of solidarity with women and women's rights. I thought it was great and I hope it continues. People shouldn't and won't simply forget the comments Trump and many of his supporters made (and continue to make) that are not only offensive to women, but all of humanity, as well as the very fabric of reality itself. Even more offensive are his policies, which will have a disproportionately adverse effect on women and children. 

Of course, not everyone feels this way. Which is fine! I appreciate alternative opinions (not alternative facts, those are simply lies, you Revolutionary War cosplayer) when they are informed by true facts and honest reflection. I also see the necessity of a conservative view in politics and government. Any healthy democracy has balance and dissent. I have strong opinions, and I voice them (or at least write them) for my own sanity and to maybe help someone else formulate their own opinion. I don't discredit someone's humanity just because of a certain opinion they may have, but I will fully and strongly support my own perspective, and I'm not going to change my mind to make anybody comfortable. There are certain opinions and ideologies that outweigh any bonds I may have with someone. I know all of my true friends don't agree with me on everything (in most cases it's just a matter of degree, in others it's a case of complete disagreement) but the issues we disagree on aren't vital to my humanity, such as the importance of equality and diversity. They wouldn't be my friends otherwise.

The Women's March was interesting because it was vague enough so that being against it would mean you're kind of against women. That was genius! Who could be against women? Plenty of people, apparently. Obviously, many Dump supporters were not too fond of it because they realized this was a rally against Dump, his comments, and his policies. I think a lot of Dump's female supporters (53% of white women voted for Dump) were a little perplexed because they wanted to support women but didn't want to oppose Dump, not realizing (or accepting) that supporting Dump is indeed opposing women. It was a bit of an existential crisis, and hopefully, it made them question their decision.

Some people genuinely didn't know what the march was about, but many would "inquire" about it in a not-too-subtle derogatory manner; usually not enough to be openly offensive, but with a clear intent of devaluing the protest. I saw many comments like, "Why are they doing it now and not before the election? Why don't they wait until laws are actually changed? Why don't they wait until some other arbitrary time that still wouldn't satisfy my bullshit complaints anyway?" I made that last one up probably, but the others were common. If these curious cats really wanted to know what it was all about, there were plenty of sources to find out. Instead, they would purposely troll people who attended or showed support with questions disguised as genuine curiosity or concern and really intended to distract from and demean the massive show of solidarity.

But those questions are the least of the concerning statements I saw. There was a lot of push back from mostly white men disputing that a women's march is even necessary. "America is the best country in the world for women!" Even if that were true, does that mean things can't get better? That's another tactic to shut down protest. It's a tactic of abusive partners, too. Telling victims of oppression (any level of oppression) that they should appreciate how good they have it. It happens after every protest. After Black Lives Matter protests: "Oh you don't like it here, go back to Africa!" I saw guys telling women they should be protesting Saudi Arabia's treatment of women. I had never seen so many white men care about women's rights in Saudi Arabia until Saturday. Weird timing!

The idea is to convince people that what they're protesting really isn't that bad, or that it's not really an issue at all. Police brutality? You're lucky to have police! It used to be even worse, so get over it! "They" (as DJ Khaled would say) want you to believe things can never get better than they are right now, so don't even bother. Just accept everything as it is. There's no significant difference in how women are treated in this country! There's no push to restrict access to reproductive rights and services even though republicans literally ran on defunding Planned Parenthood! There's no "glass ceiling" in America! The percentage of female CEOs in the Fortune 500 is only 4% because men work harder and longer! Damn near 20% of Congress is female, so what's your problem, ladies?

The general idea that these complaints are trying to push forward is that sexism is over. It's the same mode of thinking that said racism was over because Obama won. Although, going by that logic, wouldn't it mean sexism is alive because Clinton lost? Logic isn't really their strong point, unfortunately.

Speaking of Clinton, that was another complaint. "They're just butthurt their candidate didn't win!" Well, engaging with this ridiculous complaint makes everyone a loser, but I'm willing to do so just so nobody else will have to (my posts end all debate on a given topic, right?). If people are mad their candidate didn't win, they have every right to protest, just as Obama's critics did. Although there were significantly less nooses and burning effigies during this protest. The Tea Party (the original and the knockoff) was created as a protest movement; I didn't agree with any of their stances, and their signs/outfits/hygiene were often sickening, but they had every right to protest.

