I watch a lot of entertainment and entertainment industry video blogs nowadays, and I've been wondering if it may be possible to get at least one report in which someone isn't either praised or chastised for their decisions based solely on how many or few female and non-white characters and talent are created and hiredhired. I'm not opposed to diversity in and of itself, but the intensity of this whole issue of representation, if not the actual issue, is getting a bit ridiculous and looks like it could easily backfire and cause even more of the dreaded "divisiveness" everyone talks about... Because I guess it's a tragedy when people disagree nowadays, but I digress. Maybe nobody cares because I'm still a white male, but I've lived all of my life so far with noticeable joint dislocations and deformities as well as a tracheotomy in my neck (though I've met brave souls enduring far worse things), yet not once while growing up or for a majority of my adulthood did I ever think something like, "You know, I might have more self esteem and more easily relate to and empathize with these characters if they looked more and were visibly disabled or handicapped like me... especially the humans and aliens with superpowers that actually don't fully or accurately represent ANYONE on this Earth and in this reality."
Blatant discrimination is one thing and should NEVER be tolerated when and where it obviously exists. Though not yet in the form of enforceable law, however, this subversive trend of what I can only describe for now as artistic and creative affirmative action is not only imposing and restrictive to and of creators, but I think that - in the case of young people, particularly - it's teaching them to tie too much of their self esteem and how much they may have to something that is otherwise of superficial value and is not only out of their control, but often presenting unrealistic representations, anyway! Furthermore, it risks making representation in Hollywood movies and television shows an unofficial replacement or substitute for the more meaningful and valuable love and encouragement that builds self esteem that is not so vulnerable to outside forces... Not unlike the way that television and video games have been alleged to have replaced parents and/or babysitters just to keep kids occupied and relatively quiet and safe. It's too easy and maybe even manipulative to come back and say something like, "But too many kids in minority, non-white communities lack that kind of support by no fault of their own because of poverty and broken families and communitiescommunities." Yet, even if true for now, simply accepting this and even exploiting it as a perpetually divisive political weapon instead of offering more encouragement as well as possible incentive and accountability is, I think, devious as well as hypocritical.
Wonder Woman was created to be something of a feminist icon and, given the times surrounding the character's creation, it's understandable how even her fictitious existence might have inspired great confidence and even some much needed social change. The same could be said for great characters like Black Panther and the John Stewart Green Lantern. In today's world, however, diversity, tolerance, and equality of rights is not only encouraged, but mandated by law while ideas and the promotion of multiculturalism and globalism are (as far as I know) even baked into a good deal of at least public school curriculums from start to finish. Thus, when I read that the existence and emphasis upon fictional characters like the immortal goddess Wonder Woman, who is raised on a hidden island of only women, and a lot of the more powerful and extraterrestrial characters in the STAR WARS universe are so socially important, I worry that the goal is no longer EQUAL treatment, but perhaps what some seem to believe is and see as a statistically and historically justified policy of special treatment and even privilege. If so, then how is that NOT ultimately divisive and even just a little vindictive? It's as if the underlying problem has become more valuable to certain groups than a solution that truly, literally levels the proverbial playing ground even while the latter is still what is most often, yet perhaps disingenuously called for and demanded.
Sunday, September 30, 2018
Thursday, September 20, 2018
Timing And Treatment of Kavenaugh Accusations Purely Political - Liberals Should Be Concerned About Precedents Potentially Set By This & Me-Too Movement
Even if everything that Professor Ford has said about current SCOTUS candidate Judge Brett Kavenaugh is true about what he supposedly did to her and even about his alleged preference for female employees/assistants, etc. looking a certain way, should it really be enough to derail the confirmation of a guy who's been vetted over and over and over again for other jobs as a judge? And, to be fair, Kavenaugh didn't nominate himself and he certainly didn't declare Donald Trump President... and yet, that's what this is really about to a large degree. It's punishing Judge Brett Kavenaugh for the election and the misdeeds of President Donald J. Trump and anyone unfortunate enough to be declared guilty by association just because they happen to work in his cabinet or something. For the record, though, I'd like to think this would be my stance if the nominee were that of a Democrat President's because none of this seems fair.
Even if you accept that it occurred and that there are sound psychological reasons behind Ms. Ford's delay in talking about it publicly or otherwise, there's still the fact that - as far as I know - Diane Feinstein and maybe some others have been sitting on this since July, which I think should have been more than enough time to not only bring it up, but investigate it as much as is possible... which, at best, is only going to result in an even bigger he-said/she-said scenario because it's not as if there's a rape kit to process or fresh wounds to photograph. Also, this supposedly happened when BOTH of these people were teenagers. Never mind that teenagers do dumb things all the time, especially when it comes to exploring their sexuality - regardless of whether or not the actual acts are more or less harmful. Hypothetically speaking, could Kavenaugh be prosecuted as an adult for something he did as a teenager? And if so, is that what we've been reduced to? Prosecuting SUCCESSFUL and probably MODERATELY WEALTHY, MIDDLE-AGED WHITE MEN - like pretty much all but one of the men that have been publicly taken down since the Me-Too Movement began... because I guess younger, more attractive, less wealthy men with jobs in the spotlight never do anything wrong unless their name happens to be Brett Kavenaugh - with or, as seems to be the case more often than not, WITHOUT proof or even the existence of it in some cases?
This isn't feminism or fairness or equality. This is entitlement of the worst kind, and it could potentially set a terrible legal precedent in which a member of one sex can accuse someone of the opposite sex of everything from sexual assault to "inappropriate behavior," under any circumstances and at any time, and not only see the accused lose their livelihoods and their reputations, but possibly their freedoms and status as an officially innocent and law-abiding member of society. In other words, it's saying that because women have supposedly been so oppressed and mistreated by men in the workplace for so long, a court of law should now elevate THEIR words and reputations over men's on the basis of gender not only believing any and all accusations of sexual misconduct against any and all men, but essentially being willing to prosecute and punish them without what would otherwise be considered sufficient or credible evidence and/or corroborating testimony. If people think this is going to improve male-female relationships in the workplace, theyr'e liable to be in for a rude awakening.
As for Kavenaugh, I don't believe for a second that this is about anything other than politics. Again, even if it happened as Ford claims and it's understandable that she didn't speak about it immediately, the fact that she not only waited over 35 years, but chose to speak up when Kavenaugh just happened to not only be a nominee for a position on the Supreme Court, but THE nominee that could decidedly tip the court to the political right for DECADES to come, is far more compelling than any commentator's psychobabble on the Chris Cuomo Show. If it weren't for Trump's horrendous personal history, I don't think the Republicans would even be allowing a hearing on this, and the fact that someone like Finestein sat on this for so long suggests to me that even most Democrats - whether they believe Ford or not - do not believe this is great ammo to use against Judge Kavenaugh. In any case, it's hypocrisy of the highest order. Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Bill Clinton... all Democrat Presidents AND philandering womanizers. Ted Kennedy left a woman to die at the bottom of a lake or some other body of water after crashing the car they were in and wound up becoming the Lion of the Senate! When Democrats are in power or accused, this kind of thing is unfortunate, but ultimately irrelevant - the fodder of right-wing conspirators like the kind Hillary spoke of during the Ken Starr investigation. In some instances, it's even turned out to be construed as almost endearing! When it's happening on the Republican side, though, it's more apocalyptic evidence of the male dominated society's "systematic" oppression of women everywhere.
Frankly, I don't want perfect judges that have never made mistakes and neither should anyone else. Why? Because they would probably be more inclined to see things as black and white. Of all people, liberal progressives - who have supposedly always defended the rights of the accused - should understand and take this into at least some consideration.
