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.

JeruSalem Witch Trials

Back in 1995, Congress voted overwhelmingly (93 to 5 in the Senate and 374 to 37 in the House) to formally recognize Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel and move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem by 1999.  Every six months since, the sitting President has signed a waiver to postpone moving the embassy, up to and including the last time President Trump did so.  President Clinton was in office in 1995, and every President since (Bush, Obama, Trump) made campaign promises regarding Jerusalem as the Capital and the moving of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem.  Bush lied.  Obama lied.  Trump told the truth.  We can finally party like it's 1999.

Jerusalem IS the Capital of Israel.  This is stating the obvious, and has not been all that controversial in Congress.  In fact, in June of THIS YEAR, the Senate voted 90-0 (you read that correctly) to reaffirm Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel and acknowledge the 1995 law.  Yes, it was a non-binding resolution, and yes, it included language that the permanent status of Jerusalem was to be decided by Israel and Palestine negotiating a two-state solution (that still stands), but it reaffirmed the stance of the United States toward Jerusalem, unanimously.  That's a rarity in the Senate these days.  Even General James Mattis had a vote against him when he was confirmed 98-1 to serve as Secretary of Defense.  And yet, since Trump officially announced a few weeks ago that Jerusalem is the Capital and we will be moving our embassy there, there has been massive outcry from the Left.  Many on the Left are against it, and they're in good company with anti-Semites from all over the world.

My bad.  I didn't mean to call Leftists anti-Semites.  They could just be dumb.  Or maybe they really think that it's going to cause additional conflict in the Middle East, which has just been a bastion of peace with the frequent days of rage and all countries surrounding Israel wanting to wipe it off the map entirely.  Declining to officially recognize Jerusalem and move the embassy there for the last 22 years has worked so well.  Besides, President Trump is a raging anti-Semite.  Remember during the campaign when he was being all bigoted and racist and homophobic and shit?  Like hating people who came here from other countries after having married someone like that, and waving the gay pride flag on stage in the process of becoming the first President to have been in favor of gay marriage prior to taking office?  But on top of that, one of his campaign ads was like a dog whistle to anti-Semites and white nationalists or something.  Yeah, really.  Not the kind of guy who would let his daughter marry a dirty Jew.  And seeing as he's sexist, he would exercise his authoritarianism over her and stop that from ever happening.  ...Oh wait, she did what?  And they had kids?  Oops...

During Trump's campaign, I was pretty firmly in the Gary Johnson camp until I broke for Trump just before the election, but I would engage in political discourse on social media now and then.  A lot of negative things were being said about both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, which was fair, because they were two terrible candidates.  One of my friends on Facebook posted multiple negative things about Donald Trump daily, as many of them did, and I never commented on any of them until one day he posted about Trump being an anti-Semite.  By this point in his presidency, Obama had shown himself to be a not-so-great friend of Israel, and Trump seemed like he would not make a great President, but was not anti-Semitic and would at least be quite pro-Israel, so I commented.  A few comments and f-words directed at me later, and I was unfriended.  Looking back, this sort of interaction should have helped me realize that Trump was going to win the Presidency, but it wasn't until the early returns on election night started coming in when I realized that was even a possibility.  I was resigned to the fact that Hillary Clinton was going to be our 45th President, which thankfully turned out to be fake news.

Donald Trump was elected President, and President Obama refused to veto the United Nations vote condemning Israeli settlements in Palestine as a parting shot.  And today, the United Nations voted 128-9 to condemn President Trump's move on Jerusalem.  I haven't been able to say it very often until the past few weeks, but I am proud of President Trump.  If he can avoid saying dumb things on Twitter about TV ratings and whatever else, I might be able to start saying that regularly.  And Nikki Haley's speech at the UN made me proud as well.  There's a strong women that our girls should look up to as a role model.  There is a woman who I would love to vote into office if she even ran for President.  Not Sarah Palin, and certainly not Hillary Clinton, but Nikki Haley, who stood up in front of a largely anti-Semitic organization today and condemned it, echoing Trump.  They're both correct.  The United Nations is a garbage organization that regularly votes to condemn Israel more than they condemn any other country.  I hope Trump follows through and pulls funding, notably for any and all of the 128 countries who condemned the United States today.

