2015-12-07
Lefty Progressives Making Things Simple - Guns, Terrorists, and Victims
The recent tragic terror attack in San Bernardino has sparked intense conversation on the internet. Leave it to our lefty, progressive pals to lecture us on the dangers of "assault weapons" (it's rather agonizing they still don't realize ALL guns are assault weapons), and how if only we could make more laws, shootings would no longer occur. They seem to base this belief on magic.
Take this recent exchange on Facebook, where one man informs us of such an easy, simple way to stop all gun violence:
Perhaps it's their insecurity in the world that makes these sort of people lash out at things like facts and reason.
In a horrific example of journalism, Linda Stasi for the New York Daily News decided to give the terrorists a pass on killing one of their victims, Nicholas Thalasinos, whom she describes as an equal bigot deserving his death. She makes this point very clear when she states at the beginning of the article there were "13 innocent victims," as opposed to the actual number of 14.
She compares the men, leaving the reader to believe there is almost no difference between them, except for the fact that one is dead due to the other's actions.
Yes, apparently Stasi views bigotry as being equivalent to that of being a terrorist. Still, she only makes this conclusion based on some posts this man made on Facebook. Even worse, she doesn't provide any screencaps showing these supposed rants filled with bigotry so, I guess we are just supposed to take her word for it. She continues:
So dedicated to ad hominem attacks, Stasi actually worded this in such a way that would lead the reader to believe it was Thalasinos who called Ann Coulter "hateful." Exactly who is this Stasi to determine who is hateful and who is not? Did she join some moral-brigade I am unaware of? How exactly does claiming Coulter to be hateful not make her a bigot? Last I checked, being a bigot simply means being intolerant of another person's views.
The entire article is merely just a confirmation that in the minds of extreme lefties, some people are more equal than others. If you chose to kill someone, just make sure it's one of those right-wingers because they sort of deserve it, right? Don't blame the radical and his fanatical religion that drives him to commit a terrorist act, just blame the victim.
The simplistic and irrational thinking is never in short supply on the far-left.
Though California has strict gun-laws, this terrorist attack still managed to occur. Even IF one of the victims was indeed a bigot, he most certainly was not the one who carried out this murderous deed, and there is no comparing a rant on Facebook with the work of a murdering terrorist. Thalasinos was an innocent victim who did not commit any crime, despite what Stasi would like to believe. Having a different opinion that isn't "politically correct" is not reflective of someone worthy of death. Perhaps Stasi should worry about her own bigotry, or at least have a better command of the English language.
The truth is in the US, there is no clear pattern of gun laws automatically leading to less gun crimes. This also means that less gun laws do not mean more or even less crime either. The numbers can actually be skewed in such a way that either side can make arguments depending on where they fall on the ideological spectrum. Many of these statistics involve suicide, which is technically a crime but only the person pulling the trigger is the victim.
I wish I could tell you it's more clear-cut but, our country is quite unique since we cover not only a large amount of land but as you travel across this country you will find many different types of mindsets. A small town in the South will be vastly different from a major metropolitan city in the North. There are many anomalies that both sides will hold up as an example. For example, DC has many strong gun control laws, yet it also has one of the highest markings for gun violence. On the other hand, places like NY and NJ also have many gun laws and their gun crime rates have indeed fallen. Yet, no one can claim that gun laws actually equal lower crime rates.
I say it's immoral to tell a citizen they are not allowed to protect themselves. As uncomfortable as it may be, the police are not magicians who float through the air or pop into existence the way Endora did on an episode of Bewitched. Calling the police takes time and waiting for them takes even more time and sometimes those precious minutes are not enough. A person must have the ability to protect themselves in these horrifying experiences. What is needed is education about firearms - how they work, how to use them, and when not to use them. Fear is always combated through knowledge.
Switzerland is a country where gun ownership is high and shootings are quite low. The reason is due to their education. They demand that citizens are educated in how to handle a gun.
Training should be mandatory. Our government will never realistically succeed in taking away guns from our citizens but it can succeed in implementing courses that keep our citizens aware of firearms and how to accurately use them. Rather than stirring the pot by talking about the evils of guns and blaming the victims, we need to get behind more rational ideas that can ultimately unite people on both sides of the aisle.
Take this recent exchange on Facebook, where one man informs us of such an easy, simple way to stop all gun violence:
Perhaps it's their insecurity in the world that makes these sort of people lash out at things like facts and reason.
In a horrific example of journalism, Linda Stasi for the New York Daily News decided to give the terrorists a pass on killing one of their victims, Nicholas Thalasinos, whom she describes as an equal bigot deserving his death. She makes this point very clear when she states at the beginning of the article there were "13 innocent victims," as opposed to the actual number of 14.
She compares the men, leaving the reader to believe there is almost no difference between them, except for the fact that one is dead due to the other's actions.
What they didn’t realize is that except for their different religions they were in many ways similar men who even had the same job.
Yes, apparently Stasi views bigotry as being equivalent to that of being a terrorist. Still, she only makes this conclusion based on some posts this man made on Facebook. Even worse, she doesn't provide any screencaps showing these supposed rants filled with bigotry so, I guess we are just supposed to take her word for it. She continues:
Thalasinos was an anti-government, anti-Islam, pro-NRA, rabidly anti-Planned Parenthood kinda guy, who posted that it would be “Freaking Awesome” if hateful Ann Coulter was named head of Homeland Security. He asked, “IS 1. EVERY POLITICIAN IS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR? 2. EVERY POLITICIAN IS A MORON? 3. EVERY POLITICIAN IS RACIST AGAINST JEWS?” He also posted screeds like, “You can stick your Muslim Million Man march up your asses,” and how “Hashem” should blow up Iran.
So dedicated to ad hominem attacks, Stasi actually worded this in such a way that would lead the reader to believe it was Thalasinos who called Ann Coulter "hateful." Exactly who is this Stasi to determine who is hateful and who is not? Did she join some moral-brigade I am unaware of? How exactly does claiming Coulter to be hateful not make her a bigot? Last I checked, being a bigot simply means being intolerant of another person's views.
big·otˈbiɡət/
noun
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
The entire article is merely just a confirmation that in the minds of extreme lefties, some people are more equal than others. If you chose to kill someone, just make sure it's one of those right-wingers because they sort of deserve it, right? Don't blame the radical and his fanatical religion that drives him to commit a terrorist act, just blame the victim.
The simplistic and irrational thinking is never in short supply on the far-left.
Though California has strict gun-laws, this terrorist attack still managed to occur. Even IF one of the victims was indeed a bigot, he most certainly was not the one who carried out this murderous deed, and there is no comparing a rant on Facebook with the work of a murdering terrorist. Thalasinos was an innocent victim who did not commit any crime, despite what Stasi would like to believe. Having a different opinion that isn't "politically correct" is not reflective of someone worthy of death. Perhaps Stasi should worry about her own bigotry, or at least have a better command of the English language.
The truth is in the US, there is no clear pattern of gun laws automatically leading to less gun crimes. This also means that less gun laws do not mean more or even less crime either. The numbers can actually be skewed in such a way that either side can make arguments depending on where they fall on the ideological spectrum. Many of these statistics involve suicide, which is technically a crime but only the person pulling the trigger is the victim.
I wish I could tell you it's more clear-cut but, our country is quite unique since we cover not only a large amount of land but as you travel across this country you will find many different types of mindsets. A small town in the South will be vastly different from a major metropolitan city in the North. There are many anomalies that both sides will hold up as an example. For example, DC has many strong gun control laws, yet it also has one of the highest markings for gun violence. On the other hand, places like NY and NJ also have many gun laws and their gun crime rates have indeed fallen. Yet, no one can claim that gun laws actually equal lower crime rates.
I say it's immoral to tell a citizen they are not allowed to protect themselves. As uncomfortable as it may be, the police are not magicians who float through the air or pop into existence the way Endora did on an episode of Bewitched. Calling the police takes time and waiting for them takes even more time and sometimes those precious minutes are not enough. A person must have the ability to protect themselves in these horrifying experiences. What is needed is education about firearms - how they work, how to use them, and when not to use them. Fear is always combated through knowledge.
Switzerland is a country where gun ownership is high and shootings are quite low. The reason is due to their education. They demand that citizens are educated in how to handle a gun.
Training should be mandatory. Our government will never realistically succeed in taking away guns from our citizens but it can succeed in implementing courses that keep our citizens aware of firearms and how to accurately use them. Rather than stirring the pot by talking about the evils of guns and blaming the victims, we need to get behind more rational ideas that can ultimately unite people on both sides of the aisle.
2015-12-03
2015-11-21
Bill Maher on How Muslim Values and American Values are Different
Is Bill Maher finally finding his way back to the center? Back in the day when Bill was just a host on Politically Incorrect, his views started off fairly libertarian and later on he drifted to the left - far left in many cases. He found himself on HBO after his program was cancelled due to a "too politically incorrect" statement and while conservatives were the ones who disagreed with his statement, they were also the only ones pointing out the injustice of his firing.
Bill once again finds himself in an "unholy" alliance with conservatives who rightly recognize that Islam carries with it values that are not compatible with Western culture.
A certain trend is taking place in America now. The political landscape is changing and rather than liberals vs. conservatives, it seems we are being divided by authoritarian vs. libertarian. No matter what the mainstream liberals will tell us, most liberals in this country are in the center and they still very much value general freedoms. They want nothing to do with a culture that treats women as second-class or stones people for adultery and homosexuality. This is one area where we need to stand together.
2015-11-18
Beliefs About Sharia
Beliefs About Sharia
Why are Americans concerned about refugees? Is it because we are a bunch of bigots? Well, speaking for myself - no. I would like to believe that most people are generally the same in understanding most people, including Muslims are generally good, non-violent, decent people. However, many Muslims support Sharia law, a set of laws that are in direct contrast to so many of our native laws that cherish the freedom of speech, religion, and civil rights.
Sharia law dictates the removal of hands for committing a crime of theft. It demands stoning for sins like adultery and for simply being a homosexual. My question for many liberals demanding we accept these people with open arms and hearts is simple - why are you so willing to accept people that strongly support laws that are outright hostile to current Western values?
I get it. You hate the right because we want things like family and G-d. We aren't keen on aborting babies because they are innocent. We like law and order. We enjoy living in a society that values justice and freedom. We also like clinging to our guns. These particular things you might not enjoy or appreciate. For many of you, it's more of a label game. You see the things we appreciate and value and infer things that are simply not true - calling us names like homophobes, Nazis, racists, etc. Maybe you interpret us too arbitrarily. We do have our extremists, no doubt but most of us are fairly reasonable, contrary to what the media tells you. Maybe you don't like Christianity. It is an old religion and many of you have expressed your disapproval of old ideas from the Bible. I might not agree but, I can understand. I can. I assure you being conservative doesn't mean you have an inability to view things through a different lens.
I still have to ask, if you hate the right and what we stand for, how on earth can you tolerate those who support Sharia law? Yes, I know some of you enjoy cherry-picking Bible versus in an attempt to either shame us or make us feel like hypocrites. However, setting the Bible aside because in the end arguing about it is indeed a futile experience, should we not take other circumstances into consideration?
I understand wanting to help people but how far should we go? The fact is, most of these particular people have ideas and values that are just not compatible with our Constitution. There may indeed be wonderful people who are willing to work and become contributing US citizens but there is also a strong likelihood that many of them have no interest in doing those things.
Yes, many are coming out and saying these attacks are not in their name. No, most Muslims do not practice extreme Islam, nor are they violent. Yes, there are documented cases of extreme Christians who have killed. All of these points are correct yet, no matter how much you may despise Christianity, there is nothing in their doctrine that demands women wear a burka. There is also nothing that demands people to stone homosexuals or those who commit adultery. I also see no laws in the Christian world that support the removal of hands as being a form of punishment for those who steal.
In Russia, 26% of Muslims said they support a person being stoned to death for adultery. Now you may say to me, "26% is not the majority." Yes, but it's still 1 in 4! Shouldn't it be 0 in 4? Stoning someone to death for anything is something we as Americans should not ever support. I don't know one American that supports a punishment like that - not one, liberal or conservative. It is simply NOT an American value. Can you really not see why so many of us are concerned about these refugees?
You are free to judge me however you please but, please don't lecture me or the right in this country about being tolerant when you, as supposed liberals, cannot muster up enough tolerance to tolerate your own fellow citizens. No, you'd rather pat yourselves on the back and give your support to people you don't even really know, people who really support nothing you value. At least the right in this country allow you disagree with them and even respect you. I cannot say the same for the people you are advocating to come here.
Beliefs About Sharia
Why are Americans concerned about refugees? Is it because we are a bunch of bigots? Well, speaking for myself - no. I would like to believe that most people are generally the same in understanding most people, including Muslims are generally good, non-violent, decent people. However, many Muslims support Sharia law, a set of laws that are in direct contrast to so many of our native laws that cherish the freedom of speech, religion, and civil rights.
Sharia law dictates the removal of hands for committing a crime of theft. It demands stoning for sins like adultery and for simply being a homosexual. My question for many liberals demanding we accept these people with open arms and hearts is simple - why are you so willing to accept people that strongly support laws that are outright hostile to current Western values?
I get it. You hate the right because we want things like family and G-d. We aren't keen on aborting babies because they are innocent. We like law and order. We enjoy living in a society that values justice and freedom. We also like clinging to our guns. These particular things you might not enjoy or appreciate. For many of you, it's more of a label game. You see the things we appreciate and value and infer things that are simply not true - calling us names like homophobes, Nazis, racists, etc. Maybe you interpret us too arbitrarily. We do have our extremists, no doubt but most of us are fairly reasonable, contrary to what the media tells you. Maybe you don't like Christianity. It is an old religion and many of you have expressed your disapproval of old ideas from the Bible. I might not agree but, I can understand. I can. I assure you being conservative doesn't mean you have an inability to view things through a different lens.
I still have to ask, if you hate the right and what we stand for, how on earth can you tolerate those who support Sharia law? Yes, I know some of you enjoy cherry-picking Bible versus in an attempt to either shame us or make us feel like hypocrites. However, setting the Bible aside because in the end arguing about it is indeed a futile experience, should we not take other circumstances into consideration?
I understand wanting to help people but how far should we go? The fact is, most of these particular people have ideas and values that are just not compatible with our Constitution. There may indeed be wonderful people who are willing to work and become contributing US citizens but there is also a strong likelihood that many of them have no interest in doing those things.
Yes, many are coming out and saying these attacks are not in their name. No, most Muslims do not practice extreme Islam, nor are they violent. Yes, there are documented cases of extreme Christians who have killed. All of these points are correct yet, no matter how much you may despise Christianity, there is nothing in their doctrine that demands women wear a burka. There is also nothing that demands people to stone homosexuals or those who commit adultery. I also see no laws in the Christian world that support the removal of hands as being a form of punishment for those who steal.
In Russia, 26% of Muslims said they support a person being stoned to death for adultery. Now you may say to me, "26% is not the majority." Yes, but it's still 1 in 4! Shouldn't it be 0 in 4? Stoning someone to death for anything is something we as Americans should not ever support. I don't know one American that supports a punishment like that - not one, liberal or conservative. It is simply NOT an American value. Can you really not see why so many of us are concerned about these refugees?
You are free to judge me however you please but, please don't lecture me or the right in this country about being tolerant when you, as supposed liberals, cannot muster up enough tolerance to tolerate your own fellow citizens. No, you'd rather pat yourselves on the back and give your support to people you don't even really know, people who really support nothing you value. At least the right in this country allow you disagree with them and even respect you. I cannot say the same for the people you are advocating to come here.
Beliefs About Sharia
2015-10-16
2015-09-20
If It Looks Like a Bomb.... Check Your White Privilege
Ahmed Mohamed, a 14-year old Muslim in Texas, completed a science project which was making a clock but, it suspiciously looked like a bomb because a briefcase was used. The young man is said to have been evasive about the clock when he was questioned by the teachers about it. Authorities were contacted and the young man was arrested for a few hours.
In the video clip below, Bill Maher defends the decision to arrest the boy stating truthfully that there was nothing wrong with people being concerned about their safety. In short, Muslims are known for blowing stuff up around the world. Mark Cuban also chimes in saying that he actually spoke with the boy on the phone and heard the young man's sister feeding him answers to say.
On Twitter, Richard Dawkins has called this boy out as being a fraud. Mohamed had claimed that he invented this clock himself but, this video paints a different picture.
The gentleman narrating the video points out that the components of this clock were not invented at all, instead the parts are all manufactured. The boy simply removed the casing on a regular clock. Was this fraud or a hoax? Was the boy trying to get arrested in order to call attention to himself and gain sympathy? Or was this just a lazy kid who was trying to get an easy A?
Perhaps in the next few days we will get a better grasp on what has occurred here. I guess it just depends on how Mohamed will respond and if we learn anything more about him.
The response to Dawkins has been almost hostile. The Tweets responding to him seem to suggest that the boy's dishonesty should be excused because he's only 14. I find that to be a ridiculous excuse. Why would the boy's age matter when many children his same age are capable of invention? If the video above is true, the best we can say is that Mohamed was extremely dishonest and should not be given praise but rather an F and a scolding.
Comments like, "Don't punish him because he's just curious and took a clock apart" seem to demonstrate that many people in our culture feel that participation is good enough. Yet, if that participation is not met with honestly, how is that good?
I guess we will have to wait and see. What do you think?
In the video clip below, Bill Maher defends the decision to arrest the boy stating truthfully that there was nothing wrong with people being concerned about their safety. In short, Muslims are known for blowing stuff up around the world. Mark Cuban also chimes in saying that he actually spoke with the boy on the phone and heard the young man's sister feeding him answers to say.
“For the past 30 years it’s been one culture that has been blowing s**t up over and over again,” Maher added.
On Twitter, Richard Dawkins has called this boy out as being a fraud. Mohamed had claimed that he invented this clock himself but, this video paints a different picture.
If this is true, what was his motive? Whether or not he wanted the police to arrest him, they shouldn’t have done so https://t.co/LtOFAAmVxK
— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) September 20, 2015
The gentleman narrating the video points out that the components of this clock were not invented at all, instead the parts are all manufactured. The boy simply removed the casing on a regular clock. Was this fraud or a hoax? Was the boy trying to get arrested in order to call attention to himself and gain sympathy? Or was this just a lazy kid who was trying to get an easy A?
Perhaps in the next few days we will get a better grasp on what has occurred here. I guess it just depends on how Mohamed will respond and if we learn anything more about him.
The response to Dawkins has been almost hostile. The Tweets responding to him seem to suggest that the boy's dishonesty should be excused because he's only 14. I find that to be a ridiculous excuse. Why would the boy's age matter when many children his same age are capable of invention? If the video above is true, the best we can say is that Mohamed was extremely dishonest and should not be given praise but rather an F and a scolding.
Comments like, "Don't punish him because he's just curious and took a clock apart" seem to demonstrate that many people in our culture feel that participation is good enough. Yet, if that participation is not met with honestly, how is that good?
I guess we will have to wait and see. What do you think?
2015-09-10
Quick Thoughts About Gamer Gate
Over the last few months I have been burying myself into the topic of modern-day feminism, which is commonly referred to as third-wave feminism. My next book will be an attempt to provide subtle advise for young women. As a woman myself and a mother, I want my daughter to grow up to be independent and have a healthy view of men. The current culture we see through the eyes of the mainstream media have me feeling a bit concerned about what types of messages we are sending to young women.
The story that acted as a catalyst for me to venture into this project was the story of Emma Sulkowicz, better known as the mattress girl. The young Columbia student who claimed she was raped in her dorm room eight months after the event occurred and resulted in her obtaining a degree after she chose to carry around the supposed crime scene (her mattress), for 2 years. She even carried this mattress across the stage when she accepted her degree. Little did I realize that this research would lead me to a movement called Gamer Gate. It even has it's own hashtag - #gamergate.
What is Gamer Gate?
The shortest possible answer is a movement dedicated to demanding ethics in gaming journalism.
Ethics in journalism? As a fellow conservative, you may be asking "WHAT? Does that even exist? Is that possible?" as it pertains to mainstream media.
Well, let me back up a bit. Here's the story, (the best I can make out)...a young woman named Zoe Quinn who apparently developed some silly game called "Depression Quest" received accolades and attention over her contribution to the gaming world and ended up being caught by her now ex-boyfriend cheating on him - with several other people. Those people were a part of the gamer media and apparently they had been the moving forces behind the scenes that helped her game to become noticed. Some people argue this point but, this situation was interpreted as Zoe sleeping her way to the top.
The game sucks. You can play a free version on-line but I warn you, it's mostly just reading and then you choose your own adventure based on the options given. Apparently many people became suspicious of how the game was able to garner so much attention but, it did have all the typical elements of what liberals love - awareness of [insert politically correct topic here], depression in this case, and it was developed by a young women. So the discovery of Quinn's special connections to the movers and shakers of the gaming community became a topic of discussion and gamers decided to demand the media reviewing games should be more objective in their analysis and recommendation of games.
Okay but what does this have to do with feminism? Well, I'm glad you ask because the second part of this Gamer Gate concerns feminists attacking the gaming culture and games in general - especially those violent and sexist games. Little did I know that many of these games have sexy women in them. In some games you can even have sex and objectify these women or worse kill them.
Enter Anita Sarkeesian. I don't know much about her personal history or how in the world she became relevant but she's a self-described feminist and she is to feminism what Al Sharpton is to racism. She runs some website and started doing videos attacking gamers and the industry declaring everyone to be misogynists. She also talks about the various effects of being exposed to violence towards women in video games, claiming one can be affected even if they are not aware yet, Anita apparently has a special power that allows her to view these games and they somehow do not affect her.
Oh and just like Sharpton she needs money. She has apparently raised a large sum of money with the promise of producing a series of videos that will be used to educate the masses about the horrors of the video gaming world. So far, she's produced one video - that I know of but, don't quote me because I could be wrong so, feel free to correct me if I am.
Sarkeesian also enjoys playing the victim-card. She and a few others like her have claimed that members of #GamerGate have made bomb threats and other various threats of violence towards her. However, many skeptics find these claims to not be credible.
Let me just say...
I'm not a gamer. I do like some games and back in the day I was damn good at Tetris but, I hardly believes this qualifies me as a "gamer." I am also still a novice as it pertains to this overall subject and I'm still trying to make sense of it all so, please forgive me if I missed something or got something a bit wrong.
The overall movement on Twitter and on YouTube is gamers feeling attacked by the media and by feminists. They are being lied about and attacked from various angles. Generally they enjoy their games and merely want to be left alone. Yes, it does seem as though many of these popular games are geared toward men but, that's hardly a reason to believe that women cannot participate. Nothing is stopping them from developing their own games but, like any true liberal, it's much better to shout at and tear down what others have built rather than build yourself.
Some things never change:
Drunk or not, Kerouac's point is as valid today as it was back then. It has long been the left's tactic to shout down and tear down others, while the right's main message has always been to do for yourself in order to help others.
Here's what I don't understand...
There are a number of YouTube commentators for GamerGate and I've subscribed to a number of them. I'm definitely a new fan of them and very much enjoy most everything they have to say. I also note that many of them are atheists which doesn't bother me. I have yet to let go of Jesus myself but, I can understand their points and concerns over religion. What I can't get over is how they will continually make the most conservative points - they make the case that modern day conservatives make daily and then claim to be left leaning liberals.
WHAT?!
I have even heard some claim they agree with mainstream media but, it's just the "gaming media" they see problems with.
WHAT?!
They see how the media has treated them; they understand their ideas and points have been twisted and quote-mined; they know they have been lied about yet, they seem to have some cognitive dissonance when they try to separate gaming journalism with the general media. How do they not realize this is exactly what conservatives deal with on a daily basis?
Classic liberalism IS modern-day conservatism. Sure we have some crazy folks on the right but, that's the point! We DO tolerate people and we are not all the same, which can be a strength but it's also one of our weaknesses.
Now, of course I don't know for sure. Maybe they are indeed well aware and will never be conservative. Maybe they are just more libertarian. I do know many of them are younger than me so, it's very possible they are like so many of us conservatives when we were young and believed in the left's idea of liberalism. I'm not completely sure but, even if they do still identify more with the left, it's a good feeling to know they still side with general freedom and it's always nice to find points for which we can all agree on.
The story that acted as a catalyst for me to venture into this project was the story of Emma Sulkowicz, better known as the mattress girl. The young Columbia student who claimed she was raped in her dorm room eight months after the event occurred and resulted in her obtaining a degree after she chose to carry around the supposed crime scene (her mattress), for 2 years. She even carried this mattress across the stage when she accepted her degree. Little did I realize that this research would lead me to a movement called Gamer Gate. It even has it's own hashtag - #gamergate.
What is Gamer Gate?
The shortest possible answer is a movement dedicated to demanding ethics in gaming journalism.
Ethics in journalism? As a fellow conservative, you may be asking "WHAT? Does that even exist? Is that possible?" as it pertains to mainstream media.
Well, let me back up a bit. Here's the story, (the best I can make out)...a young woman named Zoe Quinn who apparently developed some silly game called "Depression Quest" received accolades and attention over her contribution to the gaming world and ended up being caught by her now ex-boyfriend cheating on him - with several other people. Those people were a part of the gamer media and apparently they had been the moving forces behind the scenes that helped her game to become noticed. Some people argue this point but, this situation was interpreted as Zoe sleeping her way to the top.
The game sucks. You can play a free version on-line but I warn you, it's mostly just reading and then you choose your own adventure based on the options given. Apparently many people became suspicious of how the game was able to garner so much attention but, it did have all the typical elements of what liberals love - awareness of [insert politically correct topic here], depression in this case, and it was developed by a young women. So the discovery of Quinn's special connections to the movers and shakers of the gaming community became a topic of discussion and gamers decided to demand the media reviewing games should be more objective in their analysis and recommendation of games.
Okay but what does this have to do with feminism? Well, I'm glad you ask because the second part of this Gamer Gate concerns feminists attacking the gaming culture and games in general - especially those violent and sexist games. Little did I know that many of these games have sexy women in them. In some games you can even have sex and objectify these women or worse kill them.
Enter Anita Sarkeesian. I don't know much about her personal history or how in the world she became relevant but she's a self-described feminist and she is to feminism what Al Sharpton is to racism. She runs some website and started doing videos attacking gamers and the industry declaring everyone to be misogynists. She also talks about the various effects of being exposed to violence towards women in video games, claiming one can be affected even if they are not aware yet, Anita apparently has a special power that allows her to view these games and they somehow do not affect her.
Oh and just like Sharpton she needs money. She has apparently raised a large sum of money with the promise of producing a series of videos that will be used to educate the masses about the horrors of the video gaming world. So far, she's produced one video - that I know of but, don't quote me because I could be wrong so, feel free to correct me if I am.
Sarkeesian also enjoys playing the victim-card. She and a few others like her have claimed that members of #GamerGate have made bomb threats and other various threats of violence towards her. However, many skeptics find these claims to not be credible.
Let me just say...
I'm not a gamer. I do like some games and back in the day I was damn good at Tetris but, I hardly believes this qualifies me as a "gamer." I am also still a novice as it pertains to this overall subject and I'm still trying to make sense of it all so, please forgive me if I missed something or got something a bit wrong.
The overall movement on Twitter and on YouTube is gamers feeling attacked by the media and by feminists. They are being lied about and attacked from various angles. Generally they enjoy their games and merely want to be left alone. Yes, it does seem as though many of these popular games are geared toward men but, that's hardly a reason to believe that women cannot participate. Nothing is stopping them from developing their own games but, like any true liberal, it's much better to shout at and tear down what others have built rather than build yourself.
Some things never change:
Drunk or not, Kerouac's point is as valid today as it was back then. It has long been the left's tactic to shout down and tear down others, while the right's main message has always been to do for yourself in order to help others.
Here's what I don't understand...
There are a number of YouTube commentators for GamerGate and I've subscribed to a number of them. I'm definitely a new fan of them and very much enjoy most everything they have to say. I also note that many of them are atheists which doesn't bother me. I have yet to let go of Jesus myself but, I can understand their points and concerns over religion. What I can't get over is how they will continually make the most conservative points - they make the case that modern day conservatives make daily and then claim to be left leaning liberals.
WHAT?!
I have even heard some claim they agree with mainstream media but, it's just the "gaming media" they see problems with.
WHAT?!
They see how the media has treated them; they understand their ideas and points have been twisted and quote-mined; they know they have been lied about yet, they seem to have some cognitive dissonance when they try to separate gaming journalism with the general media. How do they not realize this is exactly what conservatives deal with on a daily basis?
Classic liberalism IS modern-day conservatism. Sure we have some crazy folks on the right but, that's the point! We DO tolerate people and we are not all the same, which can be a strength but it's also one of our weaknesses.
Ludwig von Mises wrote in prescience,
“In the United States “liberal” means today a set of ideas and political postulates that in every regard are the opposite of all that liberalism meant to the preceding generations. The American self-styled liberal aims at government omnipotence, is a resolute foe of free enterprise, and advocates all-round planning by the authorities, i.e., socialism.”Liberalism (1929)As the Socialist Party candidate for president, Norman Thomas said in a 1944 speech:
So I guess for myself, I'm a bit confused because I'm just not sure if any of them are truly aware of this? Do they understand conservatives or do they understand conservatives from the perspective of a liberal viewpoint? For example, if someone were to only read about Gamer Gate from feminists, they would have a distorted view of the movement. Could this be what is going on? Is their view of conservatives distorted?
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism,’ they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” He went on to say: “I no longer need to run as a presidential candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.”
Now, of course I don't know for sure. Maybe they are indeed well aware and will never be conservative. Maybe they are just more libertarian. I do know many of them are younger than me so, it's very possible they are like so many of us conservatives when we were young and believed in the left's idea of liberalism. I'm not completely sure but, even if they do still identify more with the left, it's a good feeling to know they still side with general freedom and it's always nice to find points for which we can all agree on.
2015-08-31
2015-08-24
Shaun King and His "Race" Issue
Shaun King has been recently "outed" as a white man. King is one of the movers and shakers of the #BlackLivesMatter campaign and he also is a justice columnist for The Daily Kos, a far-left wing website.
According to most reports, Shaun has long claimed to be bi-racial, having a white mother and black father. He even received a scholarship from Oprah for school. A scholarship designed to help black students go to school.
2015-08-20
2015-08-10
Your Conservative Views Are Inappropriate
Imagine if you were a college student who posted on Twitter and later were confronted by your school's officials, telling you that your views are inappropriate. Sounds a bit odd doesn't it? I mean we all know and recognize college as a place to express ideas openly, right? Oh wait, I keep forgetting that is not the case in the modern world.
2015-08-06
Clinton E-Mails - Criminal Probe
Hilary Clinton could potentially be prosecuted under the same statute as CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus was.
The inspector general for the intelligence community has told Congress that of 40 Clinton e-mails randomly reviewed as a sample of her correspondence as secretary of state, four contained classified information.With the campaign nearing it will be interesting just how authorities will handle this situation. Apologists for Hilary will insist this is a witch-hunt before we even have the full rundown of what may have been contained in these e-mails. Those who dislike Hilary run into the danger of exaggerating this issue, which may or may not be justified at this point; we simply do not know.
Unfortunately for the Clinton's they have always been surrounded by these corrupt actions. Eight years of Bill in The White House brought nothing but scandal and bizarre abuses of power, especially abuse toward women Can we expect the same from Hilary? I see almost nothing that says otherwise. Hilary has long had issues with corruption and of course her memory.
Do you recall that while testifying before congressional investigators as first lady, she answered "I don't know" or "I don't remember" 250 times?I do hope that the American people will be reminded of Hilary's flippant attitude that seems to carry on to this day. She has never been one to take blame for anything, even going so far as to claim right-wing conspiracies out to get her and her husband.
The one thing Hilary does have going for her is the current age of identity politics. Simply put, she's a woman and with many people insisting on identifying with politicians based solely on a person's race or gender, this is clearly an advantage. People will vote for her simply because of who she is and not at all about what she can offer.
Is Hilary a good leader? Can we answer this question? Here again it depends on who you ask. It does appear that initially her time in the Senate seemed to take off well. She was active and managed to get a few bills passed. She is also commended for reaching across the aisle and working with Republicans. However, as her time in office carried on, her production declined along with her approval ratings, and even more so when she initially ran for president. Her performance as Secretary of State is overall pretty dismal and this is one area that most people in the center (either just right or left), can agree on.
However, unless something substantial is found in these e-mails, I'm just not sure how much this will hurt her overall but, the potential drama at least adds some excitement into the race for presidency.
2015-08-04
Christina Hoff Sommers Gives Advise to Young People
New video featuring Christina Hoff Summers offering some advise to young people entering college. The new gender politics that is dominating many campuses across the country can create an atmosphere that encourages people to not think for themselves.
Summers reminds young people to be skeptical and seek out answers for yourself.
2015-07-31
That Story About Zoey Tur and Ben Shapiro
Zoey Tur is known among the transgender community and has been recognized in the past for being an American broadcaster and designing one of the first modern helicopters used for reporting. She was obviously asked to come on Dr. Drew's show, Dr. Drew On Call, because the topic being discussed was Bruce Jenner or Caitlyn Jenner receiving an Arthur Ashe Courage Award during the 2015 ESPY Awards.
2015-07-27
2015-07-21
Pedophiles in Hollywood
In recent years, more and more actors have come forward to either discuss their own sexual abuse or abuse they knew about while they were in the business.
Just this year, a new documentary was released called "An Open Secret" by Amy Berg. As of writing this article, the movie is still in limited theaters across the country and the public has been assured that it will be released in digital format sometime in the near future.
Just this year, a new documentary was released called "An Open Secret" by Amy Berg. As of writing this article, the movie is still in limited theaters across the country and the public has been assured that it will be released in digital format sometime in the near future.
2015-07-13
2015-07-06
Hollywood Scandals, Criminals, and Tragedies
I always find myself on websites talking about various scandals that have gone on in Hollywood. We can pretty much agree that crazy stuff happens everywhere but, for some reason the crazy appears to hit a peak when it comes to Hollywood and its players. The most immoral people seem to run Hollywood.
So here's a list of some scandalous behavior that's come out of Hollywood and has shocked America. It's not a full list by any means but, it's a start. I will try and stick with the stories that are already proven. Some of these stories may indeed amount to gossip but I will ONLY include those if they seem to come from multiple and seemingly reliable sources. I will also include anything that can be debunked concerning deaths or tragedies.
So here's a list of some scandalous behavior that's come out of Hollywood and has shocked America. It's not a full list by any means but, it's a start. I will try and stick with the stories that are already proven. Some of these stories may indeed amount to gossip but I will ONLY include those if they seem to come from multiple and seemingly reliable sources. I will also include anything that can be debunked concerning deaths or tragedies.
2015-07-01
How On Earth Did I Miss ElevatorGate?
If you are like me, you missed this story. If you already know this story...well, lucky you...so let's go back to 2011.... yes, 2011.
Rebecca Watson who fancies herself a feminist-skeptic (which is basically an oxymoron), posted this video:
Well, not everyone in the atheist community agrees with our skepti-princess. Richard Dawkins decided to reply to Rebecca in the most adapt and innovative way:
Rebecca Watson who fancies herself a feminist-skeptic (which is basically an oxymoron), posted this video:
Lovely, is it not? Rebecca first complains about misogyny and then she relays a story about a blind man who was in an elevator with her and asked her to his hotel room for a cup of coffee. [GASP!] I know, right?! After you're done wailing and gnashing your teeth, please come back ...there's more.
Well, not everyone in the atheist community agrees with our skepti-princess. Richard Dawkins decided to reply to Rebecca in the most adapt and innovative way:
2015-06-29
2015-06-28
2015-06-22
2015-06-20
2015-06-18
The Story About The White Girl Who Pretended To Be Black
Rachel Dolezal has now resigned but, she was holding the title of presidency at Spokane’s NAACP chapter. Of course that title is a pretty great accomplishment for a black American woman. The only problem is, Rachel Dolezal is not black. She's actually a white girl who was born with blonde hair and blue eyes.
2015-06-09
Stupid Greedy Granny Pauline McKee
Yes, grannies can be greedy and stupid. At the Isle Casino Hotel Waterloo in IA, Pauline McKee played their penny slots. Penny slots. Yes, I said PENNY slots. Read on....
Pauline was also an 87 year old grandmother. While she was playing the machine (2011), a ridiculous prize flashed on the screen saying she had won $41.8 million. The machine had malfunctioned and there are signs that show the highest payout on this machine is $10,000. Yet, this idiot thought she had actually won this absurd amount of money. The hotel comped her room and gave her a gift card of $10, even though her actual win was $1.85.
Pauline was also an 87 year old grandmother. While she was playing the machine (2011), a ridiculous prize flashed on the screen saying she had won $41.8 million. The machine had malfunctioned and there are signs that show the highest payout on this machine is $10,000. Yet, this idiot thought she had actually won this absurd amount of money. The hotel comped her room and gave her a gift card of $10, even though her actual win was $1.85.
2015-06-08
2015-06-02
How Did I Miss This? Shark Tank's Kevin O'Leary on CNN - Top 1%
My favorite show to watch these days is Shark Tank. I love all the Sharks. Each of them has admirable traits. Kevin O'Leary is often referred to on the show as Mr. Wonderful, which seems to be used as a sarcastic insult that O'Leary finds endearing. He is well known for proposing deals that involve royalties.
While surfing the internet, I ran across a video from Feb 2014 where O'Leary is found on CNN speaking with Erin Burnett on the nation's top 1%.
O'Leary argues effectively stating that small businesses in America are where growth will occur and in order to foster this government needs to move out of the way.
Here is another video of O'Leary, again addressing economic issues. He again argues that while some regulations are necessary, the US needs to stop interfering with business growth through excessive regulation.
I enjoy the part where he makes a point about how people should have the freedom to discuss these issues but the side that is complaining is not offering any real solutions, only gripes.
While surfing the internet, I ran across a video from Feb 2014 where O'Leary is found on CNN speaking with Erin Burnett on the nation's top 1%.
O'Leary argues effectively stating that small businesses in America are where growth will occur and in order to foster this government needs to move out of the way.
Here is another video of O'Leary, again addressing economic issues. He again argues that while some regulations are necessary, the US needs to stop interfering with business growth through excessive regulation.
I enjoy the part where he makes a point about how people should have the freedom to discuss these issues but the side that is complaining is not offering any real solutions, only gripes.
2015-06-01
( LIVE NEWS ) A Armed Robber's Family Is Angry After He Is Shot Robbing ...
Yes, it's never the fault of the person who commits the crime. The very sad part is, this woman is serious. How many other people feel this same way and how on earth do you break through this type of mentality?
2015-05-17
2015-05-02
I'm Calling Fraud - Until It's Confirmed
This photo was posted on a friend's social media account and while it's interesting, something screamed out fake to me. See for yourself.
I say it's fake and here's why:
1) The position of this officer's arm is not one that would facilitate a full force swing that would be required to break glass. His arm is not even fully extended and his other arm is not being utilized.
2) Glass does not go flying on a car window like that. It is a matter of safety and it's required by law that windows on vehicles meet certain standards. Side and back windows have tempered glass.
Watch for yourself what glass does when it's hit with a bat and notice too this man is using BOTH arms.
I need to note that this is the windshield and it has laminated glass but, the point of this first video is to demonstrate how the glass in the front would behave.
Here's another video of a guy using a wrench on a rear window. This would be tempered glass.
Now, notice on this video you see the guy on only one side of the window and yet the entire window is damaged from a single blow. When a window like this is hit, you will have damage at the point of impact and you will see damage all around that point because entire window is absorbing the shock of the impact. Most large impacts will just leave the entire window collapsing.
Here's another video showing a guy using a small bat about the same size as what the officer in the picture has:
He's using this on a side window, which also has tempered glass and the window sustained no breaking whatsoever. The bat actually received the worst damage by splitting in two. Also take note of how he was holding the bat. It looks nothing similar to how the officer is standing.
3) There are three different types of camouflage that the officers are wearing, Now couple this with two different types of batons being used and again, it's not a complete giveaway but, surly it does look a bit weird. Especially when you consider the other problems with this photo.
I am told this comes from a video but have yet to see the link for the video. I am unable to confirm if this is real or not but, so far I am not impressed.
I am a huge skeptic of these memes that float around on the internet since the majority of them always end up being misleading or false. Propaganda indeed!
If you have any information on confirming this image, comment below! Until I can get some proof I'm calling fake. What are your thoughts?
A Look Back - William F. Buckley vs. Hugh Hefner
A debate in 1966 between Buckley and Hefner discussing the "Playboy philosophy" turns out to be quite intriguing.
Buckley does his best toward the end of the interview by pointing out the seemingly contradictory way in which Hefner instructs his bunnies to refrain from sexual relations with patrons and what Hefner advocates in general as it pertains to sexuality or sexual behavior.
What are your thoughts as you watch this debate and compare with the current world we live in? How much has changed? What do you feel has been positive vs. negative?
Buckley does his best toward the end of the interview by pointing out the seemingly contradictory way in which Hefner instructs his bunnies to refrain from sexual relations with patrons and what Hefner advocates in general as it pertains to sexuality or sexual behavior.
What are your thoughts as you watch this debate and compare with the current world we live in? How much has changed? What do you feel has been positive vs. negative?
2015-04-28
Baltimore Mother Disciplines Son For Participating in Riots
I want to know more... is she really doing the right thing here? I don't know. Did her son think violence was okay because he gets beat at home normally or did he turn to riot because he is a follower? Did this woman not discipline her son enough? Why or why not? Where is the father? Why are so many young men lacking wisdom to know these types of actions are destructive, not just for their own lives but for the lives of their community? How do we repair this? How do we break this mentality? There seem to be no simple answers.
How do we teach people or compel them to become involved in their communities rather then resort to violence and rioting?
Our nation doesn't just have a race relations problem, we have a problem between the general population and police. How do we go about changing these relations?
Baltimore is a unique city. It is blacks who make up the majority so the idea that this is strictly about race does not hold water with me. I lived there.
The woman was identified as Toya Graham. She explains that she did what she did because she did not want him to be a Freddie Gray.
2015-04-25
Congratulations to Bruce Jenner for Coming Out As a Conservative!
In the much anticipated interview of Bruce Jenner by Diane Sawyer, Bruce bravely admitted to being a conservative Republican! [Gasp!] This was extremely brave to do and I fully support and congratulate him!
He also mentioned something about turning into a women.
He also mentioned something about turning into a women.
I wasn't planning on watching this interview but, when I noticed it was about to come on while surfing the channels I decided - why not? I have actually always liked Bruce Jenner. Out of the Kardashian-clan Bruce was the one to be admired and most respected. After all, he's the 1976 Olympic decathlon gold medal winner and they are - well, they are ... they are Kardashians.
I'm actually glad I did. As always, Bruce was a class-act who explained he was interested in just being himself.
While the show itself tried desperately to make him look like a victim of some sort, Bruce told the audience, that if this was the only problem he has then he's doing quite well and I completely agree.
This was a great interview. Bruce is truly a likable guy - errr... women. She is required to live a year as a female. Then Bruce will decide if s/he wants to have reassignment surgery. Bruce did not reveal if he was a woman who wanted to be with a man or a women who wanted to be with another women. It seems he has merely felt like a women inside for a very long time.
While the show itself tried desperately to make him look like a victim of some sort, Bruce told the audience, that if this was the only problem he has then he's doing quite well and I completely agree.
This was a great interview. Bruce is truly a likable guy - errr... women. She is required to live a year as a female. Then Bruce will decide if s/he wants to have reassignment surgery. Bruce did not reveal if he was a woman who wanted to be with a man or a women who wanted to be with another women. It seems he has merely felt like a women inside for a very long time.
2015-04-24
Book Review - Surviving Puberty Erecting Your Future and Making the Breast Decisions
Surviving Puberty – Erecting Your Future and Making the Breast Decisions by Chad Bishoff is a book that asks the question, “Does puberty really end?”
Chad introduces himself as a young man who grew up in Omaha, NE from a middle-class home and a Catholic upbringing.
There is something that goes on during the ages of puberty that our minds do not quite understand. Even as adults it’s hard to really grasp all these changes and explain all the “why’s” concerning our thoughts, our actions, and even our behaviors. Chad Bishoff’s book is one-of-a-kind since he actually reverts back in time by prying open his most treasured journals during his pubescent years. A brave and bold move indeed and does not disappoint its reader.
The book goes back and forth between Chad’s perspective as a young man in his late 20’s and actual journal entries from his past. This juxtaposition allows the reader to learn more about who Chad is as an individual and also as any other man or boy in the world. Chad assured us that the names have been changed to protect the guilty.
It’s hard not to think back on your own childhood as you read through the passages of his journal. Many references to pop culture’s past will find you trying to remember where you were when “this” movie was released or when “that” song was playing on top-40 radio.
The book is certainly not intended for children but rather for adults who either share these types of experiences like other men or, for mothers who have a son or a growing young man in their lives. In fact a mother may gain a new perspective into what types of thoughts her son is experiencing and may even discover that those thoughts are not much different when compared to her own formative years.
The most obvious topic that permeates the pages of this book is sex. As one can anticipate the desire to gain a girlfriend and engage in sexual activities is a dominate theme inside the cranium of a pubescent boy. Chad reveals his sensitive side as well, expressing a yearning for a serious, committed relationship.
Another theme that came to my mind while reading this book comes from the story of Sisyphus, from Greek mythology about the man who would push a boulder up a large hill only to find when he reached the top it would fall back down again. Chad's book reminds us to remember that we are always learning and always wanting more . There is a value in being able to look back at your life and having a greater understanding of your experiences.
PROS: The book provides insight and humor into the life of a young man who shares all the dirty details of his young-self growing up. It's interesting, not boring; it's a very quick read and keeps you entertained. There are a few parts that might make you feel embarrassed or even cringe but, this can be considered a pro rather than a con. A good book elicits emotion.
CONS: It was a quick read and I found myself wanting more.
To order your copy, click here and you can pre-order this book. It will be released in honor of National Honesty Day, April 30th.
Chad introduces himself as a young man who grew up in Omaha, NE from a middle-class home and a Catholic upbringing.
There is something that goes on during the ages of puberty that our minds do not quite understand. Even as adults it’s hard to really grasp all these changes and explain all the “why’s” concerning our thoughts, our actions, and even our behaviors. Chad Bishoff’s book is one-of-a-kind since he actually reverts back in time by prying open his most treasured journals during his pubescent years. A brave and bold move indeed and does not disappoint its reader.
The book goes back and forth between Chad’s perspective as a young man in his late 20’s and actual journal entries from his past. This juxtaposition allows the reader to learn more about who Chad is as an individual and also as any other man or boy in the world. Chad assured us that the names have been changed to protect the guilty.
It’s hard not to think back on your own childhood as you read through the passages of his journal. Many references to pop culture’s past will find you trying to remember where you were when “this” movie was released or when “that” song was playing on top-40 radio.
The book is certainly not intended for children but rather for adults who either share these types of experiences like other men or, for mothers who have a son or a growing young man in their lives. In fact a mother may gain a new perspective into what types of thoughts her son is experiencing and may even discover that those thoughts are not much different when compared to her own formative years.
The most obvious topic that permeates the pages of this book is sex. As one can anticipate the desire to gain a girlfriend and engage in sexual activities is a dominate theme inside the cranium of a pubescent boy. Chad reveals his sensitive side as well, expressing a yearning for a serious, committed relationship.
Another theme that came to my mind while reading this book comes from the story of Sisyphus, from Greek mythology about the man who would push a boulder up a large hill only to find when he reached the top it would fall back down again. Chad's book reminds us to remember that we are always learning and always wanting more . There is a value in being able to look back at your life and having a greater understanding of your experiences.
PROS: The book provides insight and humor into the life of a young man who shares all the dirty details of his young-self growing up. It's interesting, not boring; it's a very quick read and keeps you entertained. There are a few parts that might make you feel embarrassed or even cringe but, this can be considered a pro rather than a con. A good book elicits emotion.
CONS: It was a quick read and I found myself wanting more.
To order your copy, click here and you can pre-order this book. It will be released in honor of National Honesty Day, April 30th.
2015-04-22
Robert Downey Jr.Walks OUT on Rude Interviewer
Let me just first say that I have always, always LOVED Robert Downey Jr. Ever since I was a young kid I have adored him because he has always been so incredibly talented. Even in his dark days, I really liked this guy. I always had hope for him and to watch him climb from the gutters of addiction and become the star he is today is just incredible and makes an American proud.
This interview that was done by some dullard from the UK starts off with asking questions about the new movie coming out for Iron Man.
Finally the guy decides to badger Downey about a quote that was from Downey several years ago. Here is some history...
Downey did an interview after he got himself cleaned up and he made a quote that became rather controversial in Hollywood but was celebrated among the conservatives in America. This was from The New York Times in 2008:
“I have a really interesting political point of view, and it’s not always something I say too loud at dinner tables here. But you can’t go from a $2,000-a-night suite at La Mirage to a penitentiary and really understand it and come out a liberal. You can’t. I wouldn’t wish that experience on anyone else, but it was very, very, very educational for me and has informed my proclivities and politics every since.”
I have always believed that Downey was not necessarily speaking about being a Republican but rather that he changed in such a way that showed him the importance of taking personal responsibility for his life. Rather than externalizing blame, one needs to find strength inside of themselves.
If you have ever known people who have battled with drug abuse or alcohol abuse, it is clear that many of them carry along a victim type mentality. Now couple all this with Downey's fairly privileged background being born into Hollywood royalty, it's easy to see how a person can become full of themselves. Indulging in drugs and leading a careless life eventually led him to reach a bottom that many in Hollywood never see. That type of change clearly led him to becoming more humble and in turn generally more conservative. It goes along with the same old adage, "If you're in your 20's and you're not a liberal, you have no heart but if you're in your 30's and you're not a conservative you have no brain."
It's about growing up and it's about maturing. Some people put labels on it but, sometimes these labels change and sometimes the labels are accurate. I believe Downey was there to do an interview and not discuss politics. He's an actor and ultimately he's representing the studio. He's not there to isolate audience members talking about politics or philosophy. The questioning as it pertains to this type of interview was uncalled for and confrontational.
I'm very glad to see Downey walk out. It doesn't matter what he believed then or now. This type of questioning did not belong in this interview.
This interview that was done by some dullard from the UK starts off with asking questions about the new movie coming out for Iron Man.
Finally the guy decides to badger Downey about a quote that was from Downey several years ago. Here is some history...
Downey did an interview after he got himself cleaned up and he made a quote that became rather controversial in Hollywood but was celebrated among the conservatives in America. This was from The New York Times in 2008:
“I have a really interesting political point of view, and it’s not always something I say too loud at dinner tables here. But you can’t go from a $2,000-a-night suite at La Mirage to a penitentiary and really understand it and come out a liberal. You can’t. I wouldn’t wish that experience on anyone else, but it was very, very, very educational for me and has informed my proclivities and politics every since.”
I have always believed that Downey was not necessarily speaking about being a Republican but rather that he changed in such a way that showed him the importance of taking personal responsibility for his life. Rather than externalizing blame, one needs to find strength inside of themselves.
If you have ever known people who have battled with drug abuse or alcohol abuse, it is clear that many of them carry along a victim type mentality. Now couple all this with Downey's fairly privileged background being born into Hollywood royalty, it's easy to see how a person can become full of themselves. Indulging in drugs and leading a careless life eventually led him to reach a bottom that many in Hollywood never see. That type of change clearly led him to becoming more humble and in turn generally more conservative. It goes along with the same old adage, "If you're in your 20's and you're not a liberal, you have no heart but if you're in your 30's and you're not a conservative you have no brain."
It's about growing up and it's about maturing. Some people put labels on it but, sometimes these labels change and sometimes the labels are accurate. I believe Downey was there to do an interview and not discuss politics. He's an actor and ultimately he's representing the studio. He's not there to isolate audience members talking about politics or philosophy. The questioning as it pertains to this type of interview was uncalled for and confrontational.
I'm very glad to see Downey walk out. It doesn't matter what he believed then or now. This type of questioning did not belong in this interview.
2015-04-21
Thinking Critically - Maddox Debunks Wage Myth
The Obama years have brought us controversy. One issue after the other is discussed in such a way to divide Americans. We now have more animosity between blacks and whites, illegals and citizens, criminals and law enforcement, and of course women and men.
Yes, one can argue that Americans do need to discuss many difficult issues. Certainly it is better to discuss things than to sweep them under the rug. We can also argue that these discussions could be more productive if we are more willing to deal with real facts and real issues rather than propaganda and entirely made up statistics for the purposes of pushing an agenda.
How many times have we been told of a story about an important issue where someone has cited a statistic to support them or cited some wild story that occurred, only to discover the stats were misleading or the initial reports surrounding the story were completely wrong? Let's face it, if these issues were so prevalent it would actually be quite easy to find a good story to support their issues. It would not be necessary to fudge facts and/or numbers.
Most Americans have no problems discussing issues that are of major concern but let us always take the time to vet stories until all the facts rise to the surface and let us always remain true to the facts, no matter how uncomfortable they might make us.
The following video by Maddox debunks perfectly and thoroughly the myth of women's wages that has been making its rounds AGAIN in the last year.
Yes, one can argue that Americans do need to discuss many difficult issues. Certainly it is better to discuss things than to sweep them under the rug. We can also argue that these discussions could be more productive if we are more willing to deal with real facts and real issues rather than propaganda and entirely made up statistics for the purposes of pushing an agenda.
How many times have we been told of a story about an important issue where someone has cited a statistic to support them or cited some wild story that occurred, only to discover the stats were misleading or the initial reports surrounding the story were completely wrong? Let's face it, if these issues were so prevalent it would actually be quite easy to find a good story to support their issues. It would not be necessary to fudge facts and/or numbers.
Most Americans have no problems discussing issues that are of major concern but let us always take the time to vet stories until all the facts rise to the surface and let us always remain true to the facts, no matter how uncomfortable they might make us.
The following video by Maddox debunks perfectly and thoroughly the myth of women's wages that has been making its rounds AGAIN in the last year.
2015-04-19
Idiocy That People Like and I Cannot Stand
Pulp Fiction
For years people around me have glorified this movie, demanding I watch it and go on and on ad nauseam about how great it is, how original it is, etc. I remember when it first came out. The hype of this movie was over the top, even before it was officially released.
2015-04-13
UVA Hoax - Rape Hoax- Feminists - Have They Declared a War on Men?
Just when you think you've heard the whole story....there's more...
*The following content deals with sensitive material*
Jackie Coakley is the sole source of Rolling Stone Magazine's recently retracted "gang rape" article written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely. Her name has been outed by several other sources all over the internet and after reading the context of this story and watching interviews given by the three friends that are referenced in the original I have no qualms about publishing her name.
*The following content deals with sensitive material*
Jackie Coakley is the sole source of Rolling Stone Magazine's recently retracted "gang rape" article written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely. Her name has been outed by several other sources all over the internet and after reading the context of this story and watching interviews given by the three friends that are referenced in the original I have no qualms about publishing her name.
2015-04-07
Rolling Stone's- Jackie and Her Gang Rape
**This article contains sensitive material. Please be advised.**
"A Rape On Campus" an article written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely was recently retracted by Rolling Stone magazine. Everyone is issuing an apology and of course that's all fine and dandy but the damage is done. A victim crying rape and then later discovering the allegation is false is not something the accused can bounce back from immediately.
"A Rape On Campus" an article written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely was recently retracted by Rolling Stone magazine. Everyone is issuing an apology and of course that's all fine and dandy but the damage is done. A victim crying rape and then later discovering the allegation is false is not something the accused can bounce back from immediately.
2015-04-05
So What Did Knox See In That Bathroom of Hers?
This video has been posted in defense of Knox, suggesting that since the blood was minimal it would not be unusual or odd for her to think anything about taking a shower.
Knox wrote an email to her friends and family about what occurred in Italy on Sunday November 4th, just days after the murder. In the email she states the following concerning the blood in the bathroom:
Knox wrote an email to her friends and family about what occurred in Italy on Sunday November 4th, just days after the murder. In the email she states the following concerning the blood in the bathroom:
2015-04-03
Amanda Knox - Raffaele Sollecito Flow Chart
***Revised***
When reality and facts are too much to deal with, this chart can help explain away the guilt! You too can be a Know-fam supporter. It's easy to do. No education or research is necessary! In fact the best supporters out there lack both!
Now that the trial has finally ended, it will be even easier for you to solidify the fantasy of innocence.
When reality and facts are too much to deal with, this chart can help explain away the guilt! You too can be a Know-fam supporter. It's easy to do. No education or research is necessary! In fact the best supporters out there lack both!
Now that the trial has finally ended, it will be even easier for you to solidify the fantasy of innocence.
However there are still those "haters" out there that will want to challenge you with facts and reason. They will want to point out the absurdity of the latest verdict. Armed with this flow chart, you can continue to fool yourself and others that justice was served.
The flow chart can be used to explain how Sollecito and Knox are innocent. *cough*
Click to enlarge.
2015-03-31
Knox and Sollecito - Not Guilty?
Yes, you read that correct. I am still a bit shell shocked over this recent decision by Italy's highest court. In addition no re-trial was ordered. It seems that as far as the murder is concerned these two have been given the permission to walk away free and clear. This is it. This is their final verdict.
It took me quite some time to write this as the verdict was announced Friday and here it is Wednesday the following week. We will have to wait even longer for the reasoning from the court. According to sources I have read this means an additional 45 days.
While I do not agree with this final verdict, I am forced to accept it. I am glad it's over but, I am so very disappointed. It's Casey Anthony verdict all over again. Still, I wait anxiously to read the court's reasoning for making this ruling. It all seems to make no sense considering the evidence. It is near impossible for me to believe these two were not involved in this crime.
Pretty much everyone who has known these two are guilty are in complete shock. There are more questions then answers. How could this have happened? Was this a political decision? Was someone paid off? Did Sollecito's father pay for this judgement as he tried to pay for witnesses prior? It all makes no sense.
Here are Knox and her mother reacting to the decision:
Rough transcript (yes I'm being sarcastic, my usual a##hole self):
Yes, it amazes me how there were no tears and almost forced emotions when it came to talking about Meredith. Meredith was a complete afterthought for her and STILL she can only worry about Amanda. Yes, she was the lucky one indeed. She comes across so very fake to me.
I still cannot believe that so many people bought into the US media and the bizarre things they claimed concerning this case. The trial testimony is for all to see.
I want to hear what Rudy has to say. I really do. I wonder how he feels knowing that he will be the only one who will serve time for this murder.
I have much more to write but as of right now, I can only say that I will wait for the court's report. I have grave doubts about its accuracy and reasoning but at the same time I realize I have no other choice but to accept this verdict.
The ONE and only thing I believe we can ALL agree on would be that this process was way too long. It's much too long for the victim's family. It's also much too long for Knox and Sollecito's family. Yes, of course I believe completely in their guilt but a defendant does have a right to know their verdict. This was much too slow to be called justice.
It took me quite some time to write this as the verdict was announced Friday and here it is Wednesday the following week. We will have to wait even longer for the reasoning from the court. According to sources I have read this means an additional 45 days.
While I do not agree with this final verdict, I am forced to accept it. I am glad it's over but, I am so very disappointed. It's Casey Anthony verdict all over again. Still, I wait anxiously to read the court's reasoning for making this ruling. It all seems to make no sense considering the evidence. It is near impossible for me to believe these two were not involved in this crime.
Pretty much everyone who has known these two are guilty are in complete shock. There are more questions then answers. How could this have happened? Was this a political decision? Was someone paid off? Did Sollecito's father pay for this judgement as he tried to pay for witnesses prior? It all makes no sense.
Here are Knox and her mother reacting to the decision:
Rough transcript (yes I'm being sarcastic, my usual a##hole self):
I just wanted to say that I'm incredibly grateful for being able to walk away free. You saved my life because I almost had to get hauled off to jail again. I'm still absorbing this moment. I can't believe these judges were so incredibly stupid. I'm so happy! I want to do cartwheels.
Knox's mom says she's so happy.
Oh yeah, better say something about Meredith..... ugh....let me see.....ugh...yeah, let me pause and get dramatic. Am I emotional enough? She was my friend. She deserved a lot but she f###ing bled to death and I'm the lucky one! I could just kill for a pizza! Hahahaha! Bye!
Yes, it amazes me how there were no tears and almost forced emotions when it came to talking about Meredith. Meredith was a complete afterthought for her and STILL she can only worry about Amanda. Yes, she was the lucky one indeed. She comes across so very fake to me.
I still cannot believe that so many people bought into the US media and the bizarre things they claimed concerning this case. The trial testimony is for all to see.
I want to hear what Rudy has to say. I really do. I wonder how he feels knowing that he will be the only one who will serve time for this murder.
I have much more to write but as of right now, I can only say that I will wait for the court's report. I have grave doubts about its accuracy and reasoning but at the same time I realize I have no other choice but to accept this verdict.
The ONE and only thing I believe we can ALL agree on would be that this process was way too long. It's much too long for the victim's family. It's also much too long for Knox and Sollecito's family. Yes, of course I believe completely in their guilt but a defendant does have a right to know their verdict. This was much too slow to be called justice.
2015-03-30
Remember That Guy Who Harassed The Women at Chic-fil-A?
Well, that guy claims he is now on food stamps.
Yes, Adam M. Smith was fired from his high paying CFO job and now has been forced into unemployment and he is now collecting food stamps from the government. His wife has now had to go to work and he is at home taking care of their boys.
This story was also featured on a special that I happened to catch on TV. I believe it was on ABC News 20/20.
I am seeing a lot of stuff on my Facebook wall - "karma's a bitch!" and "Justice served chicken style!"
Okay, yeah I agree. What this guy did was douche-bag multiplied by a thousand.
The man had a problem with Chic-fil-A's general support of marriage between a man and a women. Now this comment itself was taken to the extreme. Just because someone supports traditional marriage does not mean they dislikes gays. It's a common belief found among many in America and people certainly have a right to say so. People came out in droves to support Chic-fil-A.
So this Adam guy has a problem with Chic-fil-A's stance on marriage and instead of writing to the company or addressing them directly, he made the choice to go to a single location and go through the drive-thru. Using a camera, he records this encounter that he initiates with the woman who is at the window. He basically does everything he can to humiliate her and demean her because she works at Chic-fil-A. The few minutes he spends talking to her is riddled with self-righteousness and arrogance.
After he records this, he goes home and uploads the video onto You Tube. This again was HIS choice. The video goes viral and when he goes to work he is asked to resign. He refuses and is immediately fired. From this point on he cannot find a job. He tried being forthcoming with this incident in interviews but, this tactic has also failed. He did offer an apology on You Tube but, still this man has seen no hope of obtaining a job and now must collect food stamps.
It's hard for me to believe he cannot find a job anywhere. It seems to me he will be forced to swallow his pride and get a low level job and hopefully find a way to work up in the company. I don't understand how this would be all that difficult to do. Yes, it sucks but considering his current situation it would seem to me that would be the best route to go at this point. He has a family he needs to provide for and he needs to be an example for his children. It does him no good crying and acting like a victim. Nobody did this to him. This was a choice HE made and it was indeed quite foolish.
Adam, swallow your pride and get a job at McDonald's or some other unskilled job. There is NO shame in going to an honest job. It's certainly better then doing nothing.
On the other side however, I do not see this as "justice" of any sort. The man is down and out. There is nothing "karma-like" about being forced out of your job and then being in a situation where you can no longer support your family. These comments about "justice served" and "karma's a bitch" to name a few are pretty heartless and do not reflect well on the characters who are declaring them.
The guy made a mistake - a big dumb one at that but, he did do something he believed in. He didn't physically attack her or rape her or rob her. He stated an opinion that is not all that out of the norm. Many people support the idea of gay marriage and many people feel it is a right that is being denied. While some may or may not agree with it, I think the backlash towards this man has been a bit too much, too harsh, and just plain nasty. Him having to go on food stamps is not a solution. He needs to get back to work and he needs to be able to contribute back to society.
Yes, I think he was wrong but I also think the guy has learned from his mistake. I also know that at times I myself have lashed out or been angry and expressed this in unhealthy ways. We ALL do it and if you've even been on the internet, you likely have participated this behavior yourself. If you haven't - well bless your heart you're a million times better then me.
Next time Adam has an issue, I believe he will take a better, more reasonable route to express his concerns. I hope he gets a job and he is able to get his life back on track. I wish him the best. I don't see any benefit in kicking this man while he's down. It's not appropriate. He did not even commit a crime. Let's all find it in our hearts to forgive.
It's time to forgive this man.
Yes, Adam M. Smith was fired from his high paying CFO job and now has been forced into unemployment and he is now collecting food stamps from the government. His wife has now had to go to work and he is at home taking care of their boys.
This story was also featured on a special that I happened to catch on TV. I believe it was on ABC News 20/20.
I am seeing a lot of stuff on my Facebook wall - "karma's a bitch!" and "Justice served chicken style!"
Okay, yeah I agree. What this guy did was douche-bag multiplied by a thousand.
The man had a problem with Chic-fil-A's general support of marriage between a man and a women. Now this comment itself was taken to the extreme. Just because someone supports traditional marriage does not mean they dislikes gays. It's a common belief found among many in America and people certainly have a right to say so. People came out in droves to support Chic-fil-A.
So this Adam guy has a problem with Chic-fil-A's stance on marriage and instead of writing to the company or addressing them directly, he made the choice to go to a single location and go through the drive-thru. Using a camera, he records this encounter that he initiates with the woman who is at the window. He basically does everything he can to humiliate her and demean her because she works at Chic-fil-A. The few minutes he spends talking to her is riddled with self-righteousness and arrogance.
After he records this, he goes home and uploads the video onto You Tube. This again was HIS choice. The video goes viral and when he goes to work he is asked to resign. He refuses and is immediately fired. From this point on he cannot find a job. He tried being forthcoming with this incident in interviews but, this tactic has also failed. He did offer an apology on You Tube but, still this man has seen no hope of obtaining a job and now must collect food stamps.
It's hard for me to believe he cannot find a job anywhere. It seems to me he will be forced to swallow his pride and get a low level job and hopefully find a way to work up in the company. I don't understand how this would be all that difficult to do. Yes, it sucks but considering his current situation it would seem to me that would be the best route to go at this point. He has a family he needs to provide for and he needs to be an example for his children. It does him no good crying and acting like a victim. Nobody did this to him. This was a choice HE made and it was indeed quite foolish.
Adam, swallow your pride and get a job at McDonald's or some other unskilled job. There is NO shame in going to an honest job. It's certainly better then doing nothing.
On the other side however, I do not see this as "justice" of any sort. The man is down and out. There is nothing "karma-like" about being forced out of your job and then being in a situation where you can no longer support your family. These comments about "justice served" and "karma's a bitch" to name a few are pretty heartless and do not reflect well on the characters who are declaring them.
The guy made a mistake - a big dumb one at that but, he did do something he believed in. He didn't physically attack her or rape her or rob her. He stated an opinion that is not all that out of the norm. Many people support the idea of gay marriage and many people feel it is a right that is being denied. While some may or may not agree with it, I think the backlash towards this man has been a bit too much, too harsh, and just plain nasty. Him having to go on food stamps is not a solution. He needs to get back to work and he needs to be able to contribute back to society.
Yes, I think he was wrong but I also think the guy has learned from his mistake. I also know that at times I myself have lashed out or been angry and expressed this in unhealthy ways. We ALL do it and if you've even been on the internet, you likely have participated this behavior yourself. If you haven't - well bless your heart you're a million times better then me.
Next time Adam has an issue, I believe he will take a better, more reasonable route to express his concerns. I hope he gets a job and he is able to get his life back on track. I wish him the best. I don't see any benefit in kicking this man while he's down. It's not appropriate. He did not even commit a crime. Let's all find it in our hearts to forgive.
It's time to forgive this man.
2015-03-17
25 Years Ago Madonna's Truth or Dare
I remember going to the theater to see this first-of-its-kind (not really), documentary Truth or Dare. It's hard to believe it was 25 years ago - holy cow! Am I really that old? Oh yeah.
I was definitely a Madonna fan but, as the years have gone by, I guess you could say my interest in her has generally faded. However, there are times when her name comes up and I will read an article or watch a performance (The Super Bowl being the last). This last week, I had come upon a recent interview that Madonna did with Howard Stern.
The English accent of hers was gone and while the interview by itself is worthy of review, the topic of Truth or Dare and its 25 year anniversary caught my attention. I thought I'd go back and watch it.
For a small fee of 3 dollars, I rented this on YouTube.
When I had watched it before, I was only in high school so I didn't put much thought into this documentary at all. Maybe it was because I was too young or maybe I just didn't care. I remember I enjoyed it. I liked the performances but, I do remember thinking Madonna was a little bizarre and obnoxious.
Now that I have taken the time to re-watch it, I noticed a few things I didn't notice before and yes, Madonna is still obnoxious.
The film goes back and forth between black and white and color. The black and white parts are grainy and cover the scenes that are off-stage, while the colored film is found during Madonna's performances. It covers the time frame of the Blonde Ambition Tour.
The opening scene includes a voice-over from Madonna who is seen picking up a mess in her hotel room, as if a party had just dispersed and Madonna slides into bed, apparently finding no need to use the bathroom, wash her face, and brush her teeth.
The next scene we immediately see an angry Madonna who is frustrated with what appears to be a sound check at rehearsal before a show in Japan. We soon see that the weather is awful and Madonna is forced to perform in the rain.
The film immediately jumps to the United States but the only thing that tells us this is another voice-over from Madonna. This hopping around is found throughout the film and consequently I found myself asking, "Did I miss something?" It's highly disjointed and some parts seem to drop off and never return again; the stories are never brought to a conclusion. So often I wanted to know what happened next?
Madonna also has two hair styles during this tour. One is a long blonde pony tail which is a hair extension affixed with a braided hair piece that wraps around the base of the pony tail. The other style consists of short tight blonde curls.
Madonna immediately lets us know she identifies herself as being a motherly figure for her dancers and staff. The film then cuts to their real mothers coming to visit them and Madonna is excited to meet them all. Of course she later carries on about how all of her dancers have suffered in some way and her only desire has been to love them and give them the opportunity of a lifetime.
Interestingly enough Madonna refers to Chicago as a conservative town. I'm not sure where she got that idea?? I don't remember Chicago being conservative, not now and not 25 years ago.
So we're about 15 minutes in and we have yet to see Madonna being anything other than in full-control. There is nothing revealing and certainly nothing that gives the audience any in-depth perception of who she is.
Now enters the dancer Ollie, who claims to be the only straight male dancer (although this is questionable), and we see him waiting to meet his father. Interestingly there is no mention of his mother or where she is, or why she wasn't there? Here again, we have no understanding and this topic doesn't come up again.
The film cuts to Oh Father and the camera angles force us to question if this was actually filmed at a live performance.
Cut to Madonna's hotel room and Madonna is slurping her soup and talking to her dad on the phone. She demands he tell her if he's coming to the show, how many tickets he wants, and who is coming with him.
Now comes the technical problems - during Madonna's performance of Keep it Together we can hear her mic cut in and out. Then backstage, Madonna begins yelling at her tech person about the issue she was experiencing but the entire scene looks staged.
Finally we get a glimpse of Madonna's eyebrows being touched up, her staff kissing her ass while she complains, and her boy toy - the famous Warren Beatty. Warren is found throughout the documentary but at some point he just drops off and we never hear from him again.
Kevin Costner comes back stage and makes the mistake of telling Madonna her show was "neat" which prompted Madonna to turn around and simulate puking with a finger in her mouth.
The next scene shows Madonna getting ready for some event and calling Warren to find out his whereabouts, she then slams the phone down calling him an a--h---.
The film jumps again and we are in Toronto. Madonna who is sporting her pony tail, is approached by her brother who tells her that her actions (feign masturbation) found during the song of Like a Virgin will prompt the police to arrest her after the show because in Canada this is considered an immoral live performance. Madonna tells her dancers and they all pray in a circle. Madonna leads the prayer but the prayer seems to address her dancers directly rather than addressing the Lord.
Madonna is never seen happier during this film. She is almost giddy like a child and tells everyone that she will not change her show. She is an artist who is expressing herself. She will not compromise her artistic integrity.
What is interesting is that while the film does show Madonna performing Like a Virgin, the version they show is one where Madonna is sporting her tight curls, not the long pony tail we just saw her clearly wearing in the previous scene. So why did they not show the actual performance that she did in Toronto? The film then cuts to a news clip which shows her performing with her long pony tail and it's reported that the police found nothing wrong and they did not arrest her.
The entire episode in Toronto seems staged. I have no idea why the police would even bother unless Madonna were actually performing sex or a sexual act in the flesh there would be no cause for her to be arrested. The way she carried on about being an artist and expressing herself was just self-serving.
In Detroit, we see Madonna bring her father onstage and she asks everyone to sing Happy Birthday for him. Her father and I guess her step mom (no indication is made), come back to what we assume is her green room. Madonna explains that she bowed at her father's feet onstage because she forgot to buy her father a birthday present!
We then see that Madonna is expecting her brother Marty to arrive for a visit, but she is whispering to some guy about how to handle him when he arrives. There is of course no reason for her to whisper; it's all weird and once again staged. Marty apparently had/has an issue with alcohol and at this time had a recent stint in a rehab.
Marty later explains to the audience that he had some trouble getting to the hotel; he eventually arrived but very late and missed Madonna because she had already retired for the evening.
Almost an hour in and once again we have another staged scene. Madonna has yet to show any vulnerability. Madonna first tells her make-up artist Sharon that she used to beat up on girls like her in high school. Then she says that Sharon reminds her of Moira McFarland, an old friend of hers. It would be later confirmed that this woman was contacted and her presence in the film was thrown upon Madonna at the last minute.
Moira McFarland is introduced to Madonna who is apparently so busy she can't take even a minute of her time to sit down with her old childhood friend. Moira gives Madonna a painting and tells her that she is pregnant again and wants Madonna to be the Godmother. Madonna tells her thank you but, she simply cannot answer her at this moment. She quickly removes herself with another "thank you" for the painting and an exchange of love you's. Moira then tells us how much she loves Madonna and how she loved Madonna's mother. We never do find out if Madonna accepts her plea to be the child's Godmother.
Now we are at the famous scene where Madonna decides to lay down on her mother's grave and speculate that her mom is probably just a bunch of dust at this point. Her brother Christopher would later state that this moment is where he truly began to question his sister and see her in a different way saying that nothing was off-limits for his sister. I have yet to see anyone give this scene a positive review. In fact this scene seems to truly repulse anyone who has watched it. I'm not sure what Madonna had in mind doing this scene in the first place. Her mother died when Madonna was only five years old. Her memories of her mother would be few and while it's reasonable for her to visit her mother's grave whenever she is in town, it is highly inappropriate for her to film the event.
The next scene might offer some insight as to why her and Warren split up. Madonna is forced to cancel some shows because she has lost her voice. A doctor is visiting her at a hotel and I believe she is in New York at this point. Even though her hair is in a towel, appearing freshly showered, her make-up is fully done, flawlessly. Beatty makes quite a few comments about how crazy it is she is doing all this stuff on camera and how insane the environment is. Madonna clearly loves it and seems to disregard any point he is trying to make. Warren might as well be an inanimate object in Madonna's world. This will be the last we see of him in the film.
One of her dancers appears on a radio show where the host asks her about a tabloid that says Madonna dumped Warren for a dancer - Ollie. She denies the claim but, I guess the audience is to infer the pair did break up, only Madonna is not dating Ollie.
Hands down the most disturbing part of this documentary comes when Madonna is told about her make-up artist Sharon waking up in her hotel with her anus bleeding. She had gone to a club and claims she was not drinking but, clearly she was slipped a roofie or something similar. Madonna's reaction? She laughs. Then she speculates that Sharon must have been telling these guys she met she worked with Madonna and they drugged her and messed with her. Sharon is then seen in the dressing room with the dancers telling them what happened and they express an equal amount of no sympathy. Nobody encourages this woman to go to the police. NOBODY even offers the slightest amount of sympathy or concern for this poor woman. It's appalling and very disturbing.
So while Madonna would like to fancy herself as a mother figure to her dancers and staff, she shows absolutely no inkling of being motherly in this instance. A staff member of hers is drugged and raped and she laughs?
"Oh well," in Madonna's world - the show must go on.
It's hard to watch anything past this point. Madonna is soon back on stage prancing around to the song Holiday and the film just moves along as if nothing happened.
Off to Europe....
Madonna finds herself at odds with the Vatican again. Eventually she cancels some shows because of the animosity.
Sandra Bernhard visits Madonna. Remember her? Ugh. She was famous for about 16 minutes in the late 80's, which was 16 minutes way too long. Madonna tells Sandra she wants to meet Antonio Banderas.
Surprise surprise she meets him and he's married.
The movie begins to wrap up and Madonna is playing the game Truth or Dare with her dancers. She performs a lewd act on a bottle and reveals her true love to be Sean - as in Sean Penn. This is the ONLY scene that is revealing and shows Madonna being sincere. The rest of the movie is really her just trying her best to shock people with her generic, obnoxious humor.
In another scene, Madonna reveals that she's not interested in being a great singer or dancer; she just wants to push people's buttons and be political.
Finally the movie ends with Madonna and her dancers in her bed - completely scripted.
While I did enjoy watching some parts of this film again, it is clear this movie is very different to me watching as an adult.
Now more than ever I realize how truly narcissistic she was. Other people are objects to Madonna. They are to be entertained and should provide entertainment for her, but not to be recognized as having their own feelings and they certainly should not express their feelings to her directly.
On a positive note, Madonna has shown indications in her latest interview that she has indeed grown up in some ways. It's easy to be hard on Madonna and criticize her but it's hard to relate to a person who has been in the public eye for as long as she has been. The woman has literally been worshiped by millions of people across the globe so what can any of us really expect?
What makes her so special? She is right. She's not the best singer; she's never been in an acting role that has amounted to showing any exceptional talent; she's not the greatest dancer. She's mediocre at best. She does manage to keep control over her image and she knows how to manipulate the media and based on this film she definitely knows how to manipulate others around her. She also has a lot of confidence. Maybe we like her because she proves you can be successful and not be the "best." No doubt she does work and she keeps moving forward, no matter what obstacles stand in her way.
Is she a good role model for women? I don't think so. Something tells me that the woman in our country who fought for voting rights and equal treatment were not interested in women taking this power and using it the way Madonna has.
One thing I do like about her is that she never seems to take on the victim-status like so many other celebrities do. She has never found herself in rehab. She is not known for her drug use or alcohol abuse. In fact, she actually seems to take good care of her body and enjoys being healthy.
Love her or hate her, she is an icon in American culture and nothing will change that.
I was definitely a Madonna fan but, as the years have gone by, I guess you could say my interest in her has generally faded. However, there are times when her name comes up and I will read an article or watch a performance (The Super Bowl being the last). This last week, I had come upon a recent interview that Madonna did with Howard Stern.
The English accent of hers was gone and while the interview by itself is worthy of review, the topic of Truth or Dare and its 25 year anniversary caught my attention. I thought I'd go back and watch it.
For a small fee of 3 dollars, I rented this on YouTube.
When I had watched it before, I was only in high school so I didn't put much thought into this documentary at all. Maybe it was because I was too young or maybe I just didn't care. I remember I enjoyed it. I liked the performances but, I do remember thinking Madonna was a little bizarre and obnoxious.
Now that I have taken the time to re-watch it, I noticed a few things I didn't notice before and yes, Madonna is still obnoxious.
The film goes back and forth between black and white and color. The black and white parts are grainy and cover the scenes that are off-stage, while the colored film is found during Madonna's performances. It covers the time frame of the Blonde Ambition Tour.
The opening scene includes a voice-over from Madonna who is seen picking up a mess in her hotel room, as if a party had just dispersed and Madonna slides into bed, apparently finding no need to use the bathroom, wash her face, and brush her teeth.
The next scene we immediately see an angry Madonna who is frustrated with what appears to be a sound check at rehearsal before a show in Japan. We soon see that the weather is awful and Madonna is forced to perform in the rain.
The film immediately jumps to the United States but the only thing that tells us this is another voice-over from Madonna. This hopping around is found throughout the film and consequently I found myself asking, "Did I miss something?" It's highly disjointed and some parts seem to drop off and never return again; the stories are never brought to a conclusion. So often I wanted to know what happened next?
Madonna also has two hair styles during this tour. One is a long blonde pony tail which is a hair extension affixed with a braided hair piece that wraps around the base of the pony tail. The other style consists of short tight blonde curls.
Madonna immediately lets us know she identifies herself as being a motherly figure for her dancers and staff. The film then cuts to their real mothers coming to visit them and Madonna is excited to meet them all. Of course she later carries on about how all of her dancers have suffered in some way and her only desire has been to love them and give them the opportunity of a lifetime.
Interestingly enough Madonna refers to Chicago as a conservative town. I'm not sure where she got that idea?? I don't remember Chicago being conservative, not now and not 25 years ago.
So we're about 15 minutes in and we have yet to see Madonna being anything other than in full-control. There is nothing revealing and certainly nothing that gives the audience any in-depth perception of who she is.
Now enters the dancer Ollie, who claims to be the only straight male dancer (although this is questionable), and we see him waiting to meet his father. Interestingly there is no mention of his mother or where she is, or why she wasn't there? Here again, we have no understanding and this topic doesn't come up again.
The film cuts to Oh Father and the camera angles force us to question if this was actually filmed at a live performance.
Cut to Madonna's hotel room and Madonna is slurping her soup and talking to her dad on the phone. She demands he tell her if he's coming to the show, how many tickets he wants, and who is coming with him.
Now comes the technical problems - during Madonna's performance of Keep it Together we can hear her mic cut in and out. Then backstage, Madonna begins yelling at her tech person about the issue she was experiencing but the entire scene looks staged.
Finally we get a glimpse of Madonna's eyebrows being touched up, her staff kissing her ass while she complains, and her boy toy - the famous Warren Beatty. Warren is found throughout the documentary but at some point he just drops off and we never hear from him again.
Kevin Costner comes back stage and makes the mistake of telling Madonna her show was "neat" which prompted Madonna to turn around and simulate puking with a finger in her mouth.
The next scene shows Madonna getting ready for some event and calling Warren to find out his whereabouts, she then slams the phone down calling him an a--h---.
The film jumps again and we are in Toronto. Madonna who is sporting her pony tail, is approached by her brother who tells her that her actions (feign masturbation) found during the song of Like a Virgin will prompt the police to arrest her after the show because in Canada this is considered an immoral live performance. Madonna tells her dancers and they all pray in a circle. Madonna leads the prayer but the prayer seems to address her dancers directly rather than addressing the Lord.
Madonna is never seen happier during this film. She is almost giddy like a child and tells everyone that she will not change her show. She is an artist who is expressing herself. She will not compromise her artistic integrity.
What is interesting is that while the film does show Madonna performing Like a Virgin, the version they show is one where Madonna is sporting her tight curls, not the long pony tail we just saw her clearly wearing in the previous scene. So why did they not show the actual performance that she did in Toronto? The film then cuts to a news clip which shows her performing with her long pony tail and it's reported that the police found nothing wrong and they did not arrest her.
The entire episode in Toronto seems staged. I have no idea why the police would even bother unless Madonna were actually performing sex or a sexual act in the flesh there would be no cause for her to be arrested. The way she carried on about being an artist and expressing herself was just self-serving.
In Detroit, we see Madonna bring her father onstage and she asks everyone to sing Happy Birthday for him. Her father and I guess her step mom (no indication is made), come back to what we assume is her green room. Madonna explains that she bowed at her father's feet onstage because she forgot to buy her father a birthday present!
We then see that Madonna is expecting her brother Marty to arrive for a visit, but she is whispering to some guy about how to handle him when he arrives. There is of course no reason for her to whisper; it's all weird and once again staged. Marty apparently had/has an issue with alcohol and at this time had a recent stint in a rehab.
Marty later explains to the audience that he had some trouble getting to the hotel; he eventually arrived but very late and missed Madonna because she had already retired for the evening.
Almost an hour in and once again we have another staged scene. Madonna has yet to show any vulnerability. Madonna first tells her make-up artist Sharon that she used to beat up on girls like her in high school. Then she says that Sharon reminds her of Moira McFarland, an old friend of hers. It would be later confirmed that this woman was contacted and her presence in the film was thrown upon Madonna at the last minute.
Moira McFarland is introduced to Madonna who is apparently so busy she can't take even a minute of her time to sit down with her old childhood friend. Moira gives Madonna a painting and tells her that she is pregnant again and wants Madonna to be the Godmother. Madonna tells her thank you but, she simply cannot answer her at this moment. She quickly removes herself with another "thank you" for the painting and an exchange of love you's. Moira then tells us how much she loves Madonna and how she loved Madonna's mother. We never do find out if Madonna accepts her plea to be the child's Godmother.
Now we are at the famous scene where Madonna decides to lay down on her mother's grave and speculate that her mom is probably just a bunch of dust at this point. Her brother Christopher would later state that this moment is where he truly began to question his sister and see her in a different way saying that nothing was off-limits for his sister. I have yet to see anyone give this scene a positive review. In fact this scene seems to truly repulse anyone who has watched it. I'm not sure what Madonna had in mind doing this scene in the first place. Her mother died when Madonna was only five years old. Her memories of her mother would be few and while it's reasonable for her to visit her mother's grave whenever she is in town, it is highly inappropriate for her to film the event.
The next scene might offer some insight as to why her and Warren split up. Madonna is forced to cancel some shows because she has lost her voice. A doctor is visiting her at a hotel and I believe she is in New York at this point. Even though her hair is in a towel, appearing freshly showered, her make-up is fully done, flawlessly. Beatty makes quite a few comments about how crazy it is she is doing all this stuff on camera and how insane the environment is. Madonna clearly loves it and seems to disregard any point he is trying to make. Warren might as well be an inanimate object in Madonna's world. This will be the last we see of him in the film.
One of her dancers appears on a radio show where the host asks her about a tabloid that says Madonna dumped Warren for a dancer - Ollie. She denies the claim but, I guess the audience is to infer the pair did break up, only Madonna is not dating Ollie.
Hands down the most disturbing part of this documentary comes when Madonna is told about her make-up artist Sharon waking up in her hotel with her anus bleeding. She had gone to a club and claims she was not drinking but, clearly she was slipped a roofie or something similar. Madonna's reaction? She laughs. Then she speculates that Sharon must have been telling these guys she met she worked with Madonna and they drugged her and messed with her. Sharon is then seen in the dressing room with the dancers telling them what happened and they express an equal amount of no sympathy. Nobody encourages this woman to go to the police. NOBODY even offers the slightest amount of sympathy or concern for this poor woman. It's appalling and very disturbing.
So while Madonna would like to fancy herself as a mother figure to her dancers and staff, she shows absolutely no inkling of being motherly in this instance. A staff member of hers is drugged and raped and she laughs?
"Oh well," in Madonna's world - the show must go on.
It's hard to watch anything past this point. Madonna is soon back on stage prancing around to the song Holiday and the film just moves along as if nothing happened.
Off to Europe....
Madonna finds herself at odds with the Vatican again. Eventually she cancels some shows because of the animosity.
Sandra Bernhard visits Madonna. Remember her? Ugh. She was famous for about 16 minutes in the late 80's, which was 16 minutes way too long. Madonna tells Sandra she wants to meet Antonio Banderas.
Surprise surprise she meets him and he's married.
The movie begins to wrap up and Madonna is playing the game Truth or Dare with her dancers. She performs a lewd act on a bottle and reveals her true love to be Sean - as in Sean Penn. This is the ONLY scene that is revealing and shows Madonna being sincere. The rest of the movie is really her just trying her best to shock people with her generic, obnoxious humor.
In another scene, Madonna reveals that she's not interested in being a great singer or dancer; she just wants to push people's buttons and be political.
Finally the movie ends with Madonna and her dancers in her bed - completely scripted.
While I did enjoy watching some parts of this film again, it is clear this movie is very different to me watching as an adult.
Now more than ever I realize how truly narcissistic she was. Other people are objects to Madonna. They are to be entertained and should provide entertainment for her, but not to be recognized as having their own feelings and they certainly should not express their feelings to her directly.
On a positive note, Madonna has shown indications in her latest interview that she has indeed grown up in some ways. It's easy to be hard on Madonna and criticize her but it's hard to relate to a person who has been in the public eye for as long as she has been. The woman has literally been worshiped by millions of people across the globe so what can any of us really expect?
What makes her so special? She is right. She's not the best singer; she's never been in an acting role that has amounted to showing any exceptional talent; she's not the greatest dancer. She's mediocre at best. She does manage to keep control over her image and she knows how to manipulate the media and based on this film she definitely knows how to manipulate others around her. She also has a lot of confidence. Maybe we like her because she proves you can be successful and not be the "best." No doubt she does work and she keeps moving forward, no matter what obstacles stand in her way.
Is she a good role model for women? I don't think so. Something tells me that the woman in our country who fought for voting rights and equal treatment were not interested in women taking this power and using it the way Madonna has.
One thing I do like about her is that she never seems to take on the victim-status like so many other celebrities do. She has never found herself in rehab. She is not known for her drug use or alcohol abuse. In fact, she actually seems to take good care of her body and enjoys being healthy.
Love her or hate her, she is an icon in American culture and nothing will change that.
2015-02-25
2015-02-12
The Fall of Brian Williams
The recent story where Williams made claims to being in Iraq and nearly shot down have led to him being suspended for six months without pay.
It turns out that he has been telling a version of this story for quite some time but none of the versions appear to be remotely truthful.
It turns out that he has been telling a version of this story for quite some time but none of the versions appear to be remotely truthful.
Brian Williams, anchor and managing editor of "NBC Nightly News," has been suspended without pay for six months following his continued misrepresentation of events surrounding his coverage of the Iraq War, NBC said Tuesday night.Just prior to his suspension, he did make an attempt to apologize:
A suspension for a lead anchor who repeatedly lied, then lied again in his "apology." NBC is unbelievable -- literally.
— Brent Bozell (@BrentBozell) February 11, 2015
There are now reports suggesting this is not the only time the anchor has taken liberties in telling stories on the air.I think most all of us expect to hear people embellish their stories. It certainly happens even when it's not intentional because we tend to experience things differently. When someone is directly involved in a situation, their perception is magnified while someone looking from the outside might see the same situation quite differently.
So far it does appear that Williams has indeed been lying but, why? What causes a person who is so widely recognized to lie about anything like this? Is it ego or is it just a need to feel more important? The mistake is certainly one of carelessness.
There is no telling where his career will go from here. It seems as though many are willing to forgive but, will that forgiveness lead to being able to trust again? Whether he comes back or not, he certainly has lost credibility with the public.
It is also clear that Williams needs to work out some matters with himself. More than repairing his image in the public, it will be important for Williams to address some serious issues with himself. He will have to ask himself what led him to make such silly remarks? What caused him to tell a lie to his audience? Only by answering truthfully to himself will he be able to carry on and avoid making any more foolish mistakes.
2015-02-01
Why I Cannot Believe Amanda Knox
Amanda Knox Source
This article is written with the assumption that the reader has a general understanding of the case. If you are one of the lucky ones who currently know little to nothing about this case, it might behoove you to just continue ignoring it. I will not be held responsible for any reader being sucked into the Knox-vortex. It is time consuming and life-sucking.
2015-01-29
Quick Post Update
I know I've been busy lately.
So far 2015 has been quite busy for me... life seems to be moving pretty fast. I am working on a very large post concerning Amanda Knox.
I will be doing more updates soon but, just wanted to get a post out there and let people who read know I have not meant to ignore my blog.
Hope everyone is having a great New Year!
Love,
Tuesday
So far 2015 has been quite busy for me... life seems to be moving pretty fast. I am working on a very large post concerning Amanda Knox.
I will be doing more updates soon but, just wanted to get a post out there and let people who read know I have not meant to ignore my blog.
Hope everyone is having a great New Year!
Love,
Tuesday
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)