Category: In the News

0 When Everything is “Problematic”

May 10, 2018
by Arianna
· Culture · In the News

The internet is awash with articles dubbing parts of the culture “problematic.” Whether it be films, songs, memes, words, or phrases; when it’s considered “problematic” it typically means that the author feels that there is some hidden or implied discrimination in it that is likely not immediately obvious to most people. When highlighting “problematic” things, the authors’ message is frequently to stop supporting or using whatever the thing is.

For films or tv shows, much of the criticism that brings out the word “problematic” comes from an expectation that all entertainment should be a reflection of the critic’s ideal society. This typically involves proportionate representation of minorities (at minimum) and messaging around the empowerment of underrepresented groups. While you can make good movies that fit these requirements, there are many that inherently will not and that should be okay. In an article titled “As A Black Woman, Everything I Love Is Problematic,” one writer discusses her internal struggle when she finds herself liking movies or tv shows that do not advance her ideal society. For example, she confesses a love of period pieces such as Poirot and Downton Abbey but laments that they are beautiful shows that can glorify some of the negative aspects of Western/European history, depicting rich, attractive people who are successful often just by dint of birth and who take advantage of less fortunate people, treating them poorly. Her feelings of guilt in liking these shows indicates that she feels that by watching and even enjoying them, she is somehow supporting the structure of society in those times and supporting the behavior of the characters.

This way of thinking puts a lot of pressure on the viewer to only watch things that reflect their own views or experience back to them. While I understand the desire to see your culture represented in film or tv, the pressure that this has created to only support diverse projects does not appear to be beneficial. To look at a period piece that accurately represents a time period and feel you shouldn’t like it for that reason indicates a problem with your feelings and not the piece. You absolutely can watch it and feel distaste for any of their bad behavior, even while appreciating the beautiful clothes and hair and architecture, because history is complex and very few things are all bad or all good.

When it comes to “problematic” words or phrases, articles typically focus on those that have racist or otherwise derogatory origins that most current users would not be aware of. While it can be worthwhile to explore the origins of the words that we use, savory or otherwise, I think it’s unnecessary to try to scrub out any words from our vocabulary that may have been used in a negative context at some point by someone many, many years ago. An example from the linked article is the phrase “No can do.” In our everyday lives, this is a simple, efficient way to let someone know we’re unable to do something. However, this phrase gained popularity in Western culture while making fun of Chinese immigrants’ broken English. After learning the negative origin of this phrase, we can stop using it – as the author suggests – because we oppose any mean-spirited taunting of immigrants doing their best to learn and communicate in our language, but what are we really accomplishing by doing that? This may make you feel more righteous as you act on your newfound knowledge, but that really only affects you.

If your goal is to improve society’s treatment of immigrants, then it makes more sense to worry about any wrongs that are being done to them now, not hundreds of years ago. When there are real problems that we can address together, why create problems in situations where there are none? This is where social justice warriors tend to lose an engaged audience that extends outside of other social justice warriors. I believe the grand majority of people in the United States want to combat bigotry and discrimination. The problem with social justice warriors’ approach is that so much of the messaging is focused on small things that may offend a minority group rather than combating barriers to success for minority groups. With this, the movement loses focus and the ability to create any real change. If everything is “problematic,” how do we identify and solve real problems?

0 Let’s Judge Movies by their Content, not Skin Color

March 28, 2018
by Connie Morgan
· Culture · In the News · Reviews · Thought Box

Insisting a certain group of people receive awards just so that group of people gets awards is one of the stupidest ideas Americans have right now. I touched on this in a piece I wrote in 2016 when the “Oscars So White” hashtag was gaining steam, but I now think the topic deserves more attention.

Before I go on I’d like to share some stats you may not know. Black people make up 12% of the population. So you might expect them to make up 12% of actors and 12% of Oscar winners. This means you would expect a black person to win one of the four Oscars for acting every 8.3 people. So presumably, two Oscar shows could go by without a single black person winning an acting award and it wouldn’t be anything to worry about. Since two black people won last year, statistically, you wouldn’t expect another black person to win until four or five Oscars from now given the population of America, all other things equal.

I enjoy seeing minorities and women succeed but the obsession with representation for representation’s sake depresses me. The demand for affirmative action in Hollywood or “inclusion riders” as Frances McDormand called for delegitimizes any actual success had by minorities or women. Now I’m going to wonder if I got the award because I’m good at what I do or because I’m a black female. Whatever happened to judging things by their merit alone? The number of blacks or gays or women in a film should have little to do with the grading of said film. Alas, criticism is now linked directly to diversity quotas, not actual talent.