Pictured: a perfectly valid protest based on an incredibly invalid complaint. 

Secondly, this was not about Clinton. Some people certainly expressed their continued support of her, but she was not the center of this movement. It was absolutely anti-Trump, but anti-Trump doesn't necessarily mean pro-Hillary (as my previous post explained. Come on people, you're clearly not reading my posts). Hell, half the people I know who voted for Clinton didn't really like her that much, they just didn't want Trump. Rightfully so.

I mean, she did get 3 million more votes...and people do have a legitimate gripe with the electoral college...and Russia and the FBI played some role in the election results, although the degree is certainly up for debate...but we'll leave all that alone.

Because of the broad scope of reasons behind the march, some people criticized it for a lack of focus. "You ask ten different people why they're marching and they give you ten different issues!" Right. There are a lot of issues that affect women. Again, that was part of its beauty. The idea was to unite a vast array of people passionately supporting a variety of important issues and recognizing that these disparate issues don't divide us, they make us stronger. There's a sense of empowerment in such large gatherings, and that alone is reason enough to march.

Some even tried to complain about it being too vulgar. Apparently, grabbing a pussy without consent and bragging about it is not vulgar enough to prevent someone from becoming president, but saying the word pussy or writing it on a cardboard sign is too vulgar for a protest.

All in all though, I saw less criticisms of this protest than most over the last few years. Maybe more people are beginning to understand the necessity of protest. Or maybe people are more accepting of mostly white female protesters. Cops certainly are. People tout the lack of arrests as a great thing, which it is I suppose, but it also speaks to what happens when police are supportive of protests instead of confrontational. When police are high-fiving protesters, you know the vibe is a little different than usual.

And don't give me that "well these protestors were being peaceful" bullshit. 
Ieshia Evans was in a damn prom dress. 

I wasn't surprised that there were no arrests for this march, but it was a bit odd seeing cops so supportive of a largely anti-Trump rally since 92% of cops voted for Trump. I wonder if cops told the protesters who they voted for. I wonder how many of the protesters voted for Trump. I wonder how many protesters condemned earlier protests in places like Ferguson and Baltimore.

Hopefully many of the women and men who showed up for the Women's March will show up or at least express their support for the next Black Lives Matter protests. The central tenets of both movements are very much aligned, and both movements need each other to make a lasting impact.

The biggest difference between these protests and the majority of protests with numerous arrests was the amount of people of privilege. Not only were there more white women than usual (a group of people that historically gets a little more leniency from police than let's say...everybody) but there were also a number of celebrities in attendance. My girl ScarJo was speaking out. That little gremlin Madonna was speaking out (which, in all honesty, doesn't help any cause) and many others. No cop is trying to be a subject of a celebrity's next project.

Cops respond a little less aggressively with celebrities, but the online complaints increase in aggressiveness when it comes to celebrities speaking out. The legendary, iconic Meryl Streep caught a bunch of heat for speaking out against Harrumph during a speech at an awards show. Award shows are the most meaningless event imaginable, and people got mad at what she chose to spend her 5 minutes talking about. The president-elect himself took the time to comment, instead of I don't know, taking intelligence briefings or something. That means her speech worked. Protests are supposed to get people talking about a topic. So if it comes from a celebrity or a twitter activist or a politician, the fact that people are discussing it means it is effective.

Generally, people want celebrities to shut up when they disagree with their own stance. If Streep was praising Trump, how many of his supporters would have said celebrities should stay out of politics? And, conversely, do you think so many people would have supported her if she praised Trump? Remember Michael Moore speaking out against the popular (at the time) war in Iraq at the Oscars? The "Hollywood elite liberals" largely booed him.

The media (those scalawags!) don't make it any better; they know that celebrities are just bait for our arguments, so they love to find the stupidest celebrities with the stupidest beliefs and give them airtime. Is there any reason for a Duck Dynasty cast member to talk about race relations in America? No. And no rational person would care to ask. But when some racist nonsense is splashed on the screen, people eat it up, either because they finally see someone with their views unafraid to voice them publicly, or they are utterly horrified and have to condemn it. Jimbo says the dumbest thing you've ever heard, and you just have to share it on Facebook with some angry redface emojis as the caption.

The reality is, in a world with the guy from Celebrity Apprentice as President (and the current guy from Celebrity Apprentice is an actor turned governor) nobody can ever tell a celebrity to stay out of politics ever again. This stupid complaint should've ended when Ronald Reagan, a B-list actor for decades before becoming a conservative spokesperson against "socialized medicine," was elected Governor and then president.

Athletes get it the worst. Colin Kaepernick is the latest and greatest athlete activist. He sparked a movement and dominated the nationwide discussion for weeks. I can't keep track of how many people shouted some variation of, "Shut up and play, boy!" Some of these same people posted images and quotes from Muhammad Ali when he passed. The nerve.

Nobody understands irony anymore. These people want to praise activists of the past and condemn those of the present, not realizing which side they are truly on. They are the villains in the movies from the 60s. They are the bad guys in Ali. In Selma. Of course, there's always a vapid excuse to explain away the glaring contradiction. "Things have gotten a lot better since then, they should appreciate how good they have it!" Or, "Well, they shouldn't protest in that way!"

The absolute worst is when people bring MLK into their condemnation of protesters. "I agree with the cause just not the way he's doing it. MLK would never divide the country!" Shut the entire hell up. You would be the same exact assholes shouting him down and throwing shit at him. Before his assassination (you remember how he was killed right? He wasn't left to live until a ripe old age. Ring a bell?) almost 2/3 of the country did not approve of him or his "methods." It's real easy to voice support for him now, but when it comes to the present day, the very same people claiming to be experts on MLK's causes and actions seem to be against them at every turn.

I saw a lot of people claiming Kaepernick has nothing to complain about, he's rich! One sportscaster tweeted a picture of Kap and his family (a well off white family) asking how could he possibly complain about inequality. Again, missing the point, and in fact proving it. Basically the guy was saying he couldn't have been struggling because his adopted family was white. So, white privilege does exist! Which is Kaepernick's point! Some people clearly don't understand empathy, or the concept of standing up for a cause. You don't have to be personally struggling to stand up for the struggle.

Then people turned it into a military thing, which was an intentional misunderstanding and obfuscation of his point. He made his reasoning very clear, and people simply chose to ignore it and label it anti-military, either because they disagreed with his stance outright and didn't want to admit that, or they just wanted to get on with their Sunday routine without having any tough conversations on race. "The troops" is everyone's favorite rhetorical pawn. Once again, the irony was missed by most of the detractors. The troops serve to protect our right to stand or not stand during the national anthem, and our right to express our feelings on our decision to stand or not stand for the national anthem.

Sports fans love to watch movies with players of every color coming together as a team (who doesn't love Remember the Titans?) but we don't want to talk about the same issues pertaining to real people in real time. We don't want to hear Kap's reason for protesting. Standing for the national anthem is something you just do, so his actions look like disrespect. I'd argue that going along with something just because everyone else is doing it is more disrespectful to the American spirit. Simply standing for an anthem out of tradition does not make you a patriot. Kap kneeling makes us question the concept of patriotism, and some people can't handle that.

To this day, some people claim it was all just a publicity stunt. The guy gives a million dollars to charity and works in his community every week, and yet they will still tell you he was just doing it because he wasn't a good quarterback anymore. Yeah. I'm sure that if he was winning, all of these people would have no problem with him protesting. There must be a level of success above Colin Kaeprnick and below Meryl Streep that is just right for protesting.

There is no such thing as an "appropriate" protest, because the people who would dictate how and when someone should protest are the very people protests are aimed at. Protest is supposed to make people uncomfortable. The audience is supposed to question long held beliefs. Protest causes a disturbance to the status quo, and it is one of the most fundamental means of voicing one's opinion.

As the pushback against protesters continues, and legislators seek to literally legalize killing protesters, it's more and more important to keep standing for what you believe in and supporting others who do, too. Look for connections to be made between those who passionately support civil/equal rights issues. The issues we care about unite us more than divide us. Make your feminism and anti-racism and support for LGBT rights intersectional. If you supported the Women's March, support Black Lives Matter and #NoDAPL protests and trans rights rallies. Understand that the same claims made to discredit or degrade one protest will be used against whatever cause you support. Start listening to the people who have been organizing and protesting around these issues for years now. People (myself included) need to be more consistently engaged and understand how these issues are connected and how they affect our daily lives.

And one last thing...

