Kavanaugh or Kava-Yes?

I had to eventually end my long blog post Summer break.  Somehow, I withheld the urge to post something about that googly-eyed crazy person with a loose grip on reality: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  You know, the one with an Economics degree but no real understanding of the economy and why Socialism fails 100% of the time.  The one with the International Relations degree but no real understanding of what's going on in the Middle East.  The one who thinks we can fund all of her plans by getting tens of trillions of dollars from, well, even Jake Tapper verbalized his realization that he wasn't going to get an answer to that question...  God help us if the far Left ever takes control of our Government.

But in this Trump-era news cycle where you usually forget what Monday's stories were by the time Friday comes around, there's been one story dominating the news for the last few weeks: Sexual assault allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump's nominee to replace Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court.  The allegations came out a few weeks ago, after the Senate hearings on Judge Kavanaugh had concluded.  However, Senator Dianne Feinstein had had this information for roughly seven weeks before saying or doing anything about it.  Because when you're a reasonable human being and someone tells you about alleged sexual abuse, the normal thing to do with that information if you believe it to be credible is absolutely nothing for nearly two months.  At least when your goal is to try to prolong the vote on Kavanaugh's confirmation as long as possible, because let's be clear: whether the allegations are true or not, that was the primary goal of Senator Feinstein and her Democratic colleagues here.  And for those calling for the FBI to get involved, I'm not really sure what the FBI is expected to do with allegations of a sexual misdemeanor in Maryland from 36 years ago at an unspecified time and place.

To recap, in case you've been living under a rock, Dr. Christine Ford alleges that a drunken 17-year-old Brett Kavanaugh groped her and was allegedly trying to remove her clothes in order to rape her.  She was 15 years old, and somehow got away when Kavanaugh's buddy Mark Judge, who was also in the room, was roughhousing with Kavanaugh as the alleged assault was occurring.  Kavanaugh and Judge deny this ever happened, and the other friends that Ford said were at the party, including a female friend, have no memory of the party.  In fact, her female friend who was supposedly at the party says she doesn't even know Kavanaugh and has no memory of ever being at a party with him at all.  Ford doesn't remember when or where the party occurred, apart from saying she believes it was Summer of 1982, and there is zero corroboration thus far.  And Ford has pushed off her day of testifying in front of the Senate, in part because she is apparently too traumatized to be on an airplane, but in larger part because Democratic operatives are running the show, and pushing off the testimony until Thursday means that Kavanaugh apparently will not be seated on October 1.  Senate Republicans have allowed this, as well as allowing a number of demands from her largely ridiculous list of demands for appearing before the Senate.  She is expected to show up to testify tomorrow, probably.

I'm someone who generally believes women when they come forward with allegations like this.  I believe Juanita Braoddrick's rape allegations against Bill Clinton, I believe the super creepy allegations against Roy Moore, I believe the women who came forward with allegations against Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein, and I believe Keith Ellison's accuser.  The things with Al Franken and Cory Booker are not nearly on the same level as the others I've mentioned, and at this particular moment, the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh really do appear to be part of a massive smear campaign.  If true, he should absolutely be disqualified from the Supreme Court, as well as his current position.  If the third allegation is true, I'd like to personally beat the shit out of him, and he should be rotting in prison.  Oh, yeah, I haven't yet mentioned the subsequent allegations that materialized after the first one.

The second allegation against Kavanaugh is from someone who said she was at a party with him at Yale.  It took her six days of consulting with lawyers and psychologists before she was able to decide whether or not the memories she had did indeed include Kavanaugh exposing his penis to her, near her face, while they were both drunk.  She thinks it does, but isn't entirely sure, and she has stated that she will not testify.  At one point she thought it was a fake penis, but then apparently she remembers someone saying that "Brett Kavanaugh's" penis was in her face, because using his full name is exactly how someone would express that thought.  Memory is a weird thing.  Like with the first one, I have no idea whether this occurred, and neither do you, and no one has corroborated this one either.  The New York Times and Washington Post wouldn't even report on this one at first, because the story is just too dubious and they couldn't find anyone else who remembers the incident.  And in my opinion, unlike the first allegation, I do not deem this as a massive problem if it did occur.  If I walked in on a guy doing to a girl what Ford alleges Kavanaugh did to her, I would physically remove him from that situation.  Violently.  He would be injured.  If I walked in on someone who had their penis out at a drunken party, yeah... I went to college.  I walked in on that shit a few times.  If it's actually in someone's face, that's not cool, and that person should be pushed away.  But a lot of college parties include some amount of indecent exposure, or naked partying, or streaking, or something of that nature.  I saw way too many penises in college.  Nevertheless, I persisted.

The third allegation against Kavanaugh is by far the worst, and this one just came out.  Creepy Porn Lawyer and 2020 Presidential Candidate Michael Avenatti has a client named Julie Swetnick who alleges that Kavanaugh and Judge essentially orchestrated a gang rape ring when they were in high school in the early 1980s.  According to Swetnick's statement, they would spike the punch or give girls some of those Cosby drugs, and once they were incapacitated, the guys at the party would form a line outside of a bedroom and take turns raping the girls.  According to Swetnick, who kept going to these parties for some reason, she was allegedly raped at one of them in 1982, which is two years after she graduated college.  So, for some reason, she was still going to high school parties while she was in college--parties where she was an adult and knew that the gang rape of underage girls was occurring.  What?  The thing about this one is that, if it occurred, there have got to be some people who will come forward and corroborate it.  So many witnesses.  So then we'll know.  And if it occurred, I hope we do find out for sure that it did, because I sure as hell do not want Kavanaugh anywhere near the Supreme Court or any gavel at all if it occurred.  I'd rather he was thrown in prison and got what he has coming to him if it occurred.  I have zero tolerance for rapists.

Oh, then there was a fourth allegation that hit the news cycle today.  Something about a woman who said Kavanaugh was drunk and shoved her against a wall.  So we have everything from indecent exposure, to shoving someone against a wall, to groping, to drugging and gang raping teenage girls.  Wow.  And Kavanaugh went on TV and claimed he was a virgin throughout high school and for many years thereafter.  That's not something many guys want to admit these days, but he got blasted for that too, by Avenatti and others, because apparently that's not a believable thing for a guy.  Well guess what, it's certainly plausible.  I was a virgin throughout high school and many years thereafter as well, by choice.  And I know plenty of guys who waited to have sex until marriage, and at least one who somehow never even kissed a girl until he asked her to marry him (not sure how that happens, but apparently possible--dude must have some INSANE self-control--him and his wife have three kids now though).

I'm waiting for a fifth accuser to come out saying that they saw Kavanaugh dildo a stripper at a bachelor party.  The stripper told him to do it, but he did it for a few seconds too long, or went a bit deeper than she wanted, so he's unfit to be on the Supreme Court.  But where we are now is waiting for tomorrow's hearing and still without any of these stories corroborated by anyone, and it's not like they occurred in isolation either.  People were allegedly around when these things happened.  I'm not going to pretend that I know whether or not any or all of these women are telling the truth.  There are people on the Left who just know that they're all true, and there are people on the Right who just know that they're all false.  They're all bullshitting.  None of them know.  You don't know.  I don't know.  Until there's corroboration or something resembling evidence, I cannot oppose Kavanaugh.  If that comes to be, then he can GTFO and President Trump can nominate Senator Mike Lee, or Ben Shapiro (lol, triggered?), or even better, Amy Coney Barrett--hopefully no one can come up with #METOO allegations against her (they might get Shapiro for cat-calling Ocasio-Cortez to debate him).  If it turns out that Barrett gets on the Supreme Court instead of Kavanaugh and helps overturn Roe v. Wade, something it seems doubtful that Kavanaugh would be on board with, it would be a moment rich with irony.

I think the #METOO movement has been a positive thing overall, exposing sexual abusers for the monsters they are, but if the accusations against Kavanaugh turn out to be manufactured by Democrats solely for the purpose of obstruction, they're using, twisting, and probably killing the #METOO movement.  And unfortunately, some women do make up false sexual abuse claims under the guise of #METOO.  It's like Norm Macdonald said, "It used to be, ‘One hundred women can’t be lying.’ And then it became, ‘One woman can’t lie.’ And that became, ‘I believe all women.’ And then you’re like, ‘What?'"  I can picture tomorrow's hearings now...  Democratic Senators and their guests standing up one by one.  It will be like Cory Booker's Spartacus moment, except that it will be an actual Spartacus moment, but straight out of The Onion.
"I was raped by Judge Kavanaugh!"
"I was raped by Judge Kavanaugh!"
"I was raped by Judge Kavanaugh!"
"Judge Kavanaugh is raping me right now!"

When Many Wrongs Make a Right

Today's post differs slightly from most of my previous posts in that it's more of a fun, perhaps slightly embarrassing, personal story, and less of a political rant, despite its setting...

I was on a business trip in Washington, D.C. last month, the intent of which was to attend a supplier conference for a major customer and also help lobby Congress on behalf of this customer.  I had scheduled a few meetings with members of Congress--one with a Senator himself and another with the staff of a Representative from my district.  I live in Connecticut, so neither meeting was with someone I line up with particularly well politically, but last year at the same conference, I met a Democratic Representative from Connecticut, as well as the Staff of a Senator, and both meetings went well.  I flew into D.C., which is rarely my mode of transportation to that particular destination, but almost always my preferred transportation for business trips.  I met up with two of my friends from college who I still keep in touch with and hang out with multiple times every year.  I grabbed a beer with one and the two of us went to meet up with the other friend at an upscale Michelin Star Restaurant with incredible food and wine.  We spent the evening together and I got an Uber back to my hotel room, tentatively planning to meet up with them again the following evening.

It started to snow that night, but being from Connecticut, this was not the kind of snow that worried me in the slightest.  The morning portion of the conference went on as planned the following day, but then I found out that things run a bit differently in D.C. than they do in Connecticut when it snows.  The roads looked fine to me, but apparently a few inches of snow shuts down that city.  Both of my Congressional meetings were cancelled, and both of those offices were closed due to the weather.  So I ended up back in my hotel room for the afternoon, working from my laptop via VPN.

At some point, while answering urgent e-mails in my boxers and beater, the fire alarm went off.
You've got to be kidding me.
I sat there for a few seconds pondering what I should do.  Was this an actual fire?  A false alarm?  Should I run for the exits in what I was wearing?  No, I couldn't do that.  I threw on some jeans, a jacket, and a cap, and walked out into the hallway.  Everyone was evacuating.  The fire alarm also had voice instructions saying not to use the elevators.  For some reason, the stairs were not near the elevators.  An older gentleman and I figured out that the stairs were down the hall, and so we went down six flights of stairs to the exit.

Immediately upon entering the staircase, a girl coming down from the floor above caught my eye.  She was a stunningly beautiful brunette in a college sweatshirt.  A word came out of my mouth.
"Hi."
I didn't know what else to say, and it was probably a weird thing to say in the middle of an evacuation.
"Hey."
"So much for anyone trying to nap."
"Yeah, I was just getting some work done."
"Me too, but I had just finished a quick nap and had to throw some clothes on."
"Same.  Did you see any smoke?"
"No.  Probably a false alarm.  Hopefully."
It was a false alarm.  There was some working being done on the hotel, and it somehow tripped the fire alarm on several floors.  But in the few minutes we were standing outside in the snow before a hotel employee called us all back in, the two of us began an interesting conversation.

As it turns out, I ran into the one other conservative-leaning person in D.C.  She told me she was here because she was lobbying Congress in favor of school choice, and she went on to tell me all about school choice and her own experience with it.  I went from being mildly in favor of school choice to being very much in favor of it.  On the elevator back up, we were still talking, so we sat down in the seats outside the elevators on my floor for the next hour or so.  This girl was fascinating person.  She came from a large family in the Midwest, was a Christian with a Catholic upbringing, and benefited from school choice during high school.  She said she wasn't very political, yet she was here lobbying Congress for school choice, and she had participated in the March for Life.  But overall, she seemed like a Conservative-leaning Libertarian much like myself.  She had met several members of Congress, as well as Betsy DeVos, and said she would likely meet with Mike Pence at some point.  She was intelligent, moral, and gorgeous, with a bubbly personality and a smile to match.  And there I sat, in my shitty plaid jacket that I had thrown on over my beater, realizing that I soon had to go to dinner with the others who were there for the conference, as well as the higher-ups who worked for the customer and some Congressional Staff members.
"Hey, I can talk to you for another few hours, but I need to get back into my suit and go to a dinner.  What are you doing in a few hours?"
"Nothing.  Just getting some work done."
"Can I get your number?  You want to go out for a drink after dinner?"
"Sure.  We can't go for drinks though."
"Oh..."
"We can go to the Restaurant in the lobby, and I'll get a Coke or something though.  ...I'm 19."
"Oh!  Sure.  That sounds great.  I'll text you when I get back."
She put her number in my phone, and we went back to our respective rooms.

As it turns out, she was only there because her flight had been cancelled, and she had to switch hotels because the one she was staying at didn't have any space left for an extra night.  While it was one hell of a chance meeting, I was not going to hit on a college freshman.  However, I was most certainly going to meet up with her later that night.  I told my friends who I had seen the previous evening that I would see them the next day instead, and I put my dress pants, shirt, jacket, and tie back on for the dinner reception.

I met some good folks at the reception and had a few good conversations, great food, and two glasses of Cabernet Sauvignon.  I texted her when I got back, changed back into jeans and a plaid shirt, and we met in the hotel lobby and headed to the hotel restaurant.  I ordered a hard cider, she ordered a coke, and I bought her dinner too.  We stayed there for the next three hours just talking.  There was barely a break in conversation.  She was a talented girl who was an athlete and dancer during high school, and was now in her first year of college, planning to become an Optometrist.  We essentially exchanged our life stories, and as conflicted as I may have been about it, when the elevator stopped on my floor at the end of the night, I simply gave her a hug goodbye and walked off to my room.

When I got back to my room, I realized how ridiculous it was that I even met this girl in the first place.  Finding anyone in D.C. who leans conservative is a task, and my friends sometimes think it's hilarious to tell girls we're talking to in bars that I voted for Trump, which goes over as swimmingly as you would imagine.  But the number of things that had to go wrong for me to have met this particular girl was laughable.  It had to snow hard enough in D.C. well into March, such that her flight was cancelled and all my afternoon meetings were cancelled.  But all of the other people in her group had to have flights that were not cancelled, so she would be relocated by herself to another hotel, at which there had to be a system malfunction that caused the fire alarm to go off.  A fire alarm that I was pretty pissed off had even sounded in the first place, though it turned out to be the best thing that happened all day.  There was a note from hotel management under my door when I got back, apologizing for the disturbance of the false alarm.  I laughed to myself and kept it.

I guess the point of the story is that sometimes a lot of bad things happen, and they can be pretty annoying at the time, but they can end up happening for a good reason.  If you're a Christian, it's like Romans 8:28, which states that "all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose."  And another point of the story is that sometimes you can find the needle in the haystack, or the other conservative-leaning Christian in Washington, D.C.  And maybe yet another point is that you should leave your hotel room if the fire alarm goes off, but probably put on some clothes before doing so if you don't see or smell smoke.  Also, the girl I met is Hispanic, which I only mention because it will piss off the same people who are now saying that Kanye West is a member of the alt-right who doesn't care about black people since he supports President Trump, which is truly hilarious if you remember a specific Kanye comment about President Bush.  It's all as priceless as the looks on the faces of Mike Myers and Chris Tucker that day...  Life is weird.

Double Standards Quiz: It's Only OK If You're A Leftist

Let's play a fun game, because if I actually try to write a full post about this, it's just going to be angry and filled with expletives.  I'll give you six sets of two scenarios (plus a transcript in scenario seven), and you decide which one is OK and which one isn't OK each time, and make sure you can justify why you made the choice you did.

PROBLEM ONE:
A man says things such as, "White folks are going down. And Satan is going down. And Farrakhan, by God's grace, has pulled the cover off of that Satanic Jew and I'm here to say your time is up, your world is through," and “The Jews don’t like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that’s a good name. Hitler was a very great man.”  A future President and several members of Congress meet with the man who said these things and fail to publicly condemn him.

Another man says things such as, "Our clear goal must be the advancement of the white race and separation of the white and black races. This goal must include freeing of the American media and government from subservient Jewish interests," and "Did you ever notice how many survivors they have? Did you ever notice that? Everybody — every time you turn around, 15,000 survivors meet here; 400 survivors convention there. I mean, did you ever notice? Nazis sure were inefficient, weren't they? Boy, boy, boy!...You almost have no survivors that ever say they saw a gas chamber or saw the workings of a gas chamber.... they'll say these preposterous stories that anybody can check out to be a lie, an absolute lie."  A future President never meets with this man (David Duke) but fails to publicly condemn him immediately upon being told that Duke endorsed him, claiming that he didn't know who Duke was.

MAINSTREAM MEDIA ANSWER TO PROBLEM ONE:
We're going to basically ignore the first one because we're twitterpated with Barack Obama, but obviously Donald Trump is a racist who is basically an orange version of David Duke.

MY ANSWER TO PROBLEM ONE:
All of these quotes are terrible, and both of these men, Louis Farrakhan and David Duke, are racist garbage human beings.  However, somehow Barack Obama and several members of Congress who have met with Louis Farrakhan and faced little to no backlash from the media or otherwise for doing so, and were not forced to publicly condemn him.  No one who intentionally met with this man without condemning his words should be in office.  However, Donald Trump was lambasted for not condemning David Duke immediately upon being told that Duke had endorsed him for President.  Donald Trump should have condemned Duke more quickly, but I'm sure glad he didn't meet with the guy and shake his hand.

BONUS SOLUTION TO PROBLEM ONE:
Let's lock Louis Farrakhan and David Duke in a room together.  They both have the same view on Jews, so what can possibly go wrong?  Heck, maybe they'll become friends.

PROBLEM TWO:
Katy Perry makes out with a 19-year-old male on American Idol.  The 19-year-old had explained that he is a virgin who has never been kissed and is waiting for the right woman.  He is not a willing participant in the act.

Any older guy ever makes out with a 19-year-old female anywhere.  The 19-year-old had explained that she is a virgin who has never been kissed and is waiting for the right man.  She is not a willing participant in the act.

MAINSTREAM MEDIA ANSWER TO PROBLEM TWO:
The Katy Perry thing is no big deal, though probably not a great move on her part, but who saves themselves like that anyway?  That's weird.  Like Mike Pence weird.  And Lord knows how much we in the media hate Mike Pence.  Oh, but if some older guy did that shit to a 19-year-old girl, it's because of toxic masculinity, and he should be brought up on career-ending charges.  #METOO

MY ANSWER TO PROBLEM TWO:
That's a pretty messed up thing for Katy Perry to do, but yes, there is a double standard here, because the aggressor was a girl and the victim was a guy.  It would be much worse if it were the other way around.  That is a correct double standard, because contrary to mainstream media beliefs these days, men and women are different.  But that doesn't make what Katy Perry did OK or any less wrong.  It was harassment.  I'm sure the guy will be OK though.  I mean, dude, your first kiss was Katy Perry.  You'll be fine.

BONUS SOLUTION TO PROBLEM TWO:
I think I would probably end up in jail if I forcibly kissed Katy Perry though.  But seeing as she's not my type and I'm not the type to ever forcibly kiss anyone, I guess it's a theory I'll not test.

PROBLEM THREE:
A baker refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding due to religious beliefs and gets fined a six-figure sum because of that.

A corporation refuses to sell rifles to anyone under 21 in their stores and is not fined because of that.

MAINSTREAM MEDIA ANSWER TO PROBLEM THREE:
The baker deserved to get fined because the baker is a homophobic piece of garbage.  It doesn't matter what the baker's religious beliefs are.  He must be forced to bake cakes for gay weddings, or his business and life should be destroyed.  But isn't it great that stores like Walmart and Dick's are leading the way and not selling rifles to anyone under 21 while Congress allows the age for purchasing a rifle to remain at 18?

MY ANSWER TO PROBLEM THREE:
The baker should not have been fined and should not be forced to participate in something against his religious beliefs.  Personally, I would have baked the cake, but that doesn't matter.  And stores like Walmart and Dick's can decide not to sell rifles to anyone under 21 if they want to, because restricting businesses is not a good thing, although this case has nothing to do with religion and is an example of discriminating against a group of people because of their age, seeing as it is not illegal for 18-to-20-year-olds to buy rifles in many places.

BONUS SOLUTION TO PROBLEM THREE:
Gay couples should seek out minority-owned bakeries, specifically those owned by devout Muslims, for their wedding cakes whenever possible.  Bakeries should also be required to offer a free gun with the purchase of any wedding cake.

PROBLEM FOUR:
A U.S. President congratulates President Vladimir Putin on winning a sham election in Russia.  It's 2012.

A U.S. President congratulates President Vladimir Putin on winning a sham election in Russia.  It's 2018.

MAINSTREAM MEDIA ANSWER TO PROBLEM FOUR:
2012: Crickets.  2018: OMG HOW CAN A U.S. PRESIDENT POSSIBLY DO SOMETHING THAT STUPID?  COLLUSION!  IMPEACH!  MENTALLY UNFIT FOR OFFICE!

MY ANSWER TO PROBLEM FOUR:
Neither President Obama nor President Trump should have congratulated President Vladimir Putin on his victory in a sham election in Russia.  Putin is not a good guy, and both U.S. Presidents should be equally chastised for congratulating him.

BONUS SOLUTION TO PROBLEM FOUR:
Presidents should instead make a joke about Putin's last name, which could involve either Poo-Tin or Put-In.  Also they should condemn him for being terrible and holding sham elections.

PROBLEM FIVE:
Conservative Comedian Steven Crowder uploads a video to YouTube, which he also links to on Twitter and Facebook. Crowder's crew filmed the video in a public place and did not violate any privacy laws.  The irreverent (and hilarious!) video follows 'Sven Computer' into a LGBTQ panel at SxSW.  Sven identifies as a computer and people get upset with him and eventually kick him out of the panel.   Twitter bans Crowder for a week and has his video removed from Facebook and YouTube almost immediately.  The reason given is violation of privacy.

Meanwhile, prominent people on Twitter, including a Professor, share libelous (very fake) Steven Crowder tweets, which say terrible things about the Jews.  Crowder reports this to Twitter.  Twitter reviews Crowder's claim regarding the libelous tweets and decides that, despite their illegality, they are not a violation of Twitter's policies and can therefore stay up.

MAINSTREAM MEDIA ANSWER TO PROBLEM FIVE:
There hasn't been much mainstream media coverage on this one, but presumably they're cool with this because they think Crowder is alt-right (he's not).

MY ANSWER TO PROBLEM FIVE:
Crowder's video should have been left up since it violated no laws, nor was it a clear violation of Twitter policy, but the libelous tweets should have been taken off since libel is illegal, and Twitter can obviously figure out whether or not they are libelous since the tweets in question were screenshots of fake tweets that Crowder never actually tweeted.

BONUS SOLUTION TO PROBLEM FIVE:
I'm glad I'm not on Twitter, but clearly Crowder and his team need to infiltrate more snowflake-filled panels.

PROBLEM SIX:
A winning Presidential campaign utilizes Facebook to harvest data in 2012 and the media finds out about it.

A winning Presidential campaign utilizes Facebook to harvest data in 2016 and the media finds out about it.

MAINSTREAM MEDIA ANSWER TO PROBLEM SIX:
2012: President Obama and the people from his campaign are all geniuses.
2016: President Trump and the people from his campaign are all terrible people who violated the privacy of everyone.  And also Facebook is terrible, should be held accountable, and needs to be fixed so this never happened again.  Also, let's keep changing algorithms wherever possible to benefit Leftists and hurt Conservatives.

MY ANSWER TO PROBLEM SIX:
This is what happens on the Internet.  Everywhere.  Ever notice how the ads are really specific to you?  A lot of smart Internet people are taking your information whenever you're online.  It's amazing how I'm always seeing adds related to sports cards and memorabilia, and when I was looking for a new shed, how I was constantly seeing ads for sheds wherever I went on the Internet.  It's like the Internet magically knows things about me.  And as much as I love Opening Day for baseball, I was pretty annoyed today when Google kept alerting me on my phone about every single baseball game going on.

BONUS SOLUTION TO PROBLEM SIX:
Stay off the Internet if you want your data to be private.

PROBLEM SEVEN:  Taken from an argument before the Supreme Court about attire that should and should not be allowed in polling places (https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-1435_f2ag.pdf):

JUSTICE ALITO: How about a shirt with a rainbow flag? Would that be permitted?
MR. ROGAN: A shirt with a rainbow flag? No, it would -- yes, it would be -- it would be permitted unless there was -- unless there was an issue on the ballot that -- that related somehow to -- to gay rights.
JUSTICE ALITO: How about a shirt that says "Parkland Strong"?
MR. ROGAN: No, that would -- that would be -- that would be allowed. I think -­I think, Your Honor-­
JUSTICE ALITO: Even though gun control would very likely be an issue?
MR. ROGAN: To the extent -­
JUSTICE ALITO: I bet some candidate would raise an issue about gun control.
MR. ROGAN: Your Honor, the -- the -­the line that we're drawing is one that is -­is related to electoral choices in a -­
JUSTICE ALITO: Well, what's the answer to this question? You're a polling official. You're the reasonable person. Would that be allowed or would it not be allowed?
MR. ROGAN: The -- the Parkland?
JUSTICE ALITO: Yeah.
MR. ROGAN: I -- I think -- I think today that I -- that would be -- if -- if that was in Minnesota, and it was "Parkland Strong," I -- I would say that that would be allowed in, that there's not -­
JUSTICE ALITO: Okay. How about an NRA shirt?
MR. ROGAN: An NRA shirt? Today, in Minnesota, no, it would not, Your Honor. I think that that's a clear indication -- and I think what you're getting at, Your Honor -­
JUSTICE ALITO: How about a shirt with the text of the Second Amendment?
MR. ROGAN: Your Honor, I -- I -- I think that that could be viewed as political, that that -- that would be -- that would be -­
JUSTICE ALITO: How about the First Amendment?
(Laughter.)
MR. ROGAN: No, Your Honor, I don't -­ I don't think the First Amendment. And, You honor, I -­
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: No -- no what, that it would be covered or wouldn't be allowed?
MR. ROGAN: It would be allowed.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: It would be?
MR. ROGAN: It would be. And -- and I think the -- I understand the -- the idea, and I've -- I've -- there are obviously a lot of examples that -- that have been bandied about here --
JUSTICE ALITO: Yeah, well, this is the problem.  How about a Colin Kaepernick  jersey?

MAINSTREAM MEDIA ANSWER TO PROBLEM SEVEN:
I didn't see too much coverage on this, but if the story above is an allegory, Mr. Rogan is basically the mainstream media.

MY ANSWER TO PROBLEM SEVEN:
You should be able to wear whatever you damn well please to a polling place.  Heck, since no one under 18 can vote, show up naked if you want to.  Just make sure you're carrying your ID.

BONUS SOLUTION TO PROBLEM SEVEN:
If the Supreme Court goes the wrong way on this, I will purchase an NRA shirt and show up to vote in November wearing that.  And assless chaps.

Shot Through the Heart: And YOU'RE to Blame!

A tragic school shooting that killed 17 people in Florida has brought the gun control debate to the forefront of national conversation again.  I am very much in favor of the right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean I'm against any gun control whatsoever.  What I am against, however, is misinformed gun control and people who shout "gun control" without actually offering their ideas for gun control.  On the other side, it's equally useless to say that we don't need gun control, because obviously we need some sort of gun control, especially since we must do what we can to keep firearms out of the hands of folks who are known to be violent and threatening.

I recently posted on Facebook and asked for some actual gun control ideas, also adding a few of my own thoughts.  Naturally, I liked some of the ideas, was indifferent to some ideas, and didn't like others.  We'll start with the ones that I like.

- We need strong background checks for gun purchases, including mental health: That's exactly what happened when I bought a firearm, and that's exactly what should happen when anyone attempts to buy a firearm in this country.  Loopholes are often exaggerated, but there should be no loopholes in this.  If there are loopholes, the people who want to harm will find them, or they may just buy guns illegally instead, but we need to make it as hard as possible for bad people to obtain firearms.

- Bump Stock devices should be illegal, although they're quite easy to just make yourself.  Bump stocks can make firearms that are not automatic (semi-automatic is far different from automatic) function similar to automatic weapons, which are and should remain illegal.

- I'm in favor of implementing mandatory safety training in order to get a gun license.  Some people are complete idiots, and even those who aren't ought to go through the course with an NRA-certified instructor.  Admittedly, I knew very little about the proper ways to shoot various firearms before I took the course and shot guns for the first time.  The first two things they teach you, by the way, are to always point the gun in a safe direction, and treat every gun as a loaded gun.

- We need improved mental healthcare in this country, make it more accessible, and come up with better ways to identify the mentally ill who are a danger to themselves and others.

- The FBI, undoubtedly, needs to do a better job following up on solid leads (they were told specifically about the Florida shooter twice and did nothing), and making sure people cannot purchase firearms when they commit a crime that bars them from owning firearms, such as domestic violence (like the church shooter last year, who was allowed to purchase firearms legally due to a government error).

- For mass shootings, why don't we stop reporting the name of the shooter and don't show the photo of the shooter?  These are sick people that want fame and notoriety.  They often are obsessed with previous mass shootings and those who carried them out.  Yes, the public has a right to know, and the press has a right (and arguably an obligation) to report this information.  Not doing so would probably spark even more insane conspiracy theories than we've typically seen with mass shootings.  But to me, seeing if giving this up makes a difference makes a whole lot more sense than surrendering any rights to gun ownership.  Guns save a hell of a lot more lives every year than they take.  That's an impossible one to get statistics on because the presence of guns and not even their active use has saved a lot of lives, but estimates are generally anywhere from 200,000-2.5 million lives saved per year in the United States.

And some that I'm indifferent to...

- A lot of people are suggesting making the legal age for buying a rifle 21, which is typically the age at which you can buy a handgun.  I don't really care either way on this.  However, you vote, serve in the military, give sexual consent, and buy cigarettes anywhere in the United States at age 18.  I also believe you should be able to buy alcohol at 18.  It makes sense that purchasing firearms should also be 18, but if they wanted to go with just hunting rifles at 18 and the rest at 21, or swap handguns to 18 and rifles to 21, whatever.  I don't have strong feelings either way on this one.

- Armed guards in schools: I like the idea of having a veteran do this, rather than a teacher, but yes, there would be cost involved, and also if there's one person with a gun, that may not prevent a mass shooting, depending on proximity to the shooter when the shooter enters the premises and whether or not the shooter takes out the armed guard.

- Metal detectors in all schools: Sure, but it doesn't really matter when someone comes in guns blazing or breaks in an alternate entrance.

And those that I don't like...

- Making it illegal to not own a gun: Some people shouldn't own a gun, and those that choose not to should not be forced to.  For example, my Dad was an NRA member, Navy Veteran, and strong supporter of the second amendment, but he chose to not own a gun for the majority of his life.  He had seen what they could do, he didn't particularly like them, we lived in a neighborhood where we felt safe, and he claimed he was a terrible shot.  (If he was still alive today though, I'll bet he would have come to the range with me and my brother a few times at least.)

- Banning AR-15s or those that fall into the ever-popular inconsistent category of assault rifles: A thousand times NO!  This is a dangerous precedent, because these guns are still one trigger pull equals one shot.  There isn't a big difference between what is classified as an assault rifle and what isn't, because the distinguishing factors are all over the place and can include type of handle and grip, material the gun is made of, whether or not extra features like scopes can be added to it, etc.  A logically consistent argument would call for banning a lot more than just this type of gun, and that's exactly where the extreme Leftists would go once these were successfully banned and inevitable tragedies still occurred, just like they did when these were banned when I was a kid.  Mass shooters will use other types of guns, like they did at Columbine, Virginia Tech, and plenty of other places.  And handguns kill way more people than assault rifles every year.  Oh, and so do knives.  But do we really need AR-15s?  I don't have any interest in buying one personally, at least at this point in my life, and they're pretty restricted in Connecticut anyway, but people who want them should be allowed to get them.  It's a matter of choice.  They're a lot of fun to shoot at a range too.  Besides, do we really need knives?  Can't we just make the meat really tender and use our forks to cut it?  Ugh.

AND NOW TO DEBUNK SOME MYTHS!

- The "AR" in AR-15 does not stand for "assault rifle" (it stands for ArmaLite).

- There have not been "18 school shootings" in America thus far this year.  That number includes accidental discharges, stray bullets, occurrences not during school hours, suicides, and shots fired in the parking lot.  It is dishonest to lump those in with last week's tragedy, and one shooting is already too many.  There is no need for the media to pretend there were 18 in an attempt to shock people into angrily supporting any gun control Jimmy Kimmel cries we should have during his garbage late-night "comedy" show.  (I really miss "The Man Show".)

- Data can be manipulated in the gun debate because correlation is not causation, and there are correlations that support both sides.  There's data showing that a lot of states with stricter gun policies have less gun deaths, but this is not the case across the boards and leaves out factors such as populated inner-city areas, many of which have extremely strict gun laws but extremely high murder rates.  Conveniently, Washington, D.C. is not a state so it's left out of the those statistics.  Of course, there's also data showing increased firearm ownership rates over the years but decreased murders, as well as countries with gun bans versus countries with high rates of gun ownership and the corresponding murder rates.  And Australia is a terrible point of comparison for a lot of reasons, especially since the rate of mass shootings there was always extremely low.

- None of the proposals on the table will stop mass shootings and gun deaths, though we should try to determine what is so different now than the time when high school students had guns on the gun racks of their trucks at school, yet there were school shootings were never a concern...

- There is no logical fallacy of people who don't believe the NRA, gun shops, or gun manufacturers are not participants in gun murders, yet support a baker's right to not bake a cake for a gay wedding because the baker feels that by doing so, participation is involved.  While I would personally bake the cake, I support the baker's right to make the opposite decision, because the intended use of the cake is to celebrate a gay wedding.  The intended use of a gun is defense, not murder.

- The NRA is NOT to blame for mass shootings, and the NRA does not want to put guns in the hands of criminals.  The NRA wants to have trained, responsible, and safe gun owners, who are able to defend themselves or others when needed.  Unlike Planned Parenthood, which openly murders millions of babies every year via abortion, the NRA does not want to murder anyone, and in fact, seeks to stop murders from happening as much as possible.  I'm not even an NRA member yet (I'll have to get on that at some point), but placing blame there every time there's a mass shooting is ridiculous.  And it's ridiculous to blame Congress or President Trump as well.  In fact, if you're going to blame any organization for this last one, it's the FBI, for failing to follow-up on multiple credible tips that this person was a danger and threatening to do exactly what he did.

...Kimmel?  You still crying, buddy?  Need something to cheer you up?  Well, sorry, we don't have much in late night comedy anymore, thanks to... well... you.  You gonna cry for us to build a wall and tighten border security next time someone is killed by an illegal immigrant too?  I didn't think so.  ...AND NOW, GIRLS JUMPING ON TRAMPOLINES!

Oh Geez, I'm Sorry: Aziz Ansari

I don't particularly like Aziz Ansari.  I don't agree with his politics, he seems smug and self-righteous, and he isn't very funny.  And to some extent, I do like the #METOO movement, because a lot of sexual predators have been exposed through it.  But one story on a website I've never heard of until this week, babe.net (apparently a site for sex stories too sad to make it into a porno magazine?), has both unfairly classified Ansari as a sexual predator and severely set back--or possibly accelerated the slow death of--the #METOO movement (for reference, the story is here: https://babe.net/2018/01/13/aziz-ansari-28355).

For those of you who haven't read it, the writer of the article tells a detailed story of a woman who went on a date with Ansari and claims that Ansari sexually assaulted her on that date.  Only, the story does not describe sexual assault, and now people are debating whether or not what occurred was actually sexual assault, when it clearly wasn't, which is unfair and detrimental to victims of actual sexual assault.  Ansari, a raging Leftist, has been vocal about supporting sexual assault victims and the Time's Up movement.  While the story does paint a picture of someone who is self-absorbed and does not treat women well, it's also unfair for his dirty laundry to be aired to the world, and unjust that the story calls him a sexual predator.

Apparently, when Ansari and his date ("Grace") got back to his apartment after dinner, things escalated quickly.  They got undressed within minutes, Ansari performed oral sex on her, and then she performed oral sex on him.  There is no mention that he forced her to perform oral sex on him in any way.  Even if she was hesitant, the article mentions nothing that makes this sound like anything other than voluntary and consensual.  The article goes on to describe a weird and creepy sexual thing that Ansari kept doing, and then includes this gem of a quote, "I know I was physically giving off cues that I wasn’t interested. I don’t think that was noticed at all, or if it was, it was ignored."

Grace...  You're naked in his apartment and you just sucked his dick.  You were giving off cues that you weren't interested?  Look, guys are pretty bad at picking up on social cues in general.  Not all of them.  I am.  And I would imagine it's particularly hard to pick up on a cue that a girl isn't interested in having sex with you when she's NAKED IN YOUR APARTMENT AND JUST BLEW YOU.  Oh, and especially when you're a famous person.  I imagine that what was going through Aziz Ansari's head was something along the lines of that he had a girl naked in his apartment who just blew him and that he's Aziz Ansari and what girl wouldn't want to have sex with him?  While there are plenty of moral issues that can be pointed to in that sentence, it isn't at all surprising in the context of our culture.  If this girl wanted the date to end, saying no and then getting dressed and leaving would have been the best cue that she wasn't interested in having sex.

Instead of leaving, she blew him again.  Nudity itself, of course, does not always mean that someone is interested in sex, but nudity coupled with oral sex is a pretty solid non-verbal cue of sexual interest.  She went into the bathroom for a few minutes, came back out, still naked, and performed oral sex on Ansari again at his behest.  Then, finally, when he once again said that he wanted to have sexual intercourse, she said no and put her clothes back on.  He made out with her again and tried to take it further, and she said she was going to call herself a car and leave.  Ansari called a car for her instead, and she left, crying in the car on the way home.  The article continues, "Grace compares Ansari’s sexual mannerisms to those of a horny, rough, entitled 18-year-old. She said so to her friends via text after the date and said the same thing to me when we spoke."

Yeah, that sounds about right actually.  And her actions sounded like they were on par with that same age range, as she continued to be naked and perform oral sex on him rather than stopping the whole encounter cold, getting dressed, and leaving like a grown woman who didn't want to have sex.  Maybe it was because she felt she had no choice but to stay because Ansari is famous, or maybe she simply regretted what was happening while or just after it was happening, but what doesn't sound about right is Grace's ultimate conclusion.  "It took a really long time for me to validate this as sexual assault.  I was debating if this was an awkward sexual experience or sexual assault.  And that’s why I confronted so many of my friends and listened to what they had to say, because I wanted validation that it was actually bad."  Yeah, it was bad, and it was an awkward sexual experience, and I feel bad for the girl and how she feels, and I think that Aziz Ansari acted immaturely and treated her like shit, but unless a lot of key information is missing from that story, it was not sexual assault.

We can't pretend that something is sexual assault just because the alleged victim says it is.  There is no such thing as this "Your Truth" thing that Oprah Weinstein-Kisser Winfrey speaks of.  There's just truth and lies.  This "Your Truth" thing has ushered in an era of, at best, biased and, at worst, fake news.  Our culture is not in a good place.  And it's also not in a good place because of the rampant casual sex and sex outside of marriage either, but that's my opinion, and it's not something I can or would want to control.  Everyone should be in control of their own sex lives, as long as the sex involves consenting adults.  I don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home as long as it's legal, and I don't want to hear about Aziz Ansari's private sex life either.  But now that it's public, Grace should have simply said no, got dressed, and left the apartment as soon as she felt uncomfortable.  Ansari wasn't forcing her to stay there, and though he was acting immaturely and aggressively, he wasn't forcing her to perform sex acts on him either.

"It was fun meeting you last night," Ansari texted Grace the next day.  Grace responded, "Last night might’ve been fun for you, but it wasn’t for me.  You ignored clear non-verbal cues; [who uses a semicolon in a text?] you kept going with advances.  I want to make sure you’re aware so maybe the next girl doesn’t have to cry on the ride home."  Grace, perhaps the next time you're in a situation where you're on a date and naked and don't want to have sex, maybe throw in a lot more verbal cues, and maybe don't send mixed non-verbal cues, such as giving head.  Like most men, I've missed plenty of non-verbal cues that girls were not interested in me, as well as non-verbal cues that they were interested in me.  I'm not very good with cues.  I'm much better when someone tells me something directly.  In fact, maybe nix the cues altogether and just be very direct and say no, get dressed, and leave.

I don't like the actions of either of the two people in this story.  I wonder if we can get President Trump to exile them both to a shithole country. Maybe one that the Clintons made worse, like Haiti.  Nah, never mind.  Outside of the corrupt people in power positions, the people there are probably too good for them.  They deserve to stay in New York City.