O Jerusalem!  The ancient Capital of Israel, the eternal Capital of Israel.  Two reasons I believe we are right in recognizing it as the Capital are History and the current state of affairs.  You see, Israel recognizes that Jerusalem is a significant place for the religious history of Jews, Christians, and Muslims.  Israel allows people of all faiths to worship there freely.  Does anyone really believe--and answer honestly now--that if the Palestinians controlled Jerusalem, they would allow people of all faiths to come there and worship freely?  The answer is clearly no.  The Palestinian Government is basically a terrorist organization, paying people who murder Jews.  Many of the Muslims in the Middle East (though none that I've talked to personally in the United States) believe that Israel should be wiped off the map.  That is the definition of antisemitism.  I have zero respect for that point of view.

For purposes of full disclosure, I will state that I am a Christian, and that does inform my worldview, but that is not the sole reason I believe that Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel.  However, I will point out that it is an extremely small minority of Christians who are in favor of President Trump's recent actions because they are trying to hasten Armageddon.  That is a ridiculous view, and it is equally ridiculous for non-Christians to believe that it's anywhere close to a mainstream Christian view.  And being against President Trump's actions does not actually make you an anti-Semite.  There are plenty of reasons to be against it too, like hating Trump, being scared of Muslims in the Middle East getting angry and trying to blow more shit up, and, in the words of the great George Costanza, "Astroturf?  You know who's responsible for that, don't you?!  The Jews!  Ah, the Jews hate grass.  They always have, they always will."

Sexual Misdeeds Multiple Choice Exam

There seems to be some confusion these days as to what is and is not acceptable when it comes to sexual assault and sexual harassment, so I took a picture of a baseball card from 1981 and came up with ten questions to help steer everyone in the right direction.  Feel free to take the exam yourself and share with others who would like to test their knowledge.  Best of Luck, America!  You'll need it to get out of this giant hole we're in because of all the awful folks who went into smaller holes that they should not have been in.  Also, trigger warning.  For so many reasons.  Probably should have said that earlier...

1. When is it acceptable to engage in sexual intercourse with someone?
A: When the person is sleeping, passed out, or inebriated
B: When the person says "No" repeatedly but you know the person really means "Yes"
C: When the person says, "Mr. Clinton, please get off!"
D: When the person is a consenting adult, because it's not rape if it's consensual

2. When is it acceptable for an adult to engage in sexual acts with a child?
A: When the adult is a Muslim
B: When the adult is a Christian
C: When the adult is a U.S. Senator or a candidate for the U.S. Senate
D: It is never fucking acceptable for this to occur!  Are you fucking kidding me?

3. When is it acceptable to touch or grab a person's butt?
A: When you're taking a photo with the person in public
B: When you literally just can't even because dat ass tho
C: When you've cornered someone and they look nervous, so it will ease the tension
D: When you have a relationship with this person wherein this activity has been consented to

4. Which of the following people is fit to be a U.S. Congressman?
A: A Democrat from New Jersey allegedly involved with underage prostitutes
B: A Republican from Alabama who allegedly molested underage girls decades ago
C: A Democrat from Michigan accused of sexual harassment but called an icon by Nancy Pelosi
D: None of the above

5. In which of the following cases is sexual abuse or harassment considered acceptable?
A: Even if President Clinton raped someone, he's in favor of a woman's right to choose, so it's cool
B: Even if Judge Moore molested young girls, he's against murdering babies, so it's cool
C: Even if Senator Franken groped women, he's funny and has done a lot for women, so it's cool
D: There are different levels of abuse and harassment, but none of these are acceptable

6. Which beings should be able to get away with sexual abuse or harassment?
A: Big shots at Fox News or NBC, because they can make or break your career
B: Hollywood Elite, because they can make or break your career
C: Comedians, because they're hilarious
D: Pit bulls if they bite the cocks off of would-be rapists

7. When should women who come forward with sexual assault allegations be believed?
A: Always, because even if it takes some innocent men down, that's a price we're willing to pay
B: Never, because bitches are liars who are looking for money and fame
C: Sometimes, depending on the political party the person they are accusing belongs to
D: Dependent upon the credibility of their stories, disregarding admiration or disdain for the accused

8. When is it the victim's own fault for being raped?
A: When she was asking for it because of that tank top and those leggings
B: When she shouldn't have let herself be alone with a guy who suffers from sex addiction
C: When he shouldn't have gone to that party hosted by an older man who was interested in him
D: Literally never

9. Which of these cultures is inferior and should have no place in America?
A: One in which child brides are forced to marry older men, and beating women is permissible
B: One in which women are forced to commit sex acts and stay quiet about them to get acting gigs
C: Neither, because you're not allowed to judge whether or not a culture outside your own is inferior
D: Both, because you damn well can judge the inferiority of a culture if they're doing that shit

10: Which of the following reactions to finding out about sexual assault is acceptable?
A: Pretending it did not happen for the good of the school's top-tier college football program
B: Attempting to intimidate and silence your husband's victims and then running for President
C: Keeping quiet about it, but occasionally telling jokes about it, especially when in Hollywood
D: Beating the perpetrator senseless if you catch him or her in the act, then calling the police

Answer Key:  The answer to all 10 questions is D, which is also a part of the anatomy that one should control properly.  If you scored 100 percent on this exam, congratulations, you might not be a terrible human being!  If you answered anything other than D to any of these questions, please stay away from politics, the entertainment industry, and other human beings.

Harvey Danger

What is it that causes men like Harvey Weinstein to sexually abuse women?  And what is it that allows them to continue to abuse women over the course of many decades?  The answer to the first question is easy: lust and power.  All men lust (a.k.a. sin), but not all men have power.  Harvey thought he could get away with it (and he did, for a horrifyingly long time) because of his power, and without a solid moral compass, one most often found rooted in the principles set forth by God himself, Harvey sexually abused many women in disgusting ways.  We can use the word "allegedly" as much as we want to, but when dozens of women come forward with similar stories and Hollywood insiders claim to have known something about what he was doing, though perhaps not the full extent of it, it's hard to imagine that the man was innocent of all charges.  Just like Bill Cosby.  Just like Bill O'Reilly.  Just like Mark Halperin.  Just like Roger Ailes.  I mean, heck, our President himself had some keen insight on a hot mic over a decade ago--something along the lines of when you're a star, you can do what you want.  Grab them by the pussy.  Right?  Such a shame he didn't lose the election to a corrupt woman who tried to discredit and bring down all the women who accused her own dear husband of harassment, assault, abuse, and straight up rape.  Yeah, Trump's not great, but when it comes to sexually abusing women, former President Bill Clinton has him beat.  "Allegedly."

It doesn't matter where you are politically when it comes to sexual abuse.  The Clintons are on the left, as is Weinstein, as is Halperin, and Anthony Weiner, who is finally going to prison, although for some reason (money and powerful friends like the Clintons), not for nearly enough time.  And Ailes was on the right, which is where O'Reilly is.  I'm not really sure where to put Bill Cosby.  There are plenty of other examples.  But if there's no political affiliation specific to sexual abusers, what then do we attribute it to?  Well, first and foremost, a Judeo-Christian view of sex would help things a bit, as this would include treating women as people instead of objects, as well as viewing sex as something to be done in much more select circumstances, rather than whenever we want with whomever we please.  In the Judeo-Christian tradition, that means marriage, but if you don't follow that, it can still be treated less flippantly that our culture treats it right now.  Sex is everywhere.

And to those on the far left, the third wave feminist bullshit must stop. Those of you who are traditional feminists who believe in equality for men and women, I'm with you.  But the man-hating, men-and-women-are-the-same, white-men-ruin-everything mentality is toxic.  Men and women are different, and their sex drives are different, whether you like it or not.  And white men did not ruin anything.  We can't even agree on what a white person is.  When my grandparents came here, they weren't considered white, because Italians weren't considered white at the time.  They were I-talians or wops and whatever other slur.  They did not enjoy this thing called "white privilege."  They did not own slaves.  Their parents, grandparents, and great grandparents did not own slaves.  They were despised: like the Irish, like the Blacks, like the Asians, who were put into interment camps during World War II.  Injustices abound.  No good comes from vilifying an entire race, or an entire sex, and no good comes from trying to be something that you're not.  No good comes from treating sex like it's no big deal, or that you have power and can prove it by having sex whenever you choose.  And no good comes from frequent one-night stands, abortions being touted as virtuous, and injecting sex into everything.

The #METOO hashtag is a way for people who have been sexually abused of harassed to share their stories, because a lot of women (and men) have been abused and/or harassed, and it's very sad, but we need to define and understand the difference between harassment and abuse and what is and it not acceptable.  For example, the story that came out about wheelchair-bound President George H.W. Bush touching the butt of an actresses during a photo opportunity and telling a lame joke is NOT on the same level as some other heinous acts.  The former President can barely move, probably can't get his arm much further up than ass-level from his chair, and did so in a very public and non-threatening setting, and, quite possibly, is suffering from dementia.  I'm not saying it's OK to do that if he's not suffering from dementia (it's not), but it's not even close to the level of harassing or sexually abusing women in private, in a threatening environment, where the man is someone who wouldn't probably die if you punched him with any amount of power...  Also, as far as #METOO goes, if the anonymity allows a sexually-abusive person still in power to potentially continue to abuse new victims, why not actually call these people out rather than waiting until everyone else does, like what happened with Harvey or Bill Cosby?

But I would be a hypocrite if I didn't tell my own #METOO story.  I don't believe that one-in-three women are raped in college or whatever bullshit statistic the left tries to jam down the throats of college students.  But I do believe that just about everyone is at least sexually harassed at some point; certainly women more often, but men too.  And sexual harassment is different than sexual abuse, and really, everyone is different in how they react to things.  It doesn't always necessitate reporting it to the authorities.  I've had both women and men say sexual things to me that were inappropriate, but these things did not impact me at all.  Perhaps the worst case of sexual harassment I experienced personally (and yes, I'm lucky in that) was when some guy grabbed my ass when I was walking into a party during college and said something along the lines of "Hey, sexy, I'd like to have some of that."  To this I replied some derivative of, "Get your hands the fuck off of me" and kept walking.  That was it.  And his behavior was not acceptable, but I'm the kind of person who that sort of thing did not impact.  It was minor, and I had no need to report him and impact his life negatively when he had zero impact on my life, although for someone else, that decision could have absolutely been the opposite.  But to me, it was probably just some gay guy I didn't know who had way too much to drink.  Whatever.  And quite honestly, if a woman did that to me, I would have probably smiled and laughed, and if she was attractive, who knows where that night could have gone, but I acknowledge that it's a double standard at work there.  Men should not do that to women, if only because men are (like it or not, in general) the stronger sex, and that sort of behavior could impact someone negatively, regardless of the sexes of the perpetrator and the victim.

That's what I have to say to the left, but my message to the right may be even more crass and less well-received, because the right is the place I was raised, and the church is the place I was raised, so I know all about its failures.  Yes, I still lean right, and I still go to church, but there are so many problems inherent to communities and churches on the right that allow for sexual assault to thrive.  And I will now call them out and rampage against them, because while people certainly can and should forgive those who have wronged them, sexual abuse is NEVER acceptable.  First and foremost, the church can never be a place that fosters sexual abuse in anyway, nor should it protect abusers.  Known abusers should immediately be reported to the police and proper authorities.  Forgiveness is indeed ideal, but punishment must also run its course, and known abusers should immediately be removed from any positions of power within the church.

I was talking to a good friend of mine last month.  We happened to first cross paths many years ago in a church that we both attended for a while, and though it was not the church I grew up in, it was the church that she grew up in for several formative years during her childhood.  It was a conservative independent fundamental Christian church.  She told me some disturbing things that I believe contribute to rape culture.  Apparently, the girls, often but not always in classes and Bible studies with only girls, were told how they should dress.  They need to wear loose-fitting clothing, fashion to the knee, and shirts that don't have a low enough neck-line such that guys can easily look down it.  And in that church, boys and girls weren't even allowed to swim together.  And don't get me started on the rules about guys and girls being alone together.  A pastor once questioned me when I drove a teenage girl home, from a family I had known since before she was born, with no one else in the car.
"So which part of the Bible did the use to justify what they were telling you?" I asked my friend.
"They were always saying that we needed to dress modestly.  You know, like no tank tops or short skirts or things like that. Because they said it could tempt the guys and cause them to stumble."
"Based on what?  Have they read the Bible?  Where does it say that?"

I Timothy 2:9 talks about modesty, saying ^"that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array" and I Peter 3:3 mentions that women ought to avoid "outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel."  I didn't have a Bible with me when we were having this discussion, but I shared my belief that Biblical modesty means not wearing over-the-top expensive things in order to bring attention to yourself above all others or show off your wealth.  This was likely something largely cultural, and it had nothing to do with how much skin a woman was showing.  No, I'm not saying it's acceptable to wear a bikini to church, for the same reason it's not acceptable to wear a bikini to work (unless you work at a pool or beach), but I am saying that it's fine to wear a bikini at a pool or beach if you want to.  You should wear what's appropriate in its place.  At least, there certainly isn't anything in the Bible that says you should not.
"Actually," I told my friend, "I think it's demeaning not just to women but to MEN if you take that point of view, as if we're basic animals and a man can't control himself when he sees a woman wearing a tank top or a shirt skirt?  You remember the story of David and Bathsheba?  David saw her bathing, naked, lusted after her, committed adultery with her, and had her husband killed.  Who does the Bible blame for that?  David!  It's David's own fault that he did that.  The Bible doesn't say anything about how Bathsheba shouldn't have been naked in public in the first place.  That's how they bathed back then.  So ridiculous!"

The truth is that men are going to lust after women, no matter what they are wearing.  I've lusted after women who were wearing layers of clothing and dressed according to every possible definition of modesty.  That doesn't matter, although it does matter that I did not act inappropriately on it.  The only thing that women not wearing "revealing" clothing does is reduce the immediate knee-jerk turned-on reaction of straight men seeing you for the first time dressed (or undressed) in that way.  If the man lusts or acts inappropriately at that point, it is entirely on the man.  Why should a woman not be allowed to wear what she wants or what she feels comfortable wearing?  I agree with the feminists here, including the crazy ones: A woman SHOULD be able to wear whatever she wants to, and it is NOT her fault if a man harasses, assaults, or rapes her.  That is victim-blaming, and that feeds into a rape culture mentality.  And too many--yes, too fucking many--conservative Christian churches play into this dangerous lie that perpetuates rape culture.  I've skinny-dipped with beautiful women and haven't assaulted or harassed them.  Yeah, take that, ye of sheltered ignorance.  I'm not an extraordinary person, and I do very much enjoy seeing naked women, but I simply respect women.  The Bible teaches respect for all human beings, and my dad and mom raised me to respect women, so I try to do so.  Nudity does not equal sex.  Naked or scantily-clad women are not necessarily looking for sex.  Sex is not an unimportant thing to be trifled with, and it ideally belongs only within a marriage.  And even if you have sex outside of marriage, no means no: simple as that.

"Well, did they ever teach you what to do when a guy did hit on you?" I asked my friend.
"No."
"What about how to hit on a guy that you're interested in?"
"No."
"So just what to wear so a guy doesn't hit on you?  Even though they'll eventually hit on you anyway?  You know, seeing as you're a beautiful girl no matter what you're wearing..."
"Yup."
"Wow.  Really useful.  I'm glad I left that church..."

The title of this post refers to the danger of situations like those that Harvey Weinstein put certain women in, but I feel it's appropriate, or perhaps inappropriate, to end the post with the first few lines of the most famous song by the rock band Harvey Danger.
"I had visions, I was in them, I was looking into the mirror, to see a little bit clearer, rottenness and evil in me.  Fingertips have memories, mine can't forget the curves of your body, and when I feel a bit naughty, I run it up the flagpole and see who salutes, but no one ever does..."

Ignoreland

Mainstream media has developed a nasty habit of largely ignoring things that don't fit a certain narrative.  A few months ago, the arrest of the IT staffer of Debbie Wasserman Schultz was largely ignored, as was the revelation that a Democratic agency set up the infamous Donald Trump, Jr. Russian meeting, though that meeting itself certainly got far more than its share of coverage.  It's continued to happen since then, with lesser stories and every stupid comment or tweet from President Trump dominating the headlines.  And now protests during the National Anthem at NFL games dominate the headlines, and today there was something about NCAA coaches in trouble for getting paid to steer athletes towards different agents or companies or something I don't care about.  Almost no one is talking about the shooting that happened at the church in Tennessee because it doesn't fit the mainstream media narrative.  The mess that is Puerto Rico isn't dominating the news for some reason (haven't figured that one out, because that does fit the narrative and the media can just try to blame it on Trump being bigoted or something--that asshole probably sent the hurricane there intentionally by pulling out of the Paris Agreement, obviously).  But I guess we would rather hear about how immigrants in the United States are like Jews in Nazi Germany (asinine), or how Hillary Clinton wrote a book and does yoga (boring and bad visual), and that NFL Players are being called brave for not standing in a show of respect for a flag that actual brave men and women fought to protect.  Fabulous.

Meanwhile, ESPN and late night "comedy" shows have turned into extensions of the mainstream media arm.  When I watch ESPN, I want to see and hear about sports highlights.  I don't want a fucking analysis of who did or didn't stand for the National Anthem and why.  When I watch late night comedy, I want to laugh and... Forget it.  I don't watch much late night comedy anymore except for the occasional Saturday Night where I find myself at home and SNL is in season.  Hopefully there will be no more sad eulogies of epic failures of Presidential campaigns of awful candidates, but I digress...  Late night comedians used to have funny monologues.  They would rip on the President and everyone else.  Now it's just constantly ripping on President Trump, and it's rarely funny.  And a lot of people are mad because Stephen Colbert "normalized" Sean Spicer at the Emmy Awards by allowing him to make a somewhat funny joke about himself.  This is the same Stephen Colbert who jokingly gave a Nazi salute a few weeks ago as a dig at--you guessed it--President Trump.

Look, President Trump has made A LOT of mistakes.  He's done some good things, but he's done (mostly said) some stupid and bad things.  It's fun to ridicule him sometimes, and South Park got it exactly right last week: he needs to put his phone down and stop with the tweets.  But he won't.  That's how he rolls.  That's how he gets his message out directly to (Bane voice) you, the people.  We'll just have to live with it and trust that generals James Mattis (thank you, God, for James Mattis) and John Kelly have enough control to prevent any major unwanted international incidents.  But no one was going to protect Trump from the ire of many in the NFL community after he called those kneeling for anthems sons-of-bitches, called for them to be fired, and then went on a twitter rant about the whole thing.  Naturally, this just caused more people in the NFL to protest.  And on a couch somewhere, Colin Kapernick was smiling, sitting next to his racist girlfriend in his stupid Fidel Castro t-shirt.

I'm fine with NFL players protesting to raise awareness for racial injustice or for any other reason.  I think Colin Kapernick is wrong, and wildly inconsistent (see Fidel Castro t-shirt and his girlfriend's tweet that cost him a backup Quarterback job with the Ravens--ask Ray Lewis about that one), but also not a very good Quarterback.  Others have done what he did though.  Marshawn Lynch sat down and ate a banana during the National Anthem a few weeks ago.  He has a job because he's still a pretty good Running Back.  Also, the banana thing was kind of funny and at least more consistent than touting Fidel Castro as anything even remotely good.  Many of the Cleveland Browns refuse to stand for the anthem, though they also forget to stand for most of the game.  And this weekend, it seemed like more players than ever decided to protest, mostly in response to President Trump's comments.  If nothing else, they showed that President Trump is decidedly not Fascist, because not only are they all still free men, but they are continuing to make millions of dollars.  President Trump has no power over the actions of NFL executives, owners, and players, nor will he ever.

Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones has been quite vocal that his players will stand for the anthem.  On Monday Night, he locked arms with his team and they knelt and then stood back up together before the National Anthem, in a show of unity.  That, in my estimation, is a good way to protest, to raise awareness, and to show unity.  Don't drag the National Anthem or the flag into it.  A lot of us in this country have a high level of respect for these things and what they represent.  Yes, you're allowed to kneel if you want to, and you may mean no disrespect, but it's the men and women who died fighting for this country who gave us the freedom that we enjoy here, including the freedom to peacefully protest.

If we want unity, we need to strive for unity and stop intentionally dividing people for no real reason.  Another story from a week or so ago that didn't get much coverage (though it was covered by The Blaze, interestingly enough) was what happened when some people running a pro-Trump rally decided invited Black Lives Matter protestors to come up to the stage and get their message out.  I'll let you hunt for the story if you want to find out what happened, but I'll sum up the theme in one word: Unity.  These are the stories that should be covered more, because Americans don't hate each other.  On the whole, we are not a racist nation anymore.  Yes, terrible things happened here in the past, and there still are some racist idiots hanging around today, but it's no longer the norm, and it's no longer accepted.

Anyway, I'm going to keep watching football--unless it's nice outside or I'm busy doing something else.  I don't like it when players kneel for the anthem, but if that's what some of them want to do, I'm not going to act like it's the end of the world, which may not be far off actually...  Oh, also, Puerto Rico is part of the United States for those of you who don't know, and it looks like we sent over some planes and ships a few hours ago, so that's good.  Let's pay attention to the people in Puerto Rico for now (and still Texas and Florida, of course) and ignore those kneeling for the National Anthem and that fat Asian dwarf threatening everyone with his big missiles because he's compensating for something and wants attention.  Mad Dog can handle that situation.