I Love You All...Class Dismissed.

2016 ELECTION!!! KILL ME!!!

I hate the Electoral College, but this year I will use my Electoral College Privilege to vote my conscience.

It's already over in Connecticut, so why wouldn't I?

What I want to do here is explain my position on the presidential election. This is more for my sake than anyone else, so please don't look to me for an endorsement or any advice (unless it's to vote for your local representatives; you should definitely do that).

My presidential vote has never meant a thing because I live in an overwhelmingly Democratic state. CT hasn't voted for a Republican president since 1988. So call me jaded or whatever, but that reality has made me more steadfast about voting for someone who actually represents my beliefs and policies.

Just to be clear, if my previous posts haven't done so already, I believe Donald Trump and his supporters are a threat to our country and common decency and must be stopped. There's no question about that. I'm not gonna even waste any more time explaining why I would never vote for Trump. Its a sad state of affairs that anyone with a functioning brain even has to spend time denouncing him. There is no rational argument to letting this buffoonish, boorish, clownish conman lead a country. None.

The thing that I'm struggling with, the thing I have agonized over for months, is which woman I will give my vote to. If I was in a swing state, I would probably give in and vote for Clinton because ultimately, I agree that defeating Chump and his deranged minions is the most important goal here. But my state will do that without my help. Plus, I think there are a lot of people with policies just as dangerous as Trump's. In fact, they may be even more dangerous because they know how to put a more acceptable spin on those policies. Mike Pence can come out of the debate with the respect of Democrats because he talks like a normal human being, even though he signed a law that made it mandatory to have funerary services for aborted fetuses, in an attempt to ultimately ban abortions all together. So is Trump an existential threat? Sure. but more for his buffoonishness than anything. The insane policies and racism and sexism are not exclusive to him. Guys like Pence scare me just as much as Trump.

However, Clinton scares me, too. Mostly, the rush to elect her and look past everything she has ever done just to defeat Trump scares me. Democrats refuse to acknowledge her many flaws; yet if she was a Republican, they would probably be calling for her arrest as well. Many Democrats wanted Bush thrown in jail for his actions in the Middle East. Now, they are touting the endorsement of  Paul Wolfowitz, the architect of the Iraq War, as a good thing, and saying things like "W wasn't that bad!" What??

Remember when Democrats were against war? I 'member. Now, Obama has so many bombing campaigns that we can hardly keep track, and most Democrats don't utter a word against it. His legacy will be uniting both Dems and GOP to support countless undeclared wars. Awesome.

I believe Hillary Clinton will ensure the status quo in regards to foreign policy, as well as corporatism, money in politics, the wealth gap, and deportations. Yet, the focus on the absolute abomination named Trump is letting the horrible policies of Clinton and other Democrats go by unquestioned. I refuse to let it all slide.

That said, I don't have anything against people who vote for Clinton simply to stop him. I have long wrestled with doing that myself.

But I can't vote for a person and a party that has let me and my country down continuously. I can't reward someone for colluding with the DNC and debate moderators. I can't reward a campaign that continuously shuns and demeans progressives in order to assuage conservatives. I can't reward a campaign that sounds the alarms of a renewed war with Russia whenever the poll numbers go down (it's 2016 and Dems have finally embraced McCarthyism!). I can't reward a candidate who voted for the Iraq War, then campaigned on the fact that she now realizes Iraq was a mistake, yet wants to continue the same type of interventions. A candidate that has vowed to put boots on the ground in Syria. A candidate who was behind the disastrous intervention in Libya. A candidate who is perfectly fine with helping Saudi Arabia bomb children in Yemen.

So, because of the idiotic electoral college, I'm going to use my privileged position to vote my conscience and maybe give a 3rd party a boost that will give them more political power going forward. If we never take a stand against the two party, "lesser of two evils" system, we'll forever be stuck with two parties and a choice between the lesser of two evils.

"You're throwing your vote away!" is always the response. The funny thing is, Republicans and Democrats both say it, but especially if they think you'd vote for their candidate if not for the 3rd party. I've seen both "A vote for Stein is a vote for Trump!" and "A vote for Stein is a vote for Hillary!" I could've sworn a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Jill Stein, but what do I know.

I've also seen a lot of "If Hillary loses it's on the 3rd party voters!" That one baffles me. So its not on the Democrats for not getting enough votes, or on the GOP for supporting a racist, sexist con artist even after most of them denounced him in public displays of "courage"? It's not on the millions of people who are bafflingly stupid enough to vote for Trump? It's on 3rd party voters? It's like when Nader voters get blamed for Al Gore's loss in 2000. They don't mention the unprecedented ruling from the Supreme Court that stopped the recount that would have given Gore the presidency. They don't mention the 300,000 Democrats in Florida who voted for Bush, or the malfunctioning voting machines, or hanging chads. No, 3rd party voters get blamed. That's complete horseshit. To me, it speaks to the fact that Clinton supporters just aren't confident in their candidate. I could even go so far as to say that many Clinton voters feel guilty for compromising their beliefs. But I won't do that. Ultimately, we are on the same side, so why would I attack them? Clinton supporters should ask themselves the same thing.

So for me, it comes down to two options, and neither involve a sentient spray tan or a plain old moron.

I've voted for someone who I don't completely agree with before, and this year I will do it again. I understand that nobody is perfect and that we will never have a candidate who represents every single one of our beliefs. But how long will we accept "lesser of two evils" as our sole reasoning for voting for a candidate? Every election we are told, "3rd party is a good option, but not this year, there's too much at stake." There's always a lot at stake, that's the point of elections! That's like telling people to "wait for the right moment" for civil rights. They don't mean "wait," they mean "never gonna happen."

This year, there is a pile of dog shit running for president, so that mindset is at least somewhat reasonable. I know Chump can not be allowed to win. Shaming people into voting for Clinton is not the solution, though. I despise when people try to shame 3rd party voters, usually leveraging LGBT folks and other minorities as a weapon to guilt people into supporting a center-right candidate, using oppressed groups to prop up a politician with a highly questionable relationship with said minorities. The idea that Clinton and the Democrats care much about these groups is laughable. Or it would be if it weren't so sad. So yeah, I recognize my privilege as a 35 year old straight white male. And I know (I fucking know) that Trump is worse. But I also know that Democrats in North Carolina helped pass the anti-trans bathroom bill. Bill Clinton passed Don't Ask Don't Tell, and the Defense of Marriage Act. There are still states that can fire you for being gay. Will Clinton change that? I certainly hope so, but LGBT activists and the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, not Democrats. Clinton expressed a desire to create policies to diminish police brutality, but will she? Her leaked emails show that her campaign directed its operatives to express support for Black Lives Matter but to make sure they didn't pledge support for any policy proposals. That tells me all I need to know about her. I realize all politicians pander, but she takes it to another level.

This is one of the biggest problems with Hillary, her public vs private positions. Say one thing, do another. It's been a gripe against her for years, and we saw in her emails that it is literally how she approaches her job.

Then there's her policy on immigration. Trump's wall is the stupidest proposal in American politics. But what have the Dems done? Obama, with the help of Clinton, has deported more people than any other president. Honestly, I don't know why Republicans don't love these two. Clinton also refused to allow refugees from Latin American countries, mostly children, even though her policies played a huge part of said refugee crisis. She helped the right-wing military coup in Honduras but won't help the people affected by it? Even when basically every humanitarian group in the world asks her not to, she will still deport your Latino ass, kids.

Thankfully, most Democrats are accepting of Muslim refugees. That is a big difference in the parties, and I'm thankful for most Democrat's stance. However, most never acknowledge the fact that Democrat policies have created these refugees. So, allowing them to come here is literally the least they can do.

Then there's Haiti. Not only did Hillary fuck them over as Secretary of the State, but the Clinton Foundation got in on the action, too. Speaking of the Clinton Foundation...they do some great things. They also do some very sketchy things, like forget to claim a million dollar donation from the oppressive regime Qatar.

The thing is, Trump and other GOPers blow the truth out of proportion so we don't look into these things as closely as we should. "Trump says the Clinton Foundation took $500 million for a hospital that was never built!" Well, no, but as the article in that link explains, they certainly did screw up bigly.

She also had a ridiculous response to the Dakota Access Pipeline protests. Read that response in full. This is the savior of the oppressed? This is who we have to vote for on behalf of minorities everywhere? Are you fucking kidding me? She, and many Democrats, prioritize business and corporate rights over individual rights, each and every time. They claim to be for the people, but when it comes down to it, they want the money. Do I even need to go into her connections to Wall Street and the Democrats disgraceful acquiescence to disastrous Wall Street policies? She says she wants to strengthen the laughably weak Dodd-Frank Act, but she won't reinstate Glass Steagall or anything like it. So we'll see if she reigns them in at all or if we see another market crash in a couple years.

Sadly, her response to Dakota Access is in line with her environmental policies as well. Democrats push for climate change policies while allowing more offshore drilling than ever before. Clinton supports fracking, even though the very state she served in the Senate banned it. So yeah, it's great that Democrats believe in climate change publicly, but their policies ensure nothing productive will be done to stop it.

What almost makes me vote for her (besides the insanity of a possible Trump presidency) are the absurd conspiracies concocted by Republicans over the years. They have tried any and everything to bring her down, and she keeps going. I respect that. I dislike her for policy reasons, not bullshit conceived to sell books and keep the GOP in power. I don't blame her for Benghazi. I blame our government as a whole, just like I blame our government for the numerous deaths at embassies over the years, not to mention the numerous deaths of soldiers and civilians. That's not on her alone. Not to mention, they've had more congressional hearings on Benghazi than they did on 9/11 and they've found nothing to charge her with. Enough already.

I also don't care much about her emails. There's nothing groundbreaking there. However, her entire approach to the emails, from having a private server to stonewalling investigators to deleting emails, speaks to her personality and approach to governance. It's highly off-putting. Expect even less transparency than usual when she's in charge.

Regardless, I don't want her thrown in jail over that. Neither does the FBI.

I don't think she's evil or a literal witch (seriously, this is a real claim being made right now). Honestly, the attacks on her have done more to encourage me to vote for her than anything her campaign has done. Just seeing her attackers cry and whine for another 4-8 years might make it all worth it. I would vote for her in a heartbeat if there was a guarantee that Sean Hannity would televise his mental breakdown and subsequent stroke.

The one area that I fully support Clinton, and Democrats, is reproductive rights. That is very important to me, and again, if I was in a swing state, that alone would get me to vote for her. Women should have the right to choose, but more importantly, they should have access to healthcare. Plain and simple. The Democrats are the only sane ones on this matter.

Which brings me to one last point against Hillary. I think her husband's actions are often held against her unfairly. It's not fair to blame Hillary for her husband's misguided policies (mass incarceration, welfare reform). It's also not her fault he's a scumbag. I don't knock her for staying with him, even though I often think it was politically motivated. I don't know their relationship; maybe there is a deep love there. What I can't defend is her behavior towards her husband's accusers, and the overall willingness of Democrats to look the other way when it comes to Bill's behavior. It's not fair to equate Donald's behavior with Hillary's (she didn't cheat or sexually assault anyone) but it's a little hypocritical of Democrats to act like they don't have a long history with supporting a crude, powerful, predatory man.

It's also not fair to shame people into voting for her based on the premise that a vote for her is a vote against hate. Yes, Trumpers are a hateful bunch. But voting for Hillary is not going to stop the hate that Trump has incited, the hate that's always been there. It's not gonna stop anti-semitism. It's not gonna stop online harassment. Its not gonna stop guys from beating up Mexicans or Sikhs. It's not gonna stop white supremacy.

Allowing the man who promotes these things into office certainly won't stop it either, though. And maybe that's the best we can ask for? Democrats have long been a stopgap at most, so maybe I should vote for them just to ensure the megalomaniac fascist doesn't win? The worst part about all this is that there will be someone worse than Trump next time, and they'll be even more motivated because of Hillary's victory. They will also be smarter. They will know not to be so openly racist and sexist and moronic. Or not. Hell, former Klansman David Duke has a shot at becoming a US Senator. In 2016. Either way, Trump is not an isolated event of fuckery and his Band of Moronic Men isn't going anywhere.

Something to remember is that voting is not the only or most important way to get involved. I don't blame anyone for not voting, truly. I know a lot of very informed people who are active in their communities who do not want to vote for president. I get that. You can't flaunt the fact that you voted as proof that you're doing something worthwhile; on the other hand, if you're doing absolutely nothing to improve your community AND you don't vote, then your opinion doesn't really matter.

So...maybe just vote? However you feel about the presidential candidates, and despite the fact that individual votes don't have a major impact, especially in non-swing states, voting is still important. There are other positions in government, believe it or not. Local government affects our lives more on a daily basis, so that should be the incentive to vote, not whether you like Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich less. Even that infamous South Park episode ended by encouraging people to vote. Besides the local and state officials, we also get to vote on direct issues, like legalizing weed! Well not us, as in CT residents or Americans in general, but 5 states will decide that this year. There are many other important issues that citizens should be involved in deciding, too. Check out who and what is on the ballot in your area!

I'll leave you with this, and I kid you not, this was not planned. As I was writing this and listening to music, Scarface's "Hand of the Dead Body" from 1994 came on. At the end of his verse, Ice Cube says, "So fuck Bill and Hillary." I take all my political advice from Ice Cube, so I'm sticking with my conscience.

This Tuesday, I'll be voting on changes to my town's charter. I'll be voting for my US Senator and US Representative, as well as my State Senator and State Representative. I'll also be voting for Jill Stein.

Unless I see some of Trump's "exit poll protectors." Then I might vote for Hillary. Twice.

I hate this damn election.


I Love You All, America. Still. Somehow...Class Dismissed.

How is Supporting Donald Trump Racist? (Answered in 1 Sentence)

The other day a friend asked me why it has recently become popular to call all Donald Trump supporters racist. It's a fair question. No it's not. It's a dumb question, for a few reasons. First, it's not just recently. I have been labeling Donald Trump supporters racist for almost  a year. And I'm not the only one.

I'm just the only one that made this very convenient vine.

The other reason why it's a dumb question is because there is no shortage of evidence that Donald Trump is a racist with racist beliefs, actions, and policies. I mean seriously, if you have paid attention to Donald Trump even the slightest bit in the past 30 years, his racism (amongst other things) is obvious.

But I understand that some people don't equate supporting a racist as being racist itself. That's fucking stupid, but it is not an uncommon belief. Nobody wants to be seen as a racist. And supporting Donald Trump isn't like calling someone the n-word or refusing to serve a black guy at a restaurant or something blatantly racist like that. You love black people! You eat lunch with the black guy at work! You just happen to think Donald Trump is the best guy to run the country!

Well, guess what? That's racist as shit!

If you are still unsure of why supporting Donald Trump makes you a racist, let me explain in one sentence:

If you support Donald Trump, you support a guy that wants to ban an entire religious group from the US; a guy that has the full support of the KKK and has not denounced their support in any way; a guy whose father was either in the KKK or had close ties with them; a guy who will not admonish his fans when they use racial/ethnic slurs; a guy who will not admonish his fans, and in fact encourages them, when they attack protesters or random immigrants;  a guy who was sued by the Justice Department for the racist housing policies of his real estate firm in New York; a guy who bought an $85,000 advertisement in the New York Post damn near begging the state to kill 5 young black men for a rape they didn't commit; a guy who still has not apologized to those 5 young black men after they were found not guilty; a guy who thinks eating a taco bowl equates to cultural outreach to "The Hispanics"; a guy who wants to deport millions of those same Hispanics; a guy who's main policy initiative is literally the dumbest idea in the world--building a giant wall on the border between our southern neighbor and ally; a guy who calls those same neighbors and allies murderers and rapists; a guy who claims the border wall is for national security but has never mentioned a wall on our northern border to "protect" us against our more light skinned neighbors; a guy who is so blinded by racism that he doesn't realize at least 40% of undocumented immigrants come here legally on work or student visas and never cross  the Mexican border; a guy who hates immigrants but doesn't realize most new immigrants are coming from India and China and never cross the Mexican border; a guy who thinks Mexicans are so dumb that they don't know how to use tunnels (or, I don't know, planes?) to cross the border; a guy who thinks "The Blacks" and "The Hispanics" and "The Women" love him yet doesn't realize he has historically low support among those groups; a guy who wants to ignore international rules of engagement and kill the entire families of terrorists (only Islamic terrorists, though); a guy who wants to "kick China's ass"; a guy who single-handedly legitimized the Birther movement against Barack Obama and still hasn't provided the proof he claimed to have; if you support all of that, then yes, that makes you a racist.

Any other questions?


I Love You All (Even Donald Trump Supporters Racists, But Only Because Love is the Only Thing That Conquers Hate)...Class Dismissed.