Another Look: Trump, Guns, And the Double Standard Hypocrisy

Remember in the last post when I said that these things are going to happen again?  Well, looks like I was right.  This post links back directly to the last post I did about Biden wanting to infringe on both the 2nd and 4th Amendments.  I'll link that post just here:

My First Post on Biden

After writing, and posting, the thoughts from the link above I came across another article.  This article shows the hypocrisy and double standard amongst the Left-Wing Liberals.  The Liberal Extremists are all about gun control.  They want to make it harder for law-abiding citizens to purchase guns, to ban certain firearms, and to make it illegal to have guns in more and more places.  If you read the previous article, link above, than you know that Biden was pressuring the Supreme Court to have the police come into people's homes and take firearms without a warrant for "safety" reasons.  Now to the new article:

Original News Article

This article is talking about how while President Trump tried to ban bump stocks, that turn rifles into essentially machine guns after a mass shootings.  Owning machine guns was already illegal, and Trump was trying to make it illegal to own a device that turns a legal firearm into an illegal machine gun.

The original articles says:

"The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals placed a hold on a federal ban on bump stocks on Thursday, ruling that the Trump-era regulation may be unconstitutional.

A panel of judges on the Sixth Circuit decided 2-1 that former President Donald Trump’s administration likely violated the Constitution when it banned bump stocks in February 2018. Trump issued an executive order banning “all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns” following a mass shooting in Las Vegas."

and:

"In response to Trump’s executive order, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) reinterpreted federal law that generally bans public ownership of machine guns. A machine gun under federal law is defined as any weapon that can automatically fire more than one shot per single pull of the trigger."

 

What we see here in this article is a double standard when it comes to Democratic Politicians and Republican.  Three years the Courts are now deciding that President Trump, in an effort to actually do something useful towards gun control, was infringing on Americans 2nd Amendment  rights by trying to ban bump stocks.  Yet, Democrats who are all about even harsher gun control laws, that truly do stomp all over our Constitution.  Biden not only doesn't care about the 2nd Amendment or the 4th, because he doesn't really think the police should need a warrant to come into your homes if you legally own guns.

Yet, we don't hear anything about President Trump wanting to ban bump stocks, and to make sure legal firearms can't become illegal firearms.  Why is it that all you were when it comes to Trump and guns all you hear is that he is fighting against the Liberal gun control agenda because its a Constitutional right.  We don't hear about these things from mainstream media.  All we hear about is that Democrats want more gun control and Republicans just want guns.  Come on people.  Let's look at all the facts before making decisions on what is going on in the world.  This certainly gives you something to think about.

Till Next Time, 

Words by Ali

What's Happening: Biden Wants To Step All Over the Constitution?

 You know it's interesting that I've never really been interested in Politics before.  Never really cared to watch the news, read about what is happening in the government, or really what was going on outside of my own world.  That is until recently.  With everything that has happened in this past year: from Covid-19 hitting the world, the U.S. Elections, and now everything that has been happening in this country since Biden took office, I've found myself learning more and more about what is actually happening.  Funnily enough it took the shit hitting the fan for me to actively want to be in the know.

The issue I will be talking about in this post comes from the article below.  Go ahead and head over to the original article and give it a read before coming back to find out my thoughts, and opinions, on the subject.

Original Article Here

In case you chose not to read the article, here's the main points.  Back in 2015, in Texas, the police seized a man's guns after he was made to go under a psychiatric hold when the man's wife believed he may be suicidal.  The thing about this was that the police had no warrant to search his home, and seize his firearms.  Let's look at a quick quote:

"Forbes noted that the Biden administration urged the Supreme Court to side with the police, saying “the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness,’” and that official warrants should not be “presumptively required when a government official’s action is objectively grounded in a non-investigatory public interest, such as health or safety.”

Even leftist Justice Sonia Sotomayor appeared to take issue with what happened, noting, “there was no immediate danger to the person threatening suicide and no immediate danger to the wife because the suicide person [sic] was removed to a hospital.”

Sotomayor said that she did not have a problem with the man being forced to undergo a psychiatric evaluation and noted that the issue was police “going into the home without attempt to secure consent from the wife and seizing the gun and then keeping it indefinitely until a lawsuit is filed.”"

What Biden is is pressing the Supreme Court to do is not only wrong, but a literal violation of you 4th Amendment rights.  Do you know what your 4th Amendment rights are?  Let me inform those who aren't aware, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."  This means that the police are not legally allowed to enter an American's home, without a warrant, and seize their property.  This still means guns.

Biden wants police officers to be able to, under the idea of public health and safety, to be able to go into an American's home and take their firearms.  The fact that the President of the United States wants to infringe on not just one, but two, of our Constitution Rights is more than just disturbing.  This man is supposed be upholding the Constitution and protecting the rights of the American people, and this is anything but that.

The funny thing is I'm not really a gun person.  I don't own any.  However, that being said if that I 100% behind Americans lawfully owning firearms if that is their choice.  The thing that people don't realize about this kind of Constitutional infringement is that once they attack one they will come after another, and another until there aren't any left.  Just look at this article, in the name of gun control President Biden wants to infringe on both the 2nd and the 4th Amendment.

Well, that's it for now.  Honestly, I could probably go on and on about how much this kind of Political Power BS pisses me off.  But we will save that for another day, and another article.  Because clearly the way that everything is going we will most definitely will see more of this kind of thing happening.  You just wait.

Till Next Time,

Words by Ali

Cancel Watch: Cinderella at the Theater

AND IT CONTINUES...

I read an article this past week about a theater in Minnesota that canceled there production of Cinderella because they decided that there were just too many white people in the cast.  Ummmm...OK.  First here is the link to the article itself, if you want to check it out before getting into my thoughts.

Original Article Here

Let me explain explain what it is about the content of this article that is more than a little bit worrying.  The article says:

“Our hope in beginning the production process again with a new title will allow us to put into practice an intentional process based on the work we have been doing towards equity and inclusivity.” 

In the same statement, the theater announced that it will invite and pay for a [black, indigenous, or person of color] to analyze the makeup of the cast and how to make the show adequately “anti-racist.” 

“We believe this new process will allow us to tell the story in a rich way and allow us to live out our commitment to identity-conscious casting and becoming a more intentionally anti-racist theater,” the statement reads.  

Now let me start by saying that as a whole the idea of excluding people simply for the color of their skin, or because of the country they were born in, is absolutely wrong.  We as human beings should not be either excluding or including people for no other reason than the color of one's skin.  It's wrong, 100%.  The problem is, is that while everyone agrees that it's wrong to exclude people for their skin there's a lot of people who don't seem to understand that the opposite is also true.

What do I mean by this?  Choosing someone for no other reason than the color of their skin is just as wrong as excluding someone.  Unfortunately, that appears to be what the world has come to.  This is because in the act of including someone based on the color of their skin you are also actively excluding someone by the color of their skin.  "We are only going to choose someone who is A, which means we are excluding someone who is B."

This Theater in an attempt to have a "commitment to identity-conscious casting" and to be "intentionally anti-racist" they are saying they are going to be consciously  including and excluding cast members for the primary reason of their skin color.  I believe that people should be chosen for things because they are the best person for the job.  Whether that is physically, mentally, they are the most experienced or capable.  Ethnicity should not play a factor in anyone's decisions to choose someone for anything.  That should never be a factor.  

So, how about this theater make a statement saying they will be choosing the best actor to play a role no matter their race, religion, or sexuality.  Isn't that what inclusion is?  Why does our society say that it is wrong for someone to exclude people because they are black, but it's perfectly fine to exclude someone because they are white?  That really doesn't make sense to me, because we are constantly being told that it is wrong (it's racist, hateful, and disgusting) to exclude people because of the color of their skin.  Unless that person is white.  In today's climate it's perfectly acceptable to exclude people for being white, and that's not racist at all.

We are living in strange and crazy times.  Stayed tuned for more in the Cancel Watch series.  Let's see who the Mob wants to Cancel next.

Till Next Time,

Words by Ali

Cancel Watch: Disney

 It seems like every other day something new is being Canceled.  In this new series we will be looking at some of the things, and people, that have been arbitrarily canceled that past week.  Let's see what this week the Internet has decided has something wrong with it.  Since this is the first week of this series let’s go back a week or so and talk a little bit about Disney.  

Disney+ 

While Disney+ didn’t actually ban, or remove, these movies completely they removed several beloved classics from children’s pages and put a warning label on them.  These labels say that they acknowledge that there is offensive material in these movies and that their parents need to decide to let their children watch.

Peter Pan

Disney decide that this beloved classic was not only offensive but as not acceptable for children to choose to watch without their parents permission.  A movie that is literally rated "G" and acceptable for anyone and everyone.  So, basically Disney (and the Woke Mob) have took it upon themselves to decide that Motion Picture ratings no longer mean anything and they know what’s best for you and your children.  

The issue they have with Peter Pan are the scenes that showcase the Native American tribe, and characters.  They will tell you that these depictions are offensive and discriminatory towards Native Americans.  

While I don’t think that it would be acceptable today to show these depictions in new movies, because standards change and time goes on.  However, this movie was made in the 50’s and the standard was different.  This does not excuse actual racism, but I truly don’t believe this is what is happening here.  First, when I say actual racism I mean “the belief that groups of humans posses different behavioral traits...based on the superiority of one race over another.”  Superiority, hatred, mocking.  These are all words that reflect a racist thought or action.

I don’t think Peter Pan is actually being racist because I don’t think the way Native Americans are portrayed have anything to do with superiority or mockery.  If you really think about it, Neverland is especially a little boy’s imagination and play land.  When a child plays imaginary games they think in the most general and overstated views of what they are playing.  Whether that is pirates or cowboys and Indians.  Which is exactly what we see with Neverland and the characters that the Lost Boys interact with.  I think that the portrayal of the Native Americans in this movie was the representation of a little boys imaginary game, and not racism.  But try convincing the Woke Mob of anything. 

Fantasia

This movie is all about music, and the beautiful images and pictures that can be seen and made real through music.  The Mob will tell you that there is a point in the movie were you see a group of Centaurs paid off male and female by colors and this is supposedly both racist and homophobic.  Again this was the 50's.  Plus, as it pertains to the colors, Fantasia is all about the way images relate to music and colors coming together in a symmetrical way is exactly the point, and has nothing to do with racism.  At least in my opinion.  Not everything is racist just because someone on the internet says so.

What's Next?

What will be the next movie that Disney decides isn't "acceptable" for children.  Will someone soon be saying that Winnie the Pooh is sexist because the only female is Kanga, who is a mother?  If that happens I would say that these characters are those of a little boy who is more likely to be friends with other boys.  It's not sexism just realism.  What about Pocahontas?  Will that be demeaned racist because of its depiction of Native Americans, like Peter Pan?  Or the fact that it’s not an accurate look at Pocahontas’ life? What about Sleeping Beauty?  You know she didn’t consent to that kiss that woke her up.  And have you read the original Grimm Fairytale it’s based on?  She got way more from the Prince than just a little kiss, if you know what I mean.

I guess the real question is, “Where will this actually end?”

Till Next Time,

Words by Ali

Is Stockholm Syndrome Supposed to be Sexy?

So, I finally read the first book in the A Court of Thorns and Roses series by Sarah J Maas.  The first book is titled the same as the series itself.  If you just look at the title of this post you are probably thinking that I didn't really like the series, but that would not be the case.  Read my previous post about Cancel Culture for my thoughts on the importance of context.  I think that Maas is an excellent writer.  She creates amazing and fantastical worlds; with magic, faeries, and she creates these worlds in such a way that you can visualize them in your mind.  I give this books as a whole a 7/10, and since I've only read the first one I can't speak for the series as a whole.  That being said it's definitely worth a read.  Especially, if you like fantasy.

***Spoilers Ahead***A Court of Thorns and Roses and Throne of Glass***

The Problem

Than what is it I had a problem with?  As the title itself says, it was with the romantic relationship between our two main characters, Feyre and Tamlin.  The author has made mention that their relationship is supposed to be reminiscent of Beauty and the Beast, with Faerie Tamlin as the Beast.  While I haven't read the rest of the series yet, I do know who Feyre ends up with and it's not the relationship from the first book.  Which makes me feel a little bit better going into this, because I have too many objections to their relationship to ship the two of them together.  It's also one of the reason I don't like a certain main ship from Throne of Glass which I will speak on later.

So, at the beginning of the novel Feyre is hunting a deer to feed her family.  The deer is being chased by a wolf, and in an attempt to get the deer for herself she kills the wolf.  Now Feyre does contemplate whether or not the wolf is actually one of the Fae, but ultimately she has no one of knowing and she kills the wolf.  She is even told later when selling the wolf's pelt that it was just a regular wolf.  That of course isn't actually the case, and it turns out that she did kill one of the Fae.  Which leads our Beast, Tamlin to show up at the door of her family's hovel.  Being completely clueless of this fact, she is made aware that the price for a human killing one of the Fae is death.  

Essentially, Tamlin bursts into her family's home looking for his friend's killer.  When she willingly chooses to go to her fate to protect her father and two older sisters, Tamlin offers her a choice.  She can either live for the rest of her life in Faerie with him, never to see her family again, or to be eviscerated on her front steps (his words not mine).  No, no issue there at all.  This dude literally breaks into her home telling her that she is going to be killed, unless she comes to live with him.  Riiiiiiight, I'd totally fall in love with that guy.  Is that really what we find to be attractive in a guy these days?

And that's not even taking into account the the supposed "Life for a Life" Rule wasn't even true.  It was a lie crafted by Tamlin to get Feyre to Faerie because she may be the only one who can break the curse befalling his entire Court.  Just the fact that he sent his friend out into those woods in the literal attempt that he will be killed by a mortal girl.  There's also nothing wrong with that either, right?

Can't Hate Him

Having said all of that above, I also can't hate Tamlin as a character.  In this first book Tamlin's character is very complex.  There are a lot of layers to him, ultimately leading him to the love and responsibility he has for the members of his Court, and then for Feyre as he begins to fall in love with her.  While he does some pretty messed up things in an attempt to free his people from the curse (including setting up the death of a friend, and abducting and manipulating a mortal girl) in the end he does them for the right reasons.  He comes to love Feyre so much that he is willing to give her up, and sacrifice his people, to protect her.  Despite that I'm aware that in coming books he does some very selfish things in regards to Feyre, and it is ultimately why she chooses someone else.  But I don't want to spoil the fun too much for myself with the plot so I won't read into it further unil I get to those books.

I still think he is a great character, and despite some majorly stupid decisions I think he deserves to find that someone who is going to love him.  That someone who he is going to be able to love in a purely unselfish way, and we all know that that person is clearly not Feyre.  Usually, I am always on the Team of the first love, but in this case I'm so glad that she does end up with someone else.  This is the case of my feelings with Throne of Glass.  I loved Chaol and Celaena together, and while in the latter books I can see why her and Rowan work together as a couple I don't approve of their beginnings like with Feyre and Tamlin. 

Throne of Glass

A lot of the issues I had with the beginning of Feyre and Tamlin's relationship are very much the same as why I do not like Aelin and Rowan as a couple.  Even though I do love Yrene, I still secretly wish that Celaena and Chaol had ended up together.  Why don't I ship Aelin(Celaena) and Rowan?  Because of the way he treated her when they first met.

So, real quick what was it that I didn't like about Rowan when Aelin first met him?  First, the first book in the series is one of my favorites.  The series as a whole I give a solid 8/10, and the book I give a 9.5/10.  Now back to Rowan.  The way that he treats Aelin when they first meet, and he is training her, is actually pretty disgusting.  He both mentally and physically abuses her because he thinks she is some useless pampered would be Queen that he wants to have nothing to do with.  He only feels bad about the way he's treated her, and apologizes, after he sees the scars on her back from her time in prison.  So, if she hadn't of gone through what she did in the prison would he have ever taken any sort of interest in her?  I guess we will never know.

Thanks for taking the time to read all of my thoughts on these two ships, but mostly Feyre and Tamlin.  Alright,

Till Next Time,

Words by ali

Will Cancel Culture Ruin the World?

The world that we live in today has reached a level of madness, when it come to Cancel Culture, that is unrivaled.  We are seeing people, books, music, movies, and beloved cartoons (characters) being cancelled for things that are both trivial and insignificant when placed next to the real issues that are going on in the country and round the world that are being ignored for Cancel Culture's next victim.  

To think that our society, and Cancel Culture, are more offended by children's books and cartoons created in the 50's than the violence, drugs, sex and murder that permeate every aspect of the society that we currently live in is absolutely ridiculous.  We are seeing people being cancelled, and loosing their jobs, for things they said a decade before, or thoughts and opinions being taken out of context.  That's the real problem isn't it?  Context.

How is context a problem?  That's because anything, literally anything, seen out of context can be looked at in a way that is unbecoming, angry, or hateful.  Let me give you an example:

                    - I hate TV.  These days it seems like all television programs are either unoriginal, 

and show the same things, or are boring and not entertaining.  

I mean how may medical or cop shows do we need.  That's not to say

that there aren't well written, fun, funny, and amazing shows out there.  It's

just harder to find them among all of the unimaginative drivel.

Now what if someone only showed...

- I hate TV.  It's unimaginative drivel.

 Now if someone were to quote me as saying only the second option you would think that I don't watch TV, and that I think that I hate everything that's currently on.  That of course couldn't be further from the truth.  There are some truly amazing shows currently on air, or previously on air.  But my thought on TV taken out of the context of my full opinion gives people the wrong impression of my thoughts on the subject.  Really any statement that is an opinion will always have missing context.  That's because there will never be 100% agreement on anything.  And that is a fact.

Well, that's it for this post.  Stay tuned for future posts where I share my thoughts and opinions on things that are going on in the country, or world.  You may not always agree with what I have to say.  Your comments are still welcome, because I don't understand why people these days can't have differing opinions and still have a respectful, honest, and intelligent conversation.  Getting offended just because you disagree is really just silly.

Till Next Time,

Ali 

How Does a Good Book Get Turned Into a Bad Movie?

This seems to be a common thing these days. Mostly with teen novels. Hollywood is trying to find the next big thing with the young adult aduience, but that can't seem to do it right. Personally, I think if the novel is really good then the movie should be just as good right? Obviously, something gets screwed up in translation, and the movie people can't seem to get it right.

Of course sometimes just because the mass public doesn't like a movie doesn't mean wasn't actually a good movie. Sometimes its public opinion that gets things wrong. But I digress.

The book/movie that I'm thinking of is Vampire Academy. The first book, of the same name, by Richelle Mead was more than just good. The story was enteraining, the writing was well done and engaging. And the characters were well rounded and likable when meant to be, and unlikable when also meant to be.

The movie, on the other hand, while mildly entertaining is not something I would recommend to others. While the plot doesn't for the most part follow that of the novel I feel that those making the movie were trying way too hard to make another Twilight and fell flat. Although, my low opinion of the Twilight Saga is a whole other story, and a matter for another day. The movie was riddled with jokes that more often than not didn't hit their marks. Both the fight scenes and the romance were more cheesy than realistic, and I found the way that the movie portrays Dhampir, Rose, as able to see into her best friend Vampire, Lissa's, head as awkward at best. They also employ voice overs way to often in the movie to give the complicated backstory. In the movie these voice overs and some long winded dialogue is more than a little info dumpy. But in the book this complicated history works very well to build the world of The Vampire Academy, but doesn't come across the screen the same way.

I will say despite the way that the overall movie turned out that they did an amazing job casting. The young group of actors in the movie were above average in a less than average movie. Although, it seems that the good talent was wasted on this attempt of a movie, a shame. This movie, after reading a great book, could have been amazing but the attempt failed.

I did say that I found the movie mildly entertaining, and think that is because I enjoyed the novel so much. For fans of the novels I think the movie will be better than those who are going into it cold.

Hollywood you need to work hard to make better movies out of these amazing books that we have out here.

TNT,
Words by Ali




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad