So, here’s the deal. Every new generation, for some reason, truly and sincerely believes they are the very first to discover an issue, as though prior generations had never considered it before.
For obvious and tragic reasons, the gun debate is raging all over TV and over the Internet these days. Funny though, are you aware that a 44 year old movie pretty much sums up the arguments for and against gun control in one fell swoop?
No, I’m not talking about the recently released reboot starring Bruce Willis, although I do want to see it.
I’m talking about the original Death Wish, which by now, is roughly the same age as a middle aged man. Hard to believe, isn’t it? I rented it last night and dated as the film is, it still hashes out all the talking points about guns that are being bandied about today.
You see, 3.5 readers, in the early 1970s, there was a crime wave in the inner cities. Nixon actually won the presidency due to promises to get tough on crime. People were fed up by the fact that they couldn’t walk down the street without getting hassled by hoodlums and Hollywood cashed on in this development, producing all manner of films where tough guys, fed up with the system’s inability to protect them, take law into their own hands and blow bad guys away with big ass hand cannons. “Death Wish” was the most notable of these films, though it runs neck and neck with Clint Eastwood’s “Dirty Harry” series.
The plot? New York City architect Paul Kersey is a mild mannered liberal professional and family man. He loves his wife, his daughter, and abhors violence, having even been given a medical corps position during the Korean War to avoid having to kill anyone.
All this changes when his wife is killed and daughter brutally raped by a pack of hooligans led by none other than a young Jeff Goldblum. “Life uh..finds a way.”
While some hero tales provide an instant transformation i.e. the main character instantly gains powerful skills overnight, Kersey’s progression from frumpy dad to badass killing machine is a slow one.
Kersey’s informed there’s not much the police can do. His son-in-law, Jack, laments that to the government, his wife and Paul’s wife are little more than statistics, a certain number of crime victims that the powers that be deem acceptable, even normal, and that they’ll just have to suck it up and get used to it.
Pissed, Kersey starts carrying a sock full of quarters to protect himself. When a mugger attacks him, he gives the mugger a sock knock and sends the ne’er-do-well running. He learns an interesting lesson – if criminals are made to fear for their lives, they’ll run.
Our hero then takes a sojourn to Arizona for work, we he meets Aimes, a business associate who can only be described as a walking, talking caricature of a died in the wool NRA member on steroids. Frontier justice, Aimes says, is the name of the game in the West. Everyone’s packing heat and criminals know they’ll be instantly bagged and tagged, so crime rates are low according to the cowboy.
Aimes takes Kersey to a range and we can see Kersey feel like he’s regaining control of his life as he takes aim at targets and fires. He reveals that he did some hunting in his youth and had to qualify as a marksman in the Army, so he has some skill. The cowboy gives the city slicker a present, a rather menacing looking revolver.
When Kersey returns to NYC, he starts carrying the pistol. Oddly, he’s accosted by another mugger. Kersey keeps his cash and puts a bullet in the bad guy instead. He runs home and is so horrified by what he’s done that he throws up.
But soon…Kersey becomes addicted to murdering criminals…or does he? It’s sort of an up for interpretation part of the film.
Fun fact – although he’s portrayed as an out of control vigilante, Kersey technically never does anything illegal. He just takes a lot of walks in the middle of the night in dangerous neighborhoods, on subways, in parks, and is sure to flash a wallet full of money in seedy establishments and/or look like a bumbling old man by carrying groceries. He never attacks anyone who doesn’t attack first.
Maybe he really is just an old bumbler with a lot of bad luck…but most likely, he’s out trolling, just waiting, nay wishing that some mugger would attack him so he can shoot them in self-defense.
And that’s the rub. Kersey never shoots anyone who didn’t draw a pistol or a knife on him first.
The overall theme of the movie? If people arm up, bad guys will pussy out. Not really a popular message today.
The alternative argument, that society will descend into chaos if everyone is carrying a gun, is briefly explored, but ultimately, it’s suggested that bumbling politicians are to blame. During one such meeting of incompetent NYC bureaucrats, it’s noted that “the vigilante’s” hijinx have cut muggings down by half, but they’ll never tell the public for fear that the city will become a war zone.
But what’s the alternative? Better governance? More police? A better economy? More social welfare programs? A better world where the poor have no need to rob and steal? Nah, the politicians aren’t going to do any of that. They’d really just prefer it if families of crime victims like Kersey would shut up, accept their statistic status and go along as if nothing happened.
Is it an awesome film? In many ways, yes. The gradual progression from pacified weakling to macho asskicker is fun to watch.
Is it open to criticism? Yes. In the past, criminals were portrayed as cartoon characters, bums who made a conscious decision to avoid the honest pay that a hard day’s work could provide and to seek a quick buck by hassling the law abiding instead. Ergo, they deserved the new holes that Kersey gave to them. And sure, that often happens but in today’s cinema, criminals are usually given a heartwarming backstory that makes you feel as though the person could not have helped becoming a criminal (often the case, though not always.)
Is the film racist? Well, I mean, yeah, Kersey does shoot an awful lot of black dudes. But he shoots white dudes too. And there are many law abiding African-American characters, from a police officer that assists Kersey in the investigation into his wife’s death, to a working class couple who see a duo of white crooks enter a subway train and decide to get off at the next stop rather than deal with them, to an old black lady who, inspired by tales of the vigilante on the news, whips out a hat pin and stabs the shit out of two reprobates who try to run off with her purse.
I mean yeah, to borrow an SJW term, a white character gunning down so many black characters is “problematic.” You could argue that perhaps there is a universal code of right and wrong, that no matter what color you are, if you point a gun or a knife at anyone of any color, then you’re getting what’s coming to you if the threatened person takes you out. It’s a daily war against crime, with law abiding people of all different colors and backgrounds vs. crooks of all different races and backgrounds. White Paul Kersey and black old lady with the hat pin are on the same side – two good people who just want to walk home without getting accosted for the money they worked for.
But still, yeah, an awful lot of black dudes buy the farm in this movie so…how to rectify that? I don’t know. Maybe if there’s ever another reboot of this film, a black actor could play the Paul Kersey role, gunning down a rainbow of hoodlums from all different backgrounds, or just white guys, or really, does it matter what color the shooter or the person shot is as long as the shooter was being attacked and the attacker was, in fact, a threat to life? Bruce Willis is one of very few conservative actors willing to touch this franchise, though I think Hollywood missed a real opportunity to hold a coup if they would have cast, say, Denzel Washington or Jamie Foxx as Paul Kersey.
Oh well. Don’t picket my blog. I liked the movie though I realize in many ways it’s un-PC, hokey, tacky and well, probably doesn’t hold up today. I mean, sure if you stand out in NYC in the middle of the night for long enough, you might get robbed once, but no one is as unlucky as Kersey, getting robbed over and over, even if you are out walking around, wishing that someone would rob you so you could kick their ass. (Note: just give them the money.)
All in all, what does this old movie tell us? Does it have any relevance to today’s gun debate? Basically, the politicians of this movie, just as the politicians in real life today, are as clueless and inept as ever. Gun control is a sensitive issue and no matter what side you’re on, government officials appear clueless and inept when they fail to make us all safe…and citizens must keep pressure on politicians to make the world a safer place because at the end of the day, they’re lazy and happy to just let victims become more statistics, more faceless victims, more deaths to be expected as just a matter of fact of life.
Overall, depending what side of the fence you’re on, you’ll hate or love this film. And honestly, I can see why you’d hate or love it.
3.5 readers, are you aware that in March, it will be the fourth anniversary of this exceptional blog?
That’s more years than I have readers.
Although you are all wonderful, I must admit that four years to gain such a paltry sum of readers wasn’t worth it.
I could continue this blog but lately, the issues of the day really weigh heavily on my mind and soul. So much fighting. So much disharmony and discord. So many problems in the world, so much unrest. So many people struggling, looking for hope and finding none.
I can no longer waste my time on writing fart jokes. Fart jokes are crass and they help no one. I must, instead, make a difference, so I have decided to start a new blog, one in which I will discuss the many important issues of the day. Further, I will reach out to experts from a variety of backgrounds to get their take on how the world might improve.
I know. I always say I don’t get political on this fine blog. And for the most part, I don’t. When I do, it’s in the name of humor, and I think if you look at my track record, you’ll find that I harangue both sides equally. If you can’t find humor everywhere, then there’s a glitch in your soul and you need to troubleshoot that immediately. Try clicking your inner “CTRL + ALT + DELETE” and then remove your faulty program from your task manager.
I’m happy to hear a debate about how there are too many guns, that guns should be restricted more, harder to get, etc. etc.
However, and get mad at me if you want, but I think schools need security guards. Schools vary in size, but every small town school should have at least one and bigger schools with bigger problems should have several.
I wish it weren’t the case. Take away the school shooting issue for a moment.
When I was a kid in the 1990s when Bill Clinton was chasing interns around his desk with his pants around his ankles instead of chasing down Osama Bin Laden, I recall many a time when I’d be walking down the hall only to see a fight break out. Teachers would run to break it up. They’d get involved, pull the kids off each other, etc.
Teachers really shouldn’t have to do that. If your goal in life is to master a subject and educate students on that subject, then teaching should be your job and you shouldn’t have to risk bodily injury to yourself by having to break up an altercation.
Talk to teachers from all over and I’ll bet there are many with stories about how they were injured while breaking up a fist fight. I would imagine some teachers even get sued.
Keep in mind too that teachers aren’t security professionals. Security guards who are properly trained learn various tactics to use to grab an out of control person safely without, say, accidentally injuring the person by applying too much pressure to a part of the body and damaging a vital organ or something.
I’m not saying that cops and/or guards are 100 percent safe and that they don’t make mistakes, but me personally, if I had a kid and that kid got into a fight, I think I would honestly rather have a security guard who has at least taken a class on how to break up a fight restrain my kid rather than Mr. Smith, the guy who really liked math and became a math teacher.
Not knocking teachers. Teachers teach. And teachers should be in charge of general discipline. Guards shouldn’t be passing out detentions for not doing homework or arresting kids for talking in class. However, when two students get in a fight, the teacher should have a little button he can beep to call in a trained person with an official looking uniform to break it up.
I’m sorry, but Mrs. Jones, art teacher, shouldn’t have to risk getting cold cocked in the face because you think guards in schools might make kids feel bad.
OK. Bring back the school shooting issue. Would tougher gun laws have stopped this shooting? I don’t know. Honestly, the only law that would maybe put a dent in school shootings would be a repeal of the second amendment and that isn’t happening.
This is how the post-school shooting debate usually goes:
DEMOCRATS: Republicans are monsters who care more about guns than kids!
REPUBLICANS: Everyone needs more guns so when shooters start shooting they can shoot the shooter.
DEMOCRATS: We need more gun control!
REPUBLICANS: Name the law you want to pass.
DEMOCRATS: Umm..ungh…
REPUBLICANS: Just vocalize a proposal. What do you want to happen that you think will make school shootings stop?
DEMOCRATS: Umm…ungh…you’re monsters! Monsters who care more about guns than kids!
REPUBLICANS: Y’all want to repeal the second amendment don’t you?
DEMOCRATS: :::look around to make sure no one’s watching, then they whisper::: Holy shit, no! Are you trying to get me thrown out of office?! Jesus, just let me bang my fist on the podium and call you a monster for the next five days and then I can go back to not proposing anything.
Anyway. Confiscate all guns…and maybe there would be less school shootings. I say less because surely one industrious kid would get his hands on an illegal gun.
But, and what people don’t want to talk about, is that the issue runs deeper than guns. High school is a hard time for the young. Kids fight. They argue. They feel wronged by other kids and they feel this wrong is the only thing that matters in the entire world. Some kids let these slights roll off their backs. Some turn to negative activities like drugs or alcohol.
And then, sadly, there’s that one kid who says, “I’m going to get even!”
Take away guns and that kid will probably build a bomb, or use a knife, or a car or something. You’ll probably say the kid who does that might at least kill less if he doesn’t have a gun to use as a primary weapon. You probably have a point there.
The second amendment is a bigger issue than I don’t have time to talk about in detail today. Rightly or wrongly, it isn’t going anywhere. Politicians can throw barbs at each other all day, but a gunless Utopia where everyone solves problems with hugs isn’t coming tomorrow.
Increased security at schools can start tomorrow.
Take away the school shooting issue again. Let’s return once more to the 1990s, when Hillary was really the de facto president and Bill was leaving stains on Monica Lewinsky’s dress.
I was a big kid. But I was a nerd. I was an easy target. Kids who felt they had something to prove would hassle me, hit me, punch me and then they’d brag that they’d got one over on a big kid. They wouldn’t go after, say, a big kid who would actually fight back.
I never fought back. I’d just accept all manner of abuse because I figured if I socked a kid who was harassing me, I’d end up in trouble myself. I figured that black mark on my school record would keep me from my big plans of becoming rich and famous.
Hell, had I known that the best I’d ever do is blog proprietor for a website for 3.5 readers, I might have socked a kid back.
Teachers I turned to for help were utterly useless. Sometimes they’d give me a speech like, “Well, that kid’s home life really sucks and your life is better so could you maybe try to understand that kid has problems.”
I’d usually just nod politely but in my mind I’d just say, “Oh OK. I deserve to be a human punching bag because my parents are gainfully employed and free of substance abuse addictions. Got it. I’ll go tell my Dad to pick up a bottle and then maybe you’ll help me.”
One time a teacher told me to just sock them back. I admire that teacher’s gusto, but again, I’d nod politely and then in my mind, think, “Um, sir, I’m here to be educated. I shouldn’t have to train myself in the ways of kung fu and fight my way out of here every day like it’s ‘Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome’ just so I can learn algebra.”
As an adult, do I realize that kids can be little assholes? Yes. Should troubled kids who slap other kids around be carted off to Rikers Island and have their lives ruined? Sigh. Maybe not if the kid can be sat down by the principal and reasoned with. Maybe yes if the kid is making an environment where all the other kids feel like they need to train in the ways of kung fu and fight their way out of school like ‘Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome’ just to learn algebra. Even then, probably not to Rikers Island but maybe to some school for difficult children where teachers have training in dealing with problem kids.
The point is, at some point in a young person’s life, they have to learn that there comes a time when rough housing and horseplay and fights aren’t fun anymore and if you lay your hands on someone else, there are consequences. That should start in high school.
When I was a kid, I thought those teachers who wouldn’t help me were lazy assholes. As an adult, I feel like those teachers were probably just people who signed up to teach a subject and didn’t get paid enough to, you know…be security guards.
That’s why schools need security guards. I know that as a 1990s kid, I would have enjoyed school more if there’d been a person in a uniform and a badge nearby to pull douchebag kids off me.
So, to wrap this up. Big picture, security guards might help stop school shootings if they are being utilized to set up check points, make sure every kid has an ID and everyone entering has a legit reason for being there, to search bags and run metal detectors.
Smaller picture, they should also be there to break up fights and to intimidate bullies into leaving nerds alone. Nerds should neither have to suck it up and accept being pummeled is just a part of growing up, nor should they have to train in the ways of kung fu for self defense purposes just to learn Algebra.
Thank you. Commence haranguing me in the comments.
By: Dr. Hugo von Science, Esteemed Professor of Science at the Advanced Science Institute of Science University
Guten Tag, Herr 3.5 readers! Dr. Hugo von Science here, mein liebchen, back after a long hiatus for as you recall, there was a teensy, weensy issue where I was accused of unleashing a zombie apocalypse on East Randomtown. Boy oh boy, you unleash one little zombie horde and the legal system never lets you here the end of it.
Ahh, but wouldn’t you know, mein crooked lawyer worked some magic, reminded zie government that they do not want to publicly acknowledge that zombies exist and thus to punish yours truly would be an admission of zombie existence and voila, my tenure at Science University has been restored!
Alas, BQB didn’t want me to return but that’s OK. I just pirated the signal of his blog, changed a few ones undt zeroes and here I am, guest blogging against your favorite nerd’s will anyway.
Herr 3.5 readers, have you seen zie footage of the Heavy Falcon rocket launch? If you missed it because you were too busy picking your nose boogers, here’s the CNBC coverage of the launch:
Herr 3.5 readers, do you know this rocket is a) the most powerful rocket ever built b) the first of its kind to be launched by a commercial enterprise und c) is capable of reaching Mars?
By the way, if you ask Elon, he will totally deny this and I’m sure BQB’s lawyer will want me to say this isn’t true but between you and me, I was brought in to be an advisor on this project in the early stages.
Yes, Elon was all like, “this will be the biggest rocket ever!”
And I was all like, “Yes, that’s very nice but it must be bigger if we are going to blow up the sun.”
Then everyone was all like, “Why would we blow up the sun?” and I was like, “So we can buy a bunch of flashlights in advance and then make a killing when we sell them to the blacked out masses at insane prices, duh!”
Needless to say, Elon and the Space X folk weren’t down for blowing up the sun, nor were they into mein other ideas, namely – launching my patent pending laser death ray satellite, which could be used to a) hold the world for ransom with a threat to burn the entire planet lest all the world’s gold reserves be transferred to me and b) also used to heat the coffee of a random person from a zillion miles away with tremendous precision.
Can you believe they weren’t down for holding the earth ransom either? They were all like, “Science and discovery and exploration and benefitting mankind.” Blah, blah blah. What a bunch of wet blankets.
Anyway, I kept bringing up more ideas. We should put all my enemies on the rocket and then exile them to deep space. We should send the rocket to every planet and broadcast a message asking for all planets to send us their hottest, greenest, finest, three tittied space babes. All of these plans und more were nixed.
Finally, Elon showed me the door and I informed him the feeling was more than mutual. I am, after all, a scientist with standards and if a rocket is not going to be used to hold the earth for ransom or at the very least to blow up a random planet and start an intergalactic war, then I want no part of it and I shall say good day.
Ultimately, I am glad Space X launched their rocket and I wish them well in their various science experiments.
Meanwhile, look for mein rocket launch next year as you’ll see it on the news as well as all other TV channels as I will pre-empt all stations with my ransom demands.
Did I say, “ransom demands?” I meant, “science lessons.” I have no idea how this terrible rumor that I’m a mad scientist got started. I’ll have all 3.5 of you know that I am a very happy scientist – very happy indeed.
Apparently, every problem in Switzerland has been solved because lawmakers there have banned the practice of boiling lobsters while they are still alive. I have no idea why this was a big concern.
I can only assume some Swiss scientist somewhere was really concerned that the lobsters go through a very traumatic experience while they are being boiled. Their whole entire little lobster lives flash before their beady little eyes – their lobster childhoods spent playing stickball, their first date to the lobster prom, their lobster marriages, the birth of their lobster children, even their lobster divorces.
Some say if you listen closely, you can even hear them shout out all of their regrets. Why, I once boiled a lobster and he was such a big guy that he was left with an entire hour to regale me with a story about “the one who got away.” He was a foreign lobster exchange student. She was a French lobster coquette. Their lobster parents despised one another and oh, how he wished he’d stood up to his domineering lobster father just once and embraced his one and only chance at true love.
Poor guy. He was so bitter I had to dip him in extra butter. :::rimshot:::
Anyway, long story short, if you are Swiss (and my condolences if you are) you now must murder your lobster before you boil it, so without further ado, from BQB HQ in Fabulous East Randomtown, here are the Top Ten Ways to Murder A Lobster to Death in the Wake of Switzerland’s Ban on Boiling Lobsters.
#10 – Firing Squad
Blindfold the lobster, line him up against the wall, pop a cigarette in his mouth and hand out rifles to all kitchen staff. Only one rifle has a live round so staff can comfort themselves with the possibility that they did not fire the lethal shot.
#9 – Hanging
Construct a tiny gallows on every table in every seafood restaurant. What a fun family activity this will be. Mom can tie a little noose around the little guy’s neck. Dad can read the lobster his last rites. Junior can pull the lever and the entire family can watch as the little crustacean twists and wiggles and sputters until his last breath.
I’m sure there’s room for scientific debate here. Is it possible to even hang a lobster with all that armor?
#8 – Lobster War
Bribe greedy politicians to declare war on the lobster population of a foreign country. Draft domestic lobsters to go overseas to fight and die in a pointless, unpopular war. Enjoy the tasty lobster flesh as the lobster military industrial complex is promulgated into perpetuity.
#7 – Lobster Drive-By
Find some aspiring, up and coming street gangsters who want to increase their street cred. Put the lobster tank in the window and when you hear the words, “Break yo-self, lobster!” it’s time to eat.
#6 – Lobster Electric Chair
I feel like that’s just as problematic as boiling the lobsters. Either way, they’re being cooked alive.
#5 – Lobster Guillotine
Dress the lobsters up as 19th Century French royalty. Give them powdered wigs and crowns, paint their faces white and give them elaborate, frilly clothing. Place their heads on the chopping block and voila! Viva la revolucion!
Will this work if the lobsters aren’t dressed as French royalty? Yes. Will it be as fun? I mean, if you were having fun doing this anyway, you were a sick person to begin with. Seriously, shame on you for even reading this far.
#4 – Lobster Hitmen
Hire two highly trained assassins to whack the lobsters when they least suspect it. These can be human or lobster assassins. Bonus points if you hire lobsters to hit the other lobsters and dress the hit lobsters as Vincent and Jules from “Pulp Fiction.”
Double bonus points if you train one of the lobsters to give the “Path of the Righteous Lobster” speech.
Ahem. The path of the righteous lobster is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyrannies of evil lobsters…
#3 – Lobster Lethal Injection
You could poison the lobster but then, who would want to eat a poisoned lobster? I mean, then again, people who eat lobsters are willingly licking their lips at a plate containing the dead carcass of what appears to be a giant mutant space cockroach so, those people will probably eat anything.
At any rate, my lawyer tells me this is a bad idea so no one should do it. Actually, no one should do or read anything on this blog ever at any time ever at all.
#2 – Lobster Explosion
Give the lobster an explosive device with twenty seconds on the counter and a pair of wire cutters. Red? Green? Will the lobster pick the right one? And why give him wire cutters when he has pinchers? Heck, if the lobster saves the day, give him a reprieve.
#1 – Lobster Suicide
Ridicule the lobster. Get him fired from his lobster job. Show him pictures of his lobster wife having hot, steamy lobster sex with his lobster best friend. Tell him his lobster kids are calling his lobster friend daddy now.
Ruin his lobster finances. Drive him into lobster bankruptcy. Leave him with no hope and then leave him on the edge of the counter. Walk away and I mean…if the little guy leaps to his doom, well, that’s a tragedy but is it made any better by letting all that delicious lobster meat go to waste?
Then again, you’d be eating something that fell on the floor, so, eww…
I was listening to Howard Stern today (he actually came into work) and he had an interesting take on all the talk about President Oprah.
He said (and I remember this) years ago, he ran for Governor of New York as a goof. He didn’t want the job and just did it as a promotion, to get his name out there and get some free press. He didn’t think anyone would take him seriously so got scared when he actually ranked high in the polls. Political consultants began getting in touch with him, sure he had a good shot at winning.
He backed out of it because he felt he would not do a good job. He’s a funny radio guy and while he enjoys that and he has been successful as an entertainer, he did not believe he could handle the job of being governor – the tough decisions, the turmoil, the scrutiny, the studying, the non-stop nature of the job, 24/7 and weekends. Ultimately, people rely on the Governor and he didn’t think he could deliver.
He thought maybe he might have won and who knows, perhaps from there he might have had a shot at the presidency but he didn’t want it. He did not believe he would do a good job and so bowed out so an actual politician could win.
He likened his situation to Oprah and said that as a celebrity, especially one that came from humble beginnings without much money (as he and Oprah did) it is tempting to want everything, to take every offered opportunity, to do every TV show, movie, book, business venture, everything because no matter how big you get, you fear it might all go away and so it’s easy to see the presidency as the ultimate plaything, to increase your fame and status…but ultimately, you have to think not of yourself but of the country.
I think he has a good point and I’m wondering if we aren’t going down a path where perhaps there should be a mandate that to win the presidency you must hold some kind of prior office first? Reagan was an actor, but he did go on to run a union and serve as governor of California. He did his homework and got his government training.
I mean…when we hear of President the Rock….come on. I don’t care how loved of a celebrity you are, the second you run for office, half the country will hate you. Why not stay a celebrity and be loved by all?
On the other hand, TV has really screwed politics up, for years now. Gone are the days when character, knowledge and experience matter. How photogenic are you? What’s your social media following like?
Howard said we need a modern day Winston Churchill but I have news for him – Winston could not win office today. “Who’s that chubby little bald man with froggy voice? Get him off the stage and put a squared jawed, perfect haired dummy in his place!”
In other words, politics and entertainment are hand in hand now, such that you can’t be an actor if you aren’t a hottie and let’s face it, you can’t be a politician unless you’ve got that super star quality either.
BQB here. I heard something on the radio yesterday and I think it went virtually unnoticed because there was so much else going on in the news.
It was reported that over the past, how many years exactly escapes me, Congress has paid out $15 million in sexual harassment claims. This appears to be bipartisan. Republicans and Democrats alike have a hard time not being gropey gropey.
Sigh. Look dudes. You got out there, you made some fancy speeches, you convinced people in your district you were worth something, you’ve been selected for a powerful club few ever know…I don’t care how old are ugly or disgusting you may look, if you are not able to be like the rest of us and just find a woman who you share a mutually attraction with and politely chat her up, get her number and go out on some dates and slowly and surely convince her your worth doing the hibbitty dibbitty with, then you are not worthy of being a Congressman.
“I’d better grab that ass and hope she doesn’t say something because an unwanted ass grab is the best I can do,” does not speak well of you, your self-confidence and all around means you should step down.
Seriously. I don’t care how disgusting you are. Most of the non-Congressional world is able to obtain consensual sex, so if you can’t obtain consensual sex with the added bonus of being able to say, “Hey baby I’m a Congressman” then you suck. You just really suck and should go stand in the corner and think about what you’ve done.
Oh and also there’s the obvious – women should be able to work for Congress without unwanted hands on their lady parts and 15 million – those are our tax dollars. It seems obvious many of these dudes do this shit because they know Congress will bail them out. Perhaps there needs to be a law that if you pull out your junk in front of a staff member you have to pay the settlement out of your own money. That will cause many zippers to zip up quickly, no doubt.
Yup. It’s Halloween so we know what that means. Crazy SJWs are flipping their shit over the fact that someone, somewhere in the world might wear a costume for one night for a few hours that might offend somebody, somewhere.
Redbook published this article, breathlessly warning of the dangers of the epic sadness and woe that could spread across the globe if parents allow white daughters to dress like Polynesian princess Moana this Halloween.
First, the article is an example of what is wrong with journalism i.e. the drumming up of a faux controversy. I mean, it makes it out as if there are a legion of little girls dressing up like Polynesian princesses and an equally large legion of Polynesian girls who are beside themselves with misery and woe over this. I mean, maybe, just maybe there’s one Halloween party somewhere where this could happen, but is it a scenario worth an entire article? Probably not.
Second, the article contains this quote:
The original article, written by Sachi Feris, discusses how her white daughter was torn between dressing as Elsa, from Frozen, or the titular character from Moana. Feris expresses concern that while an Elsa costume might reinforce notions of white privilege, dressing up as Moana is essentially cultural appropriation — the act of reducing someone’s culture to stereotypes, and thereby belittling it.
So if you’re a little white girl, don’t dress up like Elsa because Elsa has white privilege but also don’t dress up like Moana because you aren’t Polynesian at all.
In other words…don’t dress up like a character that has any kind of ethnicity? So…if you’re a white kid, just don’t dress up like a human. Be an inanimate object. Go as a rock. Better yet, just stay home, you little cracker devils. Your ancestors got all the candy for far too long and it’s time you took a breather.
You know I’ll meet the SJWs half-way and realize that yeah, when there are tons of other costumes out there, a costume that calls for a white kid to change ethnicity isn’t the greatest.
Then again, if a white girl just wants to wear the Moana dress, isn’t she just idolizing Moana? Isn’t a little white girl so in awe of a non-white person that she wants to emulate and be just like her hero? That non-white people can be role models for white people to look up to and be like, isn’t more of that what we want?
Plus, if they harangue the costume companies enough, won’t they discontinue the costume? And then what will all the Polynesian girls who want to dress like Moana wear?
Do I think kids should be changing their skin color to become another ethnicity for a Halloween costume? No. Is it ok if a white kid wears a costume worn by a non-white character? I mean, I can listen to why you might find that offensive, but I’d counter that if you are white and feel this strongly, then run to your closet immediately and throw away your kimono and your Hawaiian shirt.
Shit. I’m not Hawaiian and my goal in life is to move to a tropical environment and wear nothing but a vast array of brightly colored Hawaiian shirts with parrots and palm trees on them. Oh well. #WorseThanHitler
Cultural appropriation. It’s when you venture outside of your culture. Yup. We used to be segregated. Whites stayed on their part of town, blacks on theirs, different ethnicities to their own. Then the SJWS of the 1960s called on us to become the melting pot. Everyone mix and mingle. Date outside your race. Get ideas from other cultures. If culture X has good food, eat it. If culture Y has good booze, drink it. If culture Z has good music, listen to it. If culture A has cool clothes, wear them.
Ironically, today’s SJWs, though I don’t think they realize it, are returning us to segregation. Everyone stick to your own culture and never let your cultures mingle with other cultures lest you offend.
With all that being said, here is my handy list of what your kid SHOULD NOT be wearing this Halloween season, lest they offend someone, somewhere:
Smurf – No. Offensive to short people with oxygen flow problems that make their faces blue.
Devil – Offensive to Satanists.
Witch – Offensive to Wiccans.
Batman – Offensive to Bats and/or grown men still grieving over the loss of their parents.
Superman – Offensive to intergalactic travelers. You may only wear this costume if the lack of a red sun gives you super powers.
Wonder Woman – Are you an Amazon? No? Stop being worse than Hitler.
Spooky Ghost – Offensive to spirits who are trapped here and unable to move on.
Zombie – Offensive to dead people. Many kids have dead Grandmas who have been in the ground a few years and look like zombies. Stop offending kids with dead Grandmas.
Cat – Only if you are a cat.
Pirate – Offensive to 17th Century sea-dwelling criminals.
The Little Mermaid – Offensive to mermaids.
Mickey Mouse – Only if you are a mouse that walks like a man.
Donald Duck – Offensive to pantsless ducks with anger management issues everywhere.
Goofy – Only if you are a dog that walks like a man.
Nerd – offensive to smart people.
Caveman – Offensive to those with evolutionary issues.
Mike Myers – Offensive to escaped mental patients who want to kill their sisters or Canadian comedians who had a good run in the 1990s, depending on which version you go with.
Hippy – Offensive to 1960s protesters. Only wear if you were at Woodstock. Must carry photographic proof of you at Woodstock.
Bunny – Offensive to anyone with big ears.
Sexy nurse – Offensive to people who actually put the time in to get a nursing degree.
Iron Man – Offensive to billionaires turned super heroes.
Spiderman – Offensive to nerds who have been bitten by radioactive spiders.
The Incredible Hulk – Offensive to people with anger management issues.
Nun – Offensive to Catholics.
Shaggy from Scooby Doo – Offensive to drug addicts.
Belle – Offensive to French women.
Beast – Offensive to hairy French men.
Wolverine – offensive to people who have had a complex surgery to have their bones replaced with super strong steel.
Catwoman – Offensive to cats and catwomen.
That Costume Where One Friend is the Front of the Horse and the Other Friend is the Back – Offensive to horses everywhere
That Costume Where the Husband Wheres the Plug and the Wife Wears the Slot – Assumes that sex is the only benefit of marriage. Very offensive. Also offends people who use electricity.
Count Dracula – Promulgates the stereotype that all Romanians want to suck your blood. Recent studies indicate 99.999 percent do not.
Frankenstein – Offensive to people who are comprised of body parts taken from other dead bodies.
The Mummy – Offensive to Egyptians.
The Wolfman – Offensive to hairy people.
Clown – Let me see your Child Party Entertainer’s license buddy.
Flapper – Were you alive in the 1920s? Only Great Grandma can wear this shit.
Ancient Knight – I’m going to have to see the Queen do that thing where she touches your shoulders with the sword.
Harry Potter – I need to see your Hogwart’s diploma. Otherwise, offensive to actual wizards who worked hard to earn their wands.
Hobo – Do you want to make rail yard dwellers cry?
CONCLUSIONS:
People, really, there’s no costume you could possibly wear that will not offend anyone. I mean, you could go as a rock, but I’m telling you, you are just begging for a geologist to come up and give you a piece of his mind.
So just stay home, wear clothing consistent with those of your ancestors and only YOUR ancestors, and watch TV and eat candy that you buy and pay for yourself. Thank you.
Bookshelf Battle 