Even if you accept that it occurred and that there are sound psychological reasons behind Ms. Ford's delay in talking about it publicly or otherwise, there's still the fact that - as far as I know - Diane Feinstein and maybe some others have been sitting on this since July, which I think should have been more than enough time to not only bring it up, but investigate it as much as is possible... which, at best, is only going to result in an even bigger he-said/she-said scenario because it's not as if there's a rape kit to process or fresh wounds to photograph. Also, this supposedly happened when BOTH of these people were teenagers. Never mind that teenagers do dumb things all the time, especially when it comes to exploring their sexuality - regardless of whether or not the actual acts are more or less harmful. Hypothetically speaking, could Kavenaugh be prosecuted as an adult for something he did as a teenager? And if so, is that what we've been reduced to? Prosecuting SUCCESSFUL and probably MODERATELY WEALTHY, MIDDLE-AGED WHITE MEN - like pretty much all but one of the men that have been publicly taken down since the Me-Too Movement began... because I guess younger, more attractive, less wealthy men with jobs in the spotlight never do anything wrong unless their name happens to be Brett Kavenaugh - with or, as seems to be the case more often than not, WITHOUT proof or even the existence of it in some cases?
This isn't feminism or fairness or equality. This is entitlement of the worst kind, and it could potentially set a terrible legal precedent in which a member of one sex can accuse someone of the opposite sex of everything from sexual assault to "inappropriate behavior," under any circumstances and at any time, and not only see the accused lose their livelihoods and their reputations, but possibly their freedoms and status as an officially innocent and law-abiding member of society. In other words, it's saying that because women have supposedly been so oppressed and mistreated by men in the workplace for so long, a court of law should now elevate THEIR words and reputations over men's on the basis of gender not only believing any and all accusations of sexual misconduct against any and all men, but essentially being willing to prosecute and punish them without what would otherwise be considered sufficient or credible evidence and/or corroborating testimony. If people think this is going to improve male-female relationships in the workplace, theyr'e liable to be in for a rude awakening.
As for Kavenaugh, I don't believe for a second that this is about anything other than politics. Again, even if it happened as Ford claims and it's understandable that she didn't speak about it immediately, the fact that she not only waited over 35 years, but chose to speak up when Kavenaugh just happened to not only be a nominee for a position on the Supreme Court, but THE nominee that could decidedly tip the court to the political right for DECADES to come, is far more compelling than any commentator's psychobabble on the Chris Cuomo Show. If it weren't for Trump's horrendous personal history, I don't think the Republicans would even be allowing a hearing on this, and the fact that someone like Finestein sat on this for so long suggests to me that even most Democrats - whether they believe Ford or not - do not believe this is great ammo to use against Judge Kavenaugh. In any case, it's hypocrisy of the highest order. Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Bill Clinton... all Democrat Presidents AND philandering womanizers. Ted Kennedy left a woman to die at the bottom of a lake or some other body of water after crashing the car they were in and wound up becoming the Lion of the Senate! When Democrats are in power or accused, this kind of thing is unfortunate, but ultimately irrelevant - the fodder of right-wing conspirators like the kind Hillary spoke of during the Ken Starr investigation. In some instances, it's even turned out to be construed as almost endearing! When it's happening on the Republican side, though, it's more apocalyptic evidence of the male dominated society's "systematic" oppression of women everywhere.
Frankly, I don't want perfect judges that have never made mistakes and neither should anyone else. Why? Because they would probably be more inclined to see things as black and white. Of all people, liberal progressives - who have supposedly always defended the rights of the accused - should understand and take this into at least some consideration.
Sunday, September 2, 2018
Today's Panicky Fight Over Instances Of Alleged "Hate","Bigotry," And "Fascism" In Trump's America Is Becoming Almost As Dangerous As Its Target(s)
I'm just going to dive right into the pool of hypocrisy here and say that I'm tired of hearing people complain about "hate" and "divisiveness."
On a recent segment, CNN's Chris Cuomo got mad at Hispanic conservative Chris Cortes because Cortes accused him of defending Antifa in an earlier episode. Cuomo snidely denied it and accused the guy of not reading what Cuomo actually said, which - according to Cuomo - was simply that some violence is morally justified if it is against hatred and bigotry. "...In the eyes of good and evil," Cumo said on the earlier show, "here’s the argument: ...when someone comes to call out bigots and it gets hot, even physical, are they equally wrong as the bigot they are fighting? I argue, no. Fighting against hate matters.” Later in the segment and then on Twitter, he cited World War 2 and violent episodes in the Civil Rights Movement as examples of morally justified violence against hatred, even going so far as to Tweet a photo of the Normandy landing with the caption, "Anti-Fascists disrupting a large gathering of white supremacists."
Actually, the second world war and America's role, in particular, was more about defending sovereign nations from invasion by a common enemy than it was fighting white supremacy, and the gathering of Nazis where the landing took place wasn't large enough because the Allies had tricked them into believing the landing would take place somewhere else. At any rate, so what if he didn't say the word Antifa while defending violence against bigots? He didn't have to because the whole thing was in the context of him expressing his opinion on a matter concerning... ANTIFA! The whole monologue was commentary on and/or spurred by a story about a gathering which Cuomo described as, "peppered in a crowd were members of Antifa, or Anti-Fascists..." In that context, if he's not defending Antifa, then who is he defending? Because I don't recall the names of any other groups that fight hatred and bigotry relevant to his segment.
Now, I'm not sure I totally disagree with Cuomo. Antifa often seems to incite its own violent episodes, but for better or worse, violence has long been an effective agent of good and necessary change in human history at both a national and local level. One could make the argument that the American Revolution was first incited by localized violence. What I disagree with is comparing what's going on today with the landing at Normandy or the Civil Rights Movement.
The Nazis VIOLENTLY invaded their neighbors in the name of Lebensraum and, eventually, enacted a very obvious and very horrendous plan to exterminate as many Jews and other undesirables (to the Nazis) as they could. At the height of the Civil Rights Movement, police were hosing down and beating black people simply for standing around where they weren't welcome. You could turn a corner in an otherwise nice little neighborhood and see a black man with a broken neck hanging from a tree. Children were being burned to death in church fires by white men that may or may not even stand trial and were just as likely to be exonerated by a "jury of their peers" because their peers were white. THAT is hate. THAT is justification for violence, in spite of another fact that Cuomo neglected to mention, which is that Martin Luther King - arguably the most celebrated and effective Civil Rights leader in American history - followed the example of Ghandi and others and insisted that there be NO VIOLENCE in his marches and protests... even when it drew the ire of other civil rights groups and leaders like Malcolm X.
What we have today started as and, for the most part, still is a war of words that gets out of hand because at least TWO generations of people currently alive seem to equate hurt feelings with real, 100% unadulterated hate. Now, does that mean people should go around yelling racial epithets and other hateful slurs, etc? ABSOLUTELY NOT! But the European Jews in World War 2 and the blacks in 1960's Detroit, Birmingham, Chicago, and other cities across America were literally dreaming of a day in which the only things they had to put up with 99% of the time were the words of a few idiots and, yes, bigots, because humans are imperfect and will probably never fully purge some form of discrimination and hatred from their psyches. People like Cuomo and the Antifa punks think they're standing up for people's rights and nobly fighting to keep REAL Fascism from once again gaining a foothold, but by complaining so much about "divisiveness" and equating the Allies' fight at Normandy against the army of the violently racist Nazi Germanny with Antifa punks' attack on people in the street because they happen to be Republicans or Trump supporters is every bit as dangerous to our civil liberties as anything that President Trump and his supporters has said or ever will say outside of stated and enacted policy. Why?
Because it's setting a pattern AND PRECEDENT in which certain members of our society cannot say certain things or otherwise disagree with certain other members of our society without being guilty of "racism" and "hate," which - in some instances - the law already recognizes as criminal. In America, laws are meant to be made and unmade based upon the demands of the people. If enough people have decided that something should be illegal, then it becomes possible for government to make it so. That's why lobbyists exist. At this rate, within the next decade, people will or won't be allowed to say certain things to certain people based on things like their race and income while others will be forcefully protected and defended for the same reason. There are mild forms of this already on the books. THAT IS NOT EQUALITY. AT ALL.
And while I will always criticize Trump and others for dividing the GOP as a party into quarreling factions and bemoan the fact that members of different political parties no longer even have the same fundamental goals, the current complaints about divisiveness - which now come from both sides - are equally petty and dangerously myopic. We are a democratic republic. Being democratic means we can CHOOSE who we want to lead and how we want to be led, but if our choices are not sufficiently distinct and representative of people with distinctly different ideas and viewpoints, then why bother? If what I want is jelly and someone comes up and says, "Good news! You can choose between creamy and crunchy peanut butter," what's the point in giving me the choice? EITHER WAY, I'M EATING PEANUT BUTTER!
I was under the impression that we're supposed to value diversity, but there's no diversity in a group of weak-kneed sycophants that panic and compare others to Nazis and warmongers any time someone disagrees with them on a topic of some personal importance. There's no equality OR tolerance in a society in which distasteful, yet otherwise innocuous and incidental behavior is moderated, restricted, and punished by law based upon things like the race and income of the supposedly guilty parties and whether or not the behavior is directed at people of a different race and income level. And yet, that's where we're headed. I'm not defending a single thing that President Trump has said or done to date just by saying that the reaction to him and his mistakes and occasional idiocy have become or are quickly becoming every bit as consequential BECAUSE instead of it just being the acts and words of one man, no matter how powerful or how many he represents, it's the acts and words of the national community... the "mob," if you will... that ultimately has and was always meant to have the most power at the end of every day here in America.
On a recent segment, CNN's Chris Cuomo got mad at Hispanic conservative Chris Cortes because Cortes accused him of defending Antifa in an earlier episode. Cuomo snidely denied it and accused the guy of not reading what Cuomo actually said, which - according to Cuomo - was simply that some violence is morally justified if it is against hatred and bigotry. "...In the eyes of good and evil," Cumo said on the earlier show, "here’s the argument: ...when someone comes to call out bigots and it gets hot, even physical, are they equally wrong as the bigot they are fighting? I argue, no. Fighting against hate matters.” Later in the segment and then on Twitter, he cited World War 2 and violent episodes in the Civil Rights Movement as examples of morally justified violence against hatred, even going so far as to Tweet a photo of the Normandy landing with the caption, "Anti-Fascists disrupting a large gathering of white supremacists."
Actually, the second world war and America's role, in particular, was more about defending sovereign nations from invasion by a common enemy than it was fighting white supremacy, and the gathering of Nazis where the landing took place wasn't large enough because the Allies had tricked them into believing the landing would take place somewhere else. At any rate, so what if he didn't say the word Antifa while defending violence against bigots? He didn't have to because the whole thing was in the context of him expressing his opinion on a matter concerning... ANTIFA! The whole monologue was commentary on and/or spurred by a story about a gathering which Cuomo described as, "peppered in a crowd were members of Antifa, or Anti-Fascists..." In that context, if he's not defending Antifa, then who is he defending? Because I don't recall the names of any other groups that fight hatred and bigotry relevant to his segment.
Now, I'm not sure I totally disagree with Cuomo. Antifa often seems to incite its own violent episodes, but for better or worse, violence has long been an effective agent of good and necessary change in human history at both a national and local level. One could make the argument that the American Revolution was first incited by localized violence. What I disagree with is comparing what's going on today with the landing at Normandy or the Civil Rights Movement.
The Nazis VIOLENTLY invaded their neighbors in the name of Lebensraum and, eventually, enacted a very obvious and very horrendous plan to exterminate as many Jews and other undesirables (to the Nazis) as they could. At the height of the Civil Rights Movement, police were hosing down and beating black people simply for standing around where they weren't welcome. You could turn a corner in an otherwise nice little neighborhood and see a black man with a broken neck hanging from a tree. Children were being burned to death in church fires by white men that may or may not even stand trial and were just as likely to be exonerated by a "jury of their peers" because their peers were white. THAT is hate. THAT is justification for violence, in spite of another fact that Cuomo neglected to mention, which is that Martin Luther King - arguably the most celebrated and effective Civil Rights leader in American history - followed the example of Ghandi and others and insisted that there be NO VIOLENCE in his marches and protests... even when it drew the ire of other civil rights groups and leaders like Malcolm X.
What we have today started as and, for the most part, still is a war of words that gets out of hand because at least TWO generations of people currently alive seem to equate hurt feelings with real, 100% unadulterated hate. Now, does that mean people should go around yelling racial epithets and other hateful slurs, etc? ABSOLUTELY NOT! But the European Jews in World War 2 and the blacks in 1960's Detroit, Birmingham, Chicago, and other cities across America were literally dreaming of a day in which the only things they had to put up with 99% of the time were the words of a few idiots and, yes, bigots, because humans are imperfect and will probably never fully purge some form of discrimination and hatred from their psyches. People like Cuomo and the Antifa punks think they're standing up for people's rights and nobly fighting to keep REAL Fascism from once again gaining a foothold, but by complaining so much about "divisiveness" and equating the Allies' fight at Normandy against the army of the violently racist Nazi Germanny with Antifa punks' attack on people in the street because they happen to be Republicans or Trump supporters is every bit as dangerous to our civil liberties as anything that President Trump and his supporters has said or ever will say outside of stated and enacted policy. Why?
Because it's setting a pattern AND PRECEDENT in which certain members of our society cannot say certain things or otherwise disagree with certain other members of our society without being guilty of "racism" and "hate," which - in some instances - the law already recognizes as criminal. In America, laws are meant to be made and unmade based upon the demands of the people. If enough people have decided that something should be illegal, then it becomes possible for government to make it so. That's why lobbyists exist. At this rate, within the next decade, people will or won't be allowed to say certain things to certain people based on things like their race and income while others will be forcefully protected and defended for the same reason. There are mild forms of this already on the books. THAT IS NOT EQUALITY. AT ALL.
And while I will always criticize Trump and others for dividing the GOP as a party into quarreling factions and bemoan the fact that members of different political parties no longer even have the same fundamental goals, the current complaints about divisiveness - which now come from both sides - are equally petty and dangerously myopic. We are a democratic republic. Being democratic means we can CHOOSE who we want to lead and how we want to be led, but if our choices are not sufficiently distinct and representative of people with distinctly different ideas and viewpoints, then why bother? If what I want is jelly and someone comes up and says, "Good news! You can choose between creamy and crunchy peanut butter," what's the point in giving me the choice? EITHER WAY, I'M EATING PEANUT BUTTER!
I was under the impression that we're supposed to value diversity, but there's no diversity in a group of weak-kneed sycophants that panic and compare others to Nazis and warmongers any time someone disagrees with them on a topic of some personal importance. There's no equality OR tolerance in a society in which distasteful, yet otherwise innocuous and incidental behavior is moderated, restricted, and punished by law based upon things like the race and income of the supposedly guilty parties and whether or not the behavior is directed at people of a different race and income level. And yet, that's where we're headed. I'm not defending a single thing that President Trump has said or done to date just by saying that the reaction to him and his mistakes and occasional idiocy have become or are quickly becoming every bit as consequential BECAUSE instead of it just being the acts and words of one man, no matter how powerful or how many he represents, it's the acts and words of the national community... the "mob," if you will... that ultimately has and was always meant to have the most power at the end of every day here in America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)