Representation for Representation’s Sake
I feel like a broken record but Martin Luther King said it best, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” And that’s really all we can ask for, but instead, what is being asked is that a certain quota of demographics be met when casting a movie, writing a paper or producing any sort of art.

Earlier this month, Huffington Post editor Chloe Angyal bragged about meeting gender and racial quotas in the opinion page. My question is, so what? Are the opinion columns any good? Are they informative? Do they express a wide variety of opinions so readers can better understand the world around them? Of course she doesn’t mention quality, all that matters is the skin color and gender of those writing. Pretty racist I’d say.

Lately there has been a steady stream of movies directed by and starring black people that have received the highest honors and praises. I’m talking Moonlight, Get Out and Black Panther. While art is subjective I have seen all these movies and none of them have struck me as extraordinary. Before you freak out, let me tell you why.

Moonlight
This movie has an exclusively black cast and was written and directed by a black man. In 2017 Moonlight won Best Adapted Screenplay, Mahershala Ali won Best Supporting Actor and it won Best Picture over La La Land, Hacksaw Ridge and Arrival.

Moonlight is beautifully shot, and the acting is good. But the story itself, the meat of the movie, is empty. It’s 110 minutes when it could’ve been 30. If I were writing the description for the back of this movie it would say, “Kid in the inner city grows up with no father and a drug addicted mother to become a drug dealer himself. He’s also gay.” Read that description and you don’t need to watch the movie. We all know this story. The lead role being gay adds a wrinkle but it really doesn’t change the story much. You could replace the word gay with awkward, dorky or any other trait kids like to pick on and get the same movie. I am not trying to make little of what it’s like to be a gay black kid but I know of kids who took similar bullying for seemingly no reason at all. Bullies gonna bully, that’s just the way it is. There is no plot twist, the main character doesn’t overcome anything, you don’t finish the movie with a changed perspective on anything.

Moonlight is a nice movie aesthetically but is it spectacular? Absolutely not.

Get Out
I really like this movie. I was on the edge of my seat, I squirmed a bit, I yelled “Noooo!” It made me feel the things horror movies are supposed to make you feel. But it wasn’t unique. Jordan Peele is a smart guy but Get Out is just Stepford Wives but with black people instead of women. It’s not an exact copy but it’s very similar. And I’m fine with that, it’s ok to take good ideas and tweak them into even better ideas but let’s not pretend Jordan Peele rocked the world with this crazy new idea. I need not write about all the similarities between Get Out and Stepford Wives because other people have done it for me.

Get Out is a good movie, but it’s not a unique new idea.

Black Panther
Like the two movies above, this one is well done aesthetically and the acting is good but it’s not a unique story. My brother wrote about this in a comparison of Black Panther to Thor: Ragnarok. Furthermore, Black Panther is the battle between Martin Luther King and Malcolm X with T’Challa as MLK and Killmonger as Malcolm. This is the same battle of ideas the entire X-Men series is built around with Professor X as MLK and Magneto as Malcolm. There is no depth to the Black Panther plot, (spoiler alert) you know he will come back when he falls off the cliff, you know he will beat Killmonger in their final battle. Towards the end of the movie when T’Challa’s general was losing I whispered to my boyfriend, “here comes the Ape King with his people” and sure enough, they showed up and saved the day. Again, it’s a story that’s been told a million times and just because it’s with an all black cast this time it’s not better.

I was particularly blown away by people claiming Black Panther changed their life or made them proud to be black for once, or after watching it, now they know what they can achieve. This type of thinking is silly for so many reasons.

First of all, if you need to watch a pretend movie to feel proud of who you are I would suggest you have some psychological issues you should probably address. What someone else does, even if they look exactly like you has nothing to do with how you should feel about yourself. If you do need a little outside inspiration, I can point you in the direction of hundreds of papers and books about black people who have been doing awesome shit as far back as time has been recorded. And I mean real stuff. Not pretending to be a superhero.

But let us think critically about what black people are so proud of when it comes to Black Panther, Wakanda (the made up country in the movie) specifically. The people of Wakanda have great power by chance alone. A meteorite happened to hit their country and bring a magical metal that can literally do anything including power stuff, make armor and bring people back to life. Black people in the movie didn’t invent it, they didn’t earn it, they didn’t even win a war to get it. Pure chance. Is that something to really be proud of? Of course they live in a fantastic utopia. Any group of people would be if they had that magical element. And honestly, for having magic powers they really aren’t that far ahead of the rest of the world technology wise.

Furthermore, Wakanda is isolationist, they have strong borders, they don’t trade with anyone, (which would never create more prosperity in the real world, just ask Japan) they place high value on tradition, they have a huge, well trained army and they’re extremely spiritual…Does any of this sound familiar? According to how black people have voted in America for the past 50 years, they aren’t too keen on that philosophy, yet when it’s Wakanda it’s wonderful? I’m a little confused. No one’s bothered that Wakanda isn’t a democracy? The people don’t elect their leader and the only way the leader changes is if you can beat him in a fight? That seems pretty unfair.

I actually don’t care about any of that stuff though. You know why? It’s a SUPERHERO MOVIE. I don’t attend to have my mind blown, I attend to watch stuff get blown up. I don’t want the heroes to die. I want a fun movie that has some cool effects, maybe some funny lines and I don’t mind if a couple people fall in love in the process. I wouldn’t politicize this movie except that everyone else chose to so I feel the need to respond.

None of these movies are bad but at the same time none of them are particularly unique. One thing they all touch on, the issue amongst the black community that I have been screaming about for a long time. Fathers. The importance of them, especially for men.

In Moonlight the kid yearns for a father figure so bad he finds a nice drug dealer to fill the void. Because this kid has no father he doesn’t know how to fight or stand up for himself. Even at the end of the movie he still doesn’t know who he is.

In Get Out the main character doesn’t have a father and the loss of his mother scars him forever. Additionally, his girlfriend and her brother are messed up because of the sickening way the were raised in a home lead by the father.

We all know Killmonger would have turned out very different had his father been a different man. Killmonger didn’t have the example of what manhood looks like and losing his father at a young age rocked his world. On the flip side we see the result of a father instilling values and principles in a boy starting at a young age with T’Challa. Notice that T’Challa doesn’t turn to his mother for advice on how to be a man.

Claiming America is racist when it comes to black actors is just pure nonsense. America loves watching black people on the big screen. You know what actor has made the most money at the box office? Samuel L. Jackson at $5.149 Billion. Morgan Freeman is 4th on the list, Eddie Murphy is 7th, and Will Smith is 19th. 20% of the top 20 highest all time box office earners are black guys. An overrepresentation compared to the black population. When it comes to stand alone action/adventure movies (so not movies like Suicide Squad, Star Wars, Saw etc) three out of the top five grossing ones star black leads. Number one being American Sniper, followed by Independence Day (starring Will Smith), Get Out (starring Daniel Kuluuya), Twister, and Beverly Hills Cop (starring Eddie Murphy). If you don’t count Independence Day because they just made a sequel no big deal, that would move Hancock (starring Will Smith) into the 5th spot.

Most Americans don’t care who is entertaining them, they just want to be entertained. Black Panther was fun, Get Out was scary and Moonlight was nice to look at, but none of them were groundbreaking. Replace the black people with white people (or women in the case of Get Out) and see what I mean.

0 Do We Elect a Conscience or Commander?

March 14, 2018
by Dylan Morgan
· In the News

The emotional reaction to Donald Trump’s election to the presidency illustrates the overextension of the federal government. By overextension I’m not only referring to the power the federal government has exercised over the states, but, similar to the election of Barack Obama, Trump’s election has a far-reaching cultural impact.

Candidate Trump was often criticized for his multiple affairs, his “locker room” talk, and the multiple claims of sexual abuse against him. In a normal election, such acts and accusations would have disqualified a candidate, but Trump remarkably managed to remain unscathed. This was largely due to polarization created by the media between the left and the “deplorables”. But, is it the media’s fault for using material which would give them more viewers? After all, that is how they generate revenue.

In any system where the people get a vote, it is up to the people to determine the market. Had people not been as interested in the Trump show, we wouldn’t have seen him 24/7 on every news and entertainment channel. Unfortunately, it seems we would rather the man determine the market rather than the market the man. This enables a cultural as opposed to a political leader which is what the president is supposed to be.

If we are to take our cultural cues from a leader, our leader then must be infallible. This is what generates the extreme resentment of Trump in this role by those on the left and the anti-Trump right. They claim Trump’s actions are not normal or he is not acting presidential. His incessant tweeting, his poorly articulated thoughts and ideas, his flirting with the alt-right; all, they claim, are degrading to the office. But what makes a person presidential or a presidency normal?

According to liberals and the media, the infallible president was Barack Obama. He was hailed for his “scandal free” presidency, his oratory skill, and the crease in his pants. The man looked like a president, he talked like a president, but was his presidency normal? Following the Obama administration’s cues, is it now okay to use bureaucratic entities to target citizens for their dissenting opinions as the IRS did? Can reporters be prosecuted for doing their jobs as was done to the AP and James Rosen? Should the Attorney General be the president’s wingman instead of the top law official in the land? When a person is deemed to be infallible, he must become more than man and, since no one is more than man, those who wish to maintain the image of infallibility -the media- do.

The president is not infallible nor was the presidency ever meant to be, which is why the system of checks and balances was put into place. The president is not a cultural leader but a representative of the culture who elected him. The problem is, President Trump was elected to be a cultural leader. Time and again, his most enthusiastic supporters point to his personality traits as the reason for their support: his aggressiveness, his bucking of “political correctness,” etc. True, there were supporters of his policies, as shallow as they were, but even his most ardent policy supporters are out of the White House and/or backing away from the administration.

Most public was the ousting of Steve Bannon, who returned to Breitbart to continue the Trump agenda he could no longer pursue in Trump’s White House. Sebastian Gorka is another former member of Trump’s counsel no longer in service but promoting “Trumpism” apart from the man himself. And Ann Coulter, who wrote “In Trump We Trust” and stated she would be fine if Trump “performed abortions in the White House” if he accomplished his immigration goals, now reports daily on the progress, or lack thereof, on the border wall.

Trump’s support is persistent, however. True, he has achieved some meaningful legislation and is reducing regulations, all of which garner conservative support, but his approval numbers were dismal throughout the process. When do we see spikes in Trump’s ratings? When leftist culture attempts to take him down. As Trump waffles between conservative policies and liberal pipe dreams one thing is constant: his joy of politically incorrect and often downright impolite behavior.

For people persecuted by leftists during the previous administration’s tenure this is a delight: Finally, someone not cowed by the threats of the media. Trump’s counter-offensive to the media has made them go out of their way to prove Trump wrong, and in doing so, they have only further discredited themselves. Because of this media bias, we see otherwise rational people coming to the defense of Trump.

For people affronted by both biased reporting and the character of the man at which it is directed, a distinction must be made: is defending Trump a defense of the man or the presidency? If Trump the man was accused of having an affair with porn stars and claiming President Obama was born in Kenya, you may be amused but you would go about your day knowing he was after all just a man and can have vices and foolish whims. President Trump, however, gets defense from all sides. Evangelicals go out of their way to defend not just his policies but the man himself. In response to the supposed infallibility of Obama, the right has conjured up their own infallible answer.

Both sides need to recognize the president should be held to a higher standard not elevated to one. However, it is also important to distinguish between the presidency and the individual currently holding the office. The president’s job is to execute legislation passed by congress, not teach you how to live. The more infallible you believe the president to be, the more the man in that role is able to control your life.

We cannot continue to elevate our elected officials to the standard we would like. If the president is to be a moral and cultural leader he not only needs to have perfect personal morals but he needs to be seen to demonstrate these morals as Conscience-in-Chief. If we want the president to push beneficial policies and protect our interests abroad, we need to remove the “man” out of the public sphere and focus on the actions of the presidency in the role as leader of the executive branch as Commander-in-Chief.

The assumption the country’s morals change based on who people voted into office is nonsensical. Morals are simply the standard of behavior you and society hold yourself to. You cannot elect someone to remove these personal standards; the president’s flaws do not become acceptable traits. If you believe the leader is the cultural standard-bearer, it would behoove the media to keep flawed character images from the public eye lest it destroy social standards altogether. The media holding this belief while promoting the president’s personal failings demonstrates the need for the distinction between man and office more than ever. Loyalty is not to the man but to the office upheld by the Constitution. If we are not to be ruled, we must keep this distinction or we will fall into the trap of idolatry.

No president throughout our history is deemed to be great simply by the fact he became president. There have been racists, adulterers, and eugenicists – each of which can be found in C-SPAN’s top ten ranked presidents. We do not hold the outcome of their presidency by these flaws in character and morality but instead by the actions they took for the country. Let’s not lose sight of the fact it’s policy that really affects us, not the late-night tweets of our current chief administrator.

4 Where We Really Need Feminism

March 5, 2018
by Connie Morgan
· Culture · In the News · Philosophy/Religion · Thought Box

I’m a feminist. But according to women leading the feminist movement I am the enemy. Do I believe that women should have equal opportunity? Yes. Do I think women deserve equal pay for equal work? Absolutely. Do I think women should be able to sleep with whomever they want whenever they want? As long as it’s consensual, yes. Do I think rape is horrible? I think rapists should be put to death. Yet, I would not be welcome at the Women’s March and other Feminist Organizations for many reasons. The third wave of feminism – the one that promotes pu**y hats, claims there’s an unfair gender gap, and teaches women that masculinity is inherently evil – doesn’t include me and, furthermore, I think it’s much more damaging to women than helpful. The sad thing is that the world does desperately needs feminism but not in the places feminists usually are marching. Below is a list of where feminists should be focusing their energies.

Where we should be fighting for basic privileges

Women hold powerful positions in America. We can wear whatever we want, buy whatever we want, marry whoever we want, and divorce whoever we want. This is not the case in many other parts of the world. Saudi Arabia recently announced it would lift its ban on women driving in June of this year. Women in Saudi Arabia are still expected to have a male “wali” – an official guardian, typically a father, brother, uncle or husband. In practice, women need their guardian’s consent for any major activity, including travelling, obtaining a passport, getting married or divorced, and signing contracts. They also can’t “wear clothes that show off their beauty,” interact with men, compete in sports, go swimming, or try on clothes.

There was a protest in Iran just last month because women are forced to wear hijabs. Women in Iran can also be banned from traveling or even going to work by their husbands.

Where we should be fighting for sexual freedom

Young girls in Mali and Somalia are still subject to genital mutilation. In Mali and Nepal child marriages are the norm. In Mali, one in 10 young women die in childbirth. 37% of girls in Nepal are married before 18. The rape of women in the Democratic Republic of Congo is so widespread that United Nation’s investigators called it “unprecedented.” Systemic rape is a huge problem in Pakistan and Sudan as well. Things are so bad for women in Afghanistan in terms of domestic abuse and forced marriages that women turning to suicide as an escape has become the norm.

Sex trafficking exists all over the world, including the United States. But compared to other countries, the United States is doing fine in this area. The following countries are the biggest violators of human rights via sex trafficking: Algeria, Libya, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Congo, Kuwait, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, North Korea, (but hey, Kim Jong Un’s sister is cool right?) Belarus, and Russia.

Where anti-domestic abuse efforts should be focused

In Guatemala domestic violence is abound. Honor killings still take place in Pakistan where they are so prevalent women are frequently executed for adultery. Honor killings are commonplace in India as well. Both countries have informal court systems which almost always side with men.

Where we should be concerned about “women to work” and education rights

In Afghanistan and the Central African Republic, only 24% of women can read, in Benin 27%, in Chad 14%, in Mali 22%, in Niger 11%, in South Sudan 16%. It’s no coincidence that many of the most violent-towards-women countries are the ones where women are least educated. In Afghanistan, Papua New Guinea, Haiti, Egypt, Pakistan and at least 15 other prominent countries, girls go to school at much lower rates than their male counter-parts. Usually because they are not allowed to or the risk of rape is too high if they do attend. 85% of women in Afghanistan receive no education. More than three-quarters of the world’s illiterate adults are found in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa; of all the illiterate adults in the world, almost two-thirds are women

Education obviously effects work opportunities. In every country with low female education rates you can expect work prospects to also be low for women. But to take it one step further, in 18 countries, married women cannot get a job without their husband’s permission: Bahrain, Bolivia, Cameroon, Chad, Congo, Gabon, Guinea, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Mauritania, Niger, Qatar, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates, West Bank and Gaza and Yemen.

What should alarm feminists about abortion and gender bias

Abortion is not an equal opportunity experience. By that I mean female fetuses are aborted at a much higher rate than male fetuses. Before we leave the womb, we’re already being discriminated against. Gender-based abortion happens in third world and first world countries alike due to cultural preferences and a desire to “keep the family name alive.” Official figures suggest as many as 4,700 females have disappeared from the latest national census records of England and Wales, raising fears that indicate the illegal practice of sex-selection abortion has become prevalent in the UK.

According to the United Nations Population Fund, around 117 million women are believed to be “missing” in Asia and Eastern Europe – the result of son preference and gender-biased sex selection, a form of discrimination. A problem since the 1990s, in some areas there are reports of up to a 25% difference between male and female births. These gender biases have been linked to increased human trafficking and domestic violence against women.

Writing this made me feel shameful. Shameful that I have done absolutely nothing to help these women around the world. Everything listed above is not commonplace in the United States. I live a pretty kush life. Are there issues for women in the United States? Of course. I have my gripes like everyone else. But they are small potatoes compared to the extremely dire situations for women around the world. Women in America march around in pus** hats whilst college educated, divorced and bruise free. Millions of women in other countries couldn’t even dream of doing such a thing. I mean literally if they told the wrong person they did dream of it there is a good chance they would receive some sort of very unpleasant punishment.

But where are all the Women’s Marchers? Not to say none of them are helping these poor women overseas, I’m sure some of them are, but a great deal of effort, money and time are put into feminist efforts here in the states. I can’t help but wonder what that kind of effort and media attention could accomplish in Nepal or Afghanistan or Cameroon.

Don’t ever accept an injustice just because it’s not as bad as it could be, but do think about how you can best utilize your resources, make the biggest changes and exploit your abilities. In feminism and in every facet of your life.

0 The Reality of the Conservative Debate

February 28, 2018
by Dylan Morgan
· In the News

Conservatives often get called out for their smugness, their seemingly holier than thou stances. They constantly ignore the feelings of others to give you facts often disguised by opinion. They call the mainstream media drive-bys, Rush calls liberals “low information voters”, and Ben Shapiro, well, just look at that guy; he was born staring down the doctor through his eyebrows.

The unfortunate appearance of smugness takes away from the reality of what conservatives believe. To be conservative is to be humble. By this I mean the acknowledgement that you nor anyone else has all the answers, and a group of people who have many of the answers still can’t create a system where all things are equal. This is why conservatives are for small government: they believe you are capable of managing your life and wish to let you do it.

Contrast this with leftists. Leftists believe that the federal government is the means to create equality of outcome, their utopian end goal. Leftists must have all the answers else they could not justify consolidating powers to a centralized government run by them. And make no mistake, leftist ideology demands you give up your freedoms. If you were free to choose, you may make a decision which leaves you better off than someone else which is antithetical to equality of outcome. To give up your freedom you must assume who you’re giving it to knows better than you. If a leftist is wrong, the entire ideology falls apart because who would give up their freedoms to someone who knows less than them? Therefore, they cannot allow for discourse with opposing opinions lest a fallacy emerge.

We see this on campuses where appearances by conservative speakers serve to provoke riots by students. Conservative speakers have been banned from speaking at private universities due to security concerns or forced to pay security fees on public universities. The next step is moving them off campus altogether. Leftist groups like Antifa emerged because anyone who disagreed with them must be a fascist and therefore could and must be kept from speaking. Leftists know they have all the answers and they want you to believe it too.

Their ideology does not allow for compromise between left and right because you cannot speak to someone who thinks differently from you because to think differently means to think wrongly. Even if discourse began, it would bear no fruit because a leftist could never admit to being wrong lest their ideology crumble. Meanwhile, a conservative would contend they are very likely wrong, much like everyone is likely wrong, so it is best to err on the side of freedom.

Keep this in mind when talking or listening to a conservative. They have come to the table acknowledging they do not have all the answers and only wish to afford you the opportunity to make and learn from your own mistakes rather than being forced to live by someone else’s.

0 Is It OK to Feel Shame?

February 21, 2018
by Dylan Morgan
· In the News

Shame is a tool. It comes in different forms, some more effective than others, but at the end of the day it is a social motivation to improve yourself. Like all motivational techniques it may work better for some than others, but we should not deny its use to others for the sake of our own peace of mind.

The social movement to demonize shaming is, like most movements, well intentioned. No individual should feel like they are ostracized from society and all people should be given the respect their humanity demands. However, there are occasions when being different from society or even a societal norm should not be viewed as acceptable. One such occasion is government assistance.

There is no shame in going through a hard time or in not having a job that pays enough to support your family, but you should feel shame at having left yourself to the mercy of others. Through whatever the circumstance, you are left without the ability to care for yourself and those counting on you. It is not a feeling you should be mocked for. Indeed, a person who mocks those less fortunate will find harder times when he is in need. Instead, this requisite shame should be your motivation. You should not count on the next government check coming in the mail but count down until you no longer need it.

Instead we get entitlement. What should be a temporary measure becomes so entrenched in our society to see it change is beyond thought. Last week the Trump administration released in their budget a plan to decrease the cost of food stamps by converting to a “Blue Apron-type program.” The idea being the government could save money by buying in bulk non-perishable food items and sending them to food stamp recipients. The Office of Management and Budget estimates it could get goods at half the market value and director Mick Mulvaney noted only part of the SNAP benefits would come from this plan, indicating monetary benefits would still be received but supplemented by actual foodstuffs. This would also help to minimize waste as food stamp recipients couldn’t use (as many) taxpayer dollars on shrimp, fast food, and a host of other less than ethical choices.

The reference by Mulvaney to Blue Apron opened the program to comparison but the analogy doesn’t stick. Citing high costs of delivery for Blue Apron doesn’t work because the government intends to ship non-perishables not requiring the insulation and ice packs delivered with Blue Apron. Furthermore, the government does not need to make a profit as a private company does. Not to mention the fact the government does not need to directly pay for shipping as a private company would.

Some concerns over the proposed changes to the food stamps program are well placed: how will they manage dietary restrictions? How will they manage to ship out the products? The notoriously mismanaged government has trouble with big changes and something that affects 16.4 million households should be taken seriously.

All of this ignores one key point: you are getting free food. The government provides, through taxation, a resource for you to use. It should not be all you count on for daily sustenance. It should supplement you until you no longer need it. When you receive money on your EBT card you should imagine going door-to-door and asking your neighbors for that money because they are the ones giving it to you. Success of the program should not be how many people use the program but how many people get off it and never come back.

As I said, shame is a tool; one just simply needs to learn how to pick it up and use it. Do not follow the societal trend which says it is ok to be at the mercy of others, that it is ok to be dependent on the state, and that it is not ok to feel as if you could be better. Stand up and earn what is given so that one day you might repay it.

0 The “truth” Is

January 11, 2018
by Dylan Morgan
· In the News

If you smoke cigarettes, you’re an idiot. The CDC estimates every year 480,000 people die from smoking, including 41,000 deaths from secondhand smoke exposure. This isn’t really a hard sell and yet, the anti-smoking organization “truth” still finds a way to be stupid about it.

Instead of saying smoking increases your risk of lung and oral cancers, contributes to poor cardiovascular health, and makes you smell like a bar, they attack the highly regulated advertising campaigns of tobacco companies. “truth” asks how can a tobacco company go after our military men and women? They point out a tobacco company claimed servicemen and women were “classic downscale smokers” and “less educated.”

First, even tobacco companies acknowledge that to smoke you have to be stupid. Second, to claim that servicemembers don’t know the risks of smoking is saying you also think they are idiots. The fact that smoking is bad for you is well known by the public at large, especially by servicemembers who have physical training every day and mandatory periodic health exams. If people decide to smoke with that knowledge, it’s not the fault of the company selling the product.

The “truth” campaign continues its social justice warrior attacks by acting aghast that tobacco companies run ads for LGBT and black communities as well as in low-income neighborhoods. There’s a reason for this, it’s called targeted advertisement. Targeted advertisement is good; it’s why you don’t get spammed with ads that are completely irrelevant to you. It’s the reason I get junk mail for steak and bespoke suits and my girlfriend gets spammed by leggings and lingerie. Thanks, targeted advertisement. As tobacco companies say, to smoke you have to be “less educated.” If they are targeting your demographic or community it means they think you are more likely to buy cigarettes. I’ll give you a second to put those two statements together. Instead of asking, “how dare they?” how about asking “why would I?”

That’s the real question, why would anyone smoke? Everyone knows it’s bad for you so why put your lungs through the tar and carcinogens? For some people it may be a good stress reliever – stress is the main reason indicated for why there is disproportionate smoking in the LGBT community. Why not teach people to be more resilient instead of relying on external measures for calm? Peer pressure is another indicated reason for starting tobacco use. This is seen with smokeless tobacco in baseball and all forms of tobacco in the military. Again, no one is making people turn to a proven source of cancer to get in with the in crowd, so spread the reasons why smoking is bad for you and let people make their own choices.

As the “truth” campaign seems to advocate, certain demographics should be treated with kid gloves. I disagree with this sentiment wholeheartedly. There is no race or orientation too dumb to know smoking is bad for them. Don’t blame a company for advertising a product to a group of people who want to buy it. There are enough anti-smoking campaigns in the public eye to know the truth, to claim that a black or LGBT person forgets this when they see someone of the same color or orientation smoking is a disservice to their intelligence.

As someone who has never smoked I cannot attest to the addictiveness of the habit, but as a healthcare provider I urge you to not start or, if you already have, to quit. Save yourself from the plethora of health issues linked to cigarettes. There are numerous programs you can use whether it’s 1-800-QUIT-NOW, smokefree.gov, Nicorette, or cold turkey. These four options are four times as many cessation methods as provided by “truth”. The one resource for quitting found on their website is an application called This is Quitting. The bad news is this app is not available for Android users in the US.

The good news is fewer people smoke today than ever before. Hopefully this trend continues until, as “truth” puts it, we become the generation that ends smoking. But please, don’t quit because of targeted advertisement. Do it for you and your own well-being. So you get to see your children and their children grow up. The guilt of your faults begins with you; look to yourself to fix them. Don’t put the blame on the company selling you deathsticks.

1 How to Beat a Bully

December 14, 2017
by Dylan Morgan
· In the News

When I was a wee lad, only in preschool, I had a bully. Not only did I have a bully but the entire class had one. The bully did the normal bully things: stealing toys, pushing people, stabbing kids in the ear with a Play-Doh knife. You know, the usual. My mom told me I was not allowed to be bullied. If this little punk – who will not be named, but I remember you so you’d better hope you never see me in a dark alley – ever accosted me again I was to hit him back and say, “Dylan don’t play dat!” To my chagrin, the phrase still comes up at family gatherings. Fortunately, I survived this brief period without having to say it myself.

Fast forward to elementary school. I was never bullied, but one day I got in a fight which started a long line of troubles with a single individual. My mom was not satisfied with the “boys will be boys” reasoning I used to shrug off the situation and told me if that little punk ever tried to pick on me again I was to hit him and say, “Dylan don’t play dat!” or some variation thereof. As boys will be boys, the issue soon resolved itself without further conflict and to this day I can say I’ve never punched a person in anger. Ok, I haven’t punched someone who isn’t family in anger – sorry Connie, but I’m sure you deserved it. Bitch.

The rest of my schooldays were bully and incident free. I believed everything was so good I went as far as to tell my mom I had never witnessed bullying in action while in high school. It was sometime during my undergrad years when I had my “oh shit” moment. I realized with the swooping feeling of both regret and disgust that I had been a witness to bullying. Not just stuff you in the locker bullying, but pressure you into a fight so we can say you agreed to getting beat up. Then we can hold you down and have someone rub their ass on your face. I witnessed this and did nothing. Called it hazing, boys will be boys after all. Even worse, I forgot about it and had the audacity to say I had never witnessed any bullying at all. Ever.

I was never a “cool kid” but I also was never someone who was picked on. I don’t know what I could have done at the time and, even looking back on it I think about the social grief it would have caused me to step in; especially to help someone who I honestly didn’t like either. In a world of wolves, sheepdogs, and sheep I was the latter. Even though I was raised by a woman who was against bullies and not opposed to violence to stop them, I did nothing.

This week saw the video with Keaton pop up. The Tennessean youngster who tearfully asked his mom why would anyone be a bully? Why would anyone take time out of their day to pick on someone? Well I just want people who are or have been bullied to know it’s not because of who you are or what you do. It’s not for your failings that you suffer, but those of the bully and those who stand by and watch. Don’t be like me, don’t be a sheep. If you see someone getting bullied step in, with violent intent if necessary. Don’t worry about any social costs because they will be far outweighed by the reward of doing the right thing. I can only say this after looking back with regret of my own inaction.

0 22KILL

November 11, 2017
by Dylan Morgan
· In the News

Here on this day of veteran’s I’m going to plug an organization fighting their leading cause of death: suicide. In fact, 22 veterans die by suicide every day on average. After this shocking statistic came out from a VA study in 2012, the social media movement #22KILL was born. You may have seen videos on your social-media feed of someone doing the 22-push-up challenge and wondered why they were showing off their chest and triceps strength. Maybe you knew they were raising awareness that 22 veterans on average commit suicide every day and didn’t know what else you could do except bust out some push-ups yourself. Well, I’m here to tell you there are organizations combating veteran suicide you can donate to. My personal choice is 22KILL.

22KILL became a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization shortly after the social-media movement began, and its mission is to raise awareness of and combat this epidemic. 22KILL provides a network of support for veterans in need of mental health treatment or reintegration into a society where they often feel they lack purpose. The goal is one day “22” will become “0”. Unfortunately, this can’t be achieved simply by enough people doing push-ups on Facebook. Like any nonprofit they require support in the form of volunteers or dollars.

If you’re like me and don’t have a lot of free time to donate, you can always donate cold hard cash or buy from their online shop. My purchase of choice is the Honor Ring. It is black and worn on your index finger with a plain or engraved external surface. Regardless of the design, once you wear one you are immediately recognizable as a member of the 22Kill Tribe. Furthermore, it is a way to introduce people to the topic. People will inevitably ask why you’re wearing a ring on your index finger allowing you to make them aware of the fact on average 22 veterans commit suicide every day. Maybe they’ll want to join the tribe and make their own donation.

I encourage everyone volunteer or donate to an organization for veterans be it 22KILL, Mission 22, or any organization listed in the VA directory. Our servicemen and women volunteered to fight for freedom overseas; let’s help them win the fight at home.

0 Can We Regulate Away Death?

November 2, 2017
by Dylan Morgan
· In the News

Often in the gun debