Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Chelsea Handler and Playboy Define Feminism

Playboy.

According to Dictionary.com, the literal definition is “a man who pursues a life of pleasure without responsibility or attachments, especially one who is of comfortable means.”

That’s the genteel way of putting it. Urbandictionary.com, as usual, is much more blunt:

·         “A man dedicated to chasing pieces of ass around, while sworn to a life of debauchery. He professes his love to all and commits to no one.”
·         “An older word for a ‘Player… essentially ‘bullshit artists’ who… usually hate their mothers, at least deep down, and, in turn, hate all women because of this. Women to them are to be used sexually and then thrown away when they get ‘clingy.’ Many times, their mothers were control freaks, half-insane or slept with a wide assortment of abusive men while the ‘play boy in training’ was growing up.”
·         “The male version of a whore.”
                                                                                                  
So basically, a playboy is a misogynist. Which means that a magazine called Playboy is the last place on earth a real feminist should be found.

Right?

Right.

Which is why Chelsea Handler sat down with Playboy to discuss feminism. Because she has no idea what a woman is really worth.

If you don’t know Handler, she’s a so-called comedian who talks about crude topics and insults people. I tried reading one of her books a while back. I think it was My Horizontal Life: A Collection of One-Night Stands. And it wasn’t even remotely funny.

It was vaguely depressing reading about her sexual experiences, including with a cabin boy on a cruise line who smacked her butt – apparently hard, out of the blue and without permission – while he had her down all fours. As I remember the tale, Handler didn’t make him stop.

So it makes sense that Playboy wants women to take their sexual and political cues from her.

According to Handler, she had some seriously dysfunctional parents, which is probably part of the reason why she got pregnant twice when she was sixteen. Both times, she got abortions.

As a result, she says she “should be applauded for making a smart and sustainable decision. I’d love for somebody to try to tell me what to do with my body. I dare them.”

The sad truth is that Playboy and – by her own admission – a long line of men already took her up on her challenge. It’s just that they made her believe it was her choice.

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Ridiculous Maryland Emissions Regulations Aren’t Doing the Environment Any Good

After a weeks-long hassle of getting my Pennsylvania-bought car properly registered in the state of Maryland – which incidentally cost me $700 – I got a notice from the Maryland Vehicle Administration, or MVA.

Apparently, “Maryland law requires that [my vehicle] be tested for emissions between now and July 27, 2016.”

Why? Because Maryland cares about the environment.

Now, I already got my car inspected. It passed with flying colors… the second time… after it failed the first time due to some nitpicky Maryland-only regulation that made me choose between driving back to Pennsylvania to spend $200 or staying put and spending $800.

Guess which one I went for.

That right there was an extra seven gallons of gas worth of toxic fumes that I emitted into poor mother nature’s atmosphere, all because of the supposedly Earth-conscious and caring legislators down in Annapolis.

And now, because they don’t allow privately owned state-inspection-licensed facilities to run emissions tests, I have to go out of my way again – upping local CO2 levels as I go – to comply with Maryland regulations.

So basically, the MVA wants to save the environment by making drivers make pointless trips to inspect their gas emissions.

Maryland legislators are either the dumbest people on the planet or they’re just really interested in taking my money and wasting my time.

I wish I could believe it was the former.

Friday, June 24, 2016

Great Britain Brexits the European Union!

The first thing I did when I woke up this morning was check on the Brexit vote.

The second, after seeing that Great Britain had elected to leave the European Union, was to check the markets on Yahoo! Finance.

Not surprisingly, the Dow, S&P 500 and Nasdaq futures were not happy with the decision.

But what really grabbed my attention was the headline “How Trump benefits from Brexit.” I figured he had sunk some serious money into shorting the euro or the pound or something, rather like George Soros did back in 1992.

Don’t ask me why in the world I would expect such logical commentary from such an impudent media. Maybe hope springs eternal?

Clearly, stupidity does considering the first paragraph I found when I clicked on the article:

“UK voters shocked just about everyone when they voted Thursday to leave the European Union. The Brexit shows the weakness not only of the EU and globalization – but also of polling. And doesn’t Donald Trump love that!”

Oh. My. Word. Is this writer for real?

That’s not news, people. That’s not journalism. That’s blogging. This writer and I should seriously switch jobs, because he’s much better at throwing emotion around to back his beliefs than producing mature, unbiased, worthwhile copy.

For that matter, he also doesn’t know how to support his own argument since he goes on to say that the Brexit vote “really was a rejection of the British establishment by the voters, with a great deal of voting falling along class lines. There are many exceptions, but generally Brexit voters tended to be working class while the ‘stay’ crowd was more upper-crusty.

“What does this mean for the US? Not much directly – our trade with Britain is less than 1% of GDP, except that it suggests nativism, populism and me-firstism have a great deal of traction.

“This bodes well for Donald Trump.”

I have a number of purely logical issues with those statements, but let’s just focus on the sheer elitism they display…

So poor people voted to leave and the rich voted to stay. But poor people are the selfish ones to determine that they’ve suffered enough under decades of European Union upper-class snobbery?

What about the rich? Aren’t they protecting their own interests? Aren’t they just as indicative of “me-firstism” – as this writer so ineloquently puts it – for wanting to keep a status-quo that supports them and their well-padded lifestyles?

Don’t poor people matter too?

Personally, I’m proud of Great Britain. It’s going to have a really hard time in the short-term, but the European Union is not, will not be and never was sustainable. It was a foolish idea to begin with and can only cause further pain down the road.

So bravo to Britain for its Brexit.

I’ve never been more impressed with them than I am right now.

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Was Donald Trump Really Wrong for Calling Out “Silent” American Muslims

Omar Mateen, the Muslim who shot up that gay club in Orlando was a Hillary supporter.

At least that’s what a friend of his, Mohammed A. Malik, says: “We talked about the presidential election and debated our views of the candidates that were running – he liked Hillary Clinton and I liked Bernie Sanders.”

That’s one small – though fascinating – detail in a lengthy Washington Post article Malik wrote to respectfully refute Donald Trump’s accusation that American Muslims stay silent about suspicious behavior in their community.

According to Malik, he did contact the FBI on two different occasions concerning two different individuals.

The first time was in 2014, after 22-year-old Moner Mohammad Abu-Salha became the first American-born suicide bomber after droving an explosives-filled truck into a government office in Syria. Since Abu-Salha attended the same mosque, Malik responded to the FBI’s open request for information to give what details he could despite not being close to his fellow worshipper.

The second time was about Omar Mateen.

A decent year or two before Mateen shot up the Orlando club, he told Malik he’d been watching videos by a radical imam who had already inspired multiple terrorists and terrorist attacks.

Okay. Good to know. Malik seems like a good guy. And it’s easy to believe his claim that he’s not alone in reaching out to authorities about suspicious behavior within the Muslim community.

To say otherwise is to generalize a humongous population - which is so very, very rarely right.

Even so, I’m not ready to discount Trump’s remarks based on Malik’s article. While Malik vents his frustration – and mentions Mateen’s frustrations – about Islamophobia in the U.S., the truth is there have been far too many terrorist attacks made by American Muslims… whereas you so very rarely hear about American Christians or American Jews or American Hindus or American Buddhists going out of their way to murder people in the name of their religion.

So it’s perfectly logical to wonder what the larger American Muslim community’s role is in all of this is.

It’s also completely logical to point out how Malik went to a mosque that two terrorists attended. I mean, how many terrorists have gone to your church? How many know you by face or name?

And perhaps it’s also valid to note again that this latest American Muslim terrorist was going to vote for Hillary.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Why Are We So Sure We Have a Gun Problem and Not a Muslim Problem?

So a Muslim walks into an Orlando gay club and shoots the place up.

Sounds like the start of a really bad joke, right?

Well, it is. The kind that reasonable people everywhere should be offended by.

After all, this isn’t even close to the first time Muslims have committed mass atrocities with guns. There was the San Bernardino attack last December, the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris in January 2015 and then the Paris attacks nine months later, where AK-47-wielding ISIS terrorists killed over 120 people and wounded hundreds more.

Clearly there’s a problem here, and it isn’t unreasonable to think that problem isn’t guns.

But the 2nd Amendment becomes even more irreproachable when you consider further facts, such as how Muslim extremists are just as happy to use bombs, planes, fire, knives, crosses and swords to kill, maim, torture and otherwise terrorize people.

Rumor is they just beheaded a 4-year-old girl, then forced her mother to soak her hands in the dead child’s blood.

In case anyone isn’t sure, you can’t really behead a person with a mere gun.

Yet amidst this string of heinous behavior, we’re trying to ban firearms. What about banning Muslims?

If that sounds extreme, it should. Because, of course, not all Muslims are extremists. But clearly, there are enough of them that are to require some serious discussions in the Western World.

Instead, we all keep welcoming them in. Our politicians either validate them or ignore them.

Instead, without fail, every time there’s some kind of an attack by Muslim extremists, we have conversations about being nice to them, not preventing further attacks.

And if there are guns involved, like there were in Orlando, then we focus on that factor.

On Monday, Senate Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid bemoaned how, “It’s always the same. After each tragedy, we try. We Democrats try to pass sensible gun safety measures. Sadly, our efforts are blocked by the Republican Congress who take their marching orders from the National Rifle Association.”

I’m not writing today to discuss the Republican party’s relationship with the NRA.

But even if it was inappropriate, judging by recent history, it’d be a hell of a lot less dangerous than both sides’ aversion to discussing the Muslim problem we clearly have.

Friday, June 10, 2016

What’s the Big Deal About Rape?

Everyone is condemning the father of the Stanford student who was just convicted of rape-related charges.

Upset about his son’s six-month jail sentence and permanent placement on the sex offenders’ list, Dan Turner posted his outrage that “20 minutes of action” would haunt lil’ Brock Allen for the rest of his life.

“20 minutes of action.” That’s what he called picking up an unconscious co-ed, carrying her outside to behind a dumpster, removing her clothing, and fingering and humping her.

“20 minutes of action.”

This has left the U.S. in a state of outrage over how anyone could classify rape so callously.

Well, peeps? Newsflash. According to Western society’s own logic, Dan Turner’s got a point.

We’ve been told for quite a while now that sex isn’t a big deal. That message is in our movies. It’s in our music. It’s in our streets (SlutWalks, anyone?). And yes, it’s on our campuses.

You think Stanford and all these other schools that have been getting into trouble for being too “rapey” don’t know what their students are doing in those frat houses and dorm rooms?

Of course they do! They encourage it. Because the more “fun” kids have on campus, the higher student enrollment will be and the bigger their paychecks.

Plus, students who are high on sex, drugs and alcohol aren’t going to protest the poor education they’re getting from professors who push propaganda instead of teaching critical thinking skills. So they’re more than happy for kids to buy the lie that sex is simply good old-fashioned fun.

Just boys being boys and girls being girls.

By that rationale, sex is like finding $100 on the street: It’s a prize worth grabbing and it might be the highlight of your week, but it isn’t like you struck it rich or anything.

Yet it’s impossible to say sex isn’t a big deal without at least heavily implying that stealing sex – i.e. rape – isn’t either.  

I mean, Brock Allen Turner didn’t beat up the girl. She’s not permanently disabled or anything. She was unconscious: didn’t even know what was going on while it was going on.

So, according to the “no big deal” sex theory, he basically stole $100 from her. In which case, he should have to pay her back and do some community service, then get on with life.

But it’s not even close to being that simple, is it? Then again, sex never is.

Thursday, June 9, 2016

The Real Story of That Baby Bison Picked up By Tourists and Put Down by Yellowstone

I think people like condemning others because it makes them feel better about their own lives.

By focusing on how stupid others are, it’s easier to ignore our own poor choices.

Take the championed cause of that little bison calf in Yellowstone National Park. The one that two tourists saw, took to be lost and put in their car to bring to the next rangers’ station.

Not the brightest move ever. Not even close, no matter how well-meaning they were.

Now, those guys fortunately didn’t get mowed over by a suddenly appeared mama bison. But they did get reprimanded, fined and lambasted across the internet. And the baby bison had to be put down.

Everyone freaked out about it. Because, let’s face it, people like making a big deal about animals. They think it makes up for all the times they’ve abused humans with their selfishness (i.e. general egotism) or compassionate irrationality and irresponsibility (i.e. liberalism).

But just because the baby bison story seemed like a great pedestal to climb up on, it turned out to be one more example of how stupid people trying to feel less stupid end up looking more stupid.

And we know that now thanks to Deby Dixon.

According to The Washington Post, which ran her story, “Deby Dixon is a wildlife and nature photographer who lives outside Yellowstone National Park.” And after hearing about the outcry from the calf being picked up by tourists and put down by rangers, she felt the need to speak up.

Here’s what she said…

“I met the bison calf that took a ride in an SUV early one evening as I drove west in Yellowstone National Park’s Lamar Valley, past the pullout known as ‘Picnic.’…

“I spotted the calf near the road and all alone. It was crying out and seemed to be looking for its mother, but no other bison was anywhere close by. Instantly, I knew three things: The calf was orphaned or had become separated from its mother. The calf would not be adopted by another cow and could not survive alone, and so it was just a matter of time before it died or was killed.”

So the baby bison was going to die anyway. Foolish as those tourists were, this was not a matter of humans messing with nature to its ultimate detriment. If anything, shooting the calf was a more merciful ending than it otherwise would have gotten… starving to death or being ripped apart by predators.

It’s a fascinating article from start to finish. And, taken in context, it begs the question of when in the world we’re going to start learning the whole story before we condemn the people involved.

Wednesday, June 8, 2016

Feminist Outcry Over X-Men’s Mystique Sends Some Really Mixed Messages

The feminist movement is sending some really mixed signals.

No big shocker, I know. But let’s point out this latest bit of contradictory messaging anyway.

So the X-Men series launched its latest installment this month, X-MEN: Apocalypse. If you know nothing about these movies, here’s a breakdown from someone who knows next to nothing about them (I haven’t watched any since that absolutely awful X-Men: The Last Stand came out in 2006. It totally killed the whole franchise for me).

X-Men is about men – and women. Thanks for the misnomer, you sexist comic books – who have superpowers. They’re mutants, with special talents like controlling elements, reading minds, healing quickly from what should be lethal wounds… You know. That sort of thing.

Now, like humans, there are good mutants and bad mutants. And among the good guys – for now, anyway – is the very powerful, very agile, very kick-patootie shape-shifter, Mystique. She’s a warrior who doesn’t need a man to back her up.

If anything, she’s the one the guys want to back them up.

But like any superhero can tell you, there’s always a bad guy out there trying to prove that he or she’s more powerful than you. Just ask Iron Man Tony Stark or Captain America Steve Rogers or lowercase-god Thor or alien Superman Kal-El… or…

Oh wait. Those are all guys, aren’t they? Typical boys club, I guess. Just the thing the feminist movement should be delighted to crack with a superhero of its own. Like. Say. Mystique.

Sure enough, they were perfectly happy about it until 20th Century Fox paid and approved for a giant billboard in L.A. of said heroine getting choked by a much, much bigger bad guy.

Cue the uproar.

Critics immediately lambasted the advertisement as promoting violence against women. Poor little Mystique apparently should be allowed to beat up the bad guys without them beating back.

Which, of course, makes no sense whatsoever. Not in real life or in comic books. When you go out of your way to try to take the bad guy down, guess what’s gonna happen?

Fair’s fair, ladies.

That’s why you wouldn’t ever hear Tony Stark or Captain America or lowercase-god Thor or Superman fans crying about a billboard of their favorite hero getting throttled. They knew the mission was dangerous when they accepted it.

So feminists, by your own logic, isn’t it a bit silly to demand something different for Mystique?

Tuesday, June 7, 2016

Do Your Government a Favor and Kill Yourself

When I first saw previews to Me Before You, I pegged it as Nicholas Sparks’ type of tear-jerker.

Since that’s not my cup of tea, I forgot all about it until a respected friend posted a call to boycott the movie. Her stated rationale was that she has friends with disabilities who are more than worthwhile human beings. Moreover, she included a link to LifeSiteNews.com, which featured the headline: “Boycott ‘Me Before You’ movie: ‘Disability death porn’ (PETITION).”

Now that’s attention-grabbing!

So I clicked on the link to learn more about the movie. Here’s what it said:

“‘Disability death porn.’ That’s what disability rights advocates and anti-euthanasia activists are labeling the new Hollywood ‘romance’ film Me Before You, which they are condemning for sending the insidious message that people with disabilities are better off dead.

“The film, which is being released on June 3, sympathetically tells the story of a rich, handsome and intelligent young man named Will who, after becoming a quadriplegic through an accident, decides to kill himself in a Swiss suicide clinic. Despite the efforts of his beautiful new girlfriend to renew in him a zest for life, he goes through with the suicide, and receives the help of family and friends to do so.

“His suicide is portrayed as an act of love and selflessness.”

If that review is accurate, then that’s one of the biggest loads of ridiculousness I’ve ever heard.

I’m not going to attack the doctor-assisted suicide movement from a Christian worldview, nor a humanitarian or diversity perspective. I’m going right for the political platform…

Obamacare is now a thing. And unless Donald Trump is elected president (a definite possibility) and keeps his campaign promise to repeal it (a long-shot), Obamacare is here to stay.

Now, what does Obamacare involve? The government pays people’s healthcare, whether it’s for regular check-ups, cancer treatments or assistance for quadriplegics.

All of which costs money. A lot of it.

And let’s get real. The government doesn’t actually care about people. If it did, there’d be far more success stories coming out of the national and international welfare checks it doles out.

Instead, high-level government workers keep getting richer and richer, as do their prized contacts in other governments, the media and higher education.

So Obamacare – like most other government programs – is meant to take money from the people… and keep it. And the best way for it to do that is for people not to get sick.

Since that’s an impossible expectation, the solution is to get sick people to not ask for help. Therefore, encouraging them to kill themselves is the perfect solution: Dead men ask nothing of their government.

But this is Hollywood producing Me Before You, not the government, you might argue.

My response? Please tell me you’re not that na├»ve.

Hollywood, like most other big-media outlets, is an arm of the liberal agenda. That’s why conservatives are routinely attacked, mocked or flat-out ignored in most Hollywood productions.

Rampant sexuality is promoted, Christians are made to look like arrogant hypocrites or dweeby simpletons, and Republicans are portrayed as downright evil. So helping the government out once again by encouraging sick people to kill themselves is no big deal.

The fact is, if you’re healthy and pro-party, the government can use you. If you’re not, it can’t.

And that’s the reason why Me Before You is encouraging doctor-assisted suicide. Because suicide is “as an act of love and selflessness,” just not for yourself or your loved ones.

It’s the total act of commitment to your greedy, abusive, self-absorbed government… which just isn’t a love story I want to support.

Monday, June 6, 2016

Cosmopolitan: Harambe the Gorilla’s Death Proves America Is Racist

That little boy who got that gorilla killed at the Cincinnati Zoo was black. I just learned that.

I assumed he was a little white boy. Maybe that’s racist.

But do you know what’s definitely racist? Cosmopolitan playing the race card on this story.

In an article entitled “The Conversation About Harambe Has Racist Undertones We Can't Ignore,” the pointless magazine complains that people are calling for the black mother to be arrested – or even killed – but didn’t do the same for a white mother after her two-year-old fell into the cheetah enclosure at the Cleveland Zoo a few years back.

Okay. That’s a valid argument. If you want to compare apples to skyscrapers.

You see, no cheetahs were harmed in the Cleveland Zoo incident. If they had been, that white mother would have received the same treatment the black mother at the Cincinnati Zoo has.

Think about Cecil the Lion. The hunter who shot him was a white man, and he got weeks and weeks of death threats until he had to go into hiding.

But Cosmopolitan is an arm of the media, and the media likes running its own stories for its own purposes, whether that’s bottom-line profits or political agendas. Hence the reason why I found Yahoo commenter C.L.E.’s response to the article so interesting:

“I am black and until the other day I assumed this was a white family. I felt bad for the animal when I thought it was a white kid. I feel bad for the animal now that I know it was a black kid. She (the mom) is being demonized because people in this country care more about animals than people: not because she is black. Now you could have written quite an article on that topic, with plenty of references. Everything is called racist. That way, when racism really occurs (which is often enough), no one believes it.

What a thought-provoking line there: “When racism really occurs (which is often enough), no one believes it.”

Racism like the liberal machine using blacks to further its agenda? Like how it tells them they can’t amount to anything without its help? Like how it keeps inner cities dominated by black people dependent on government charity to keep them voting the party line?

Like how poverty in the African-American community is so much more prevalent than in the Caucasian-American community despite years and years of government “help?”

Like that kind of racism?

Because if that’s the kind C.L.E. means, then I completely agree there’s a cover-up going on. And Cosmopolitan is clearly working with the worst of them to keep things hush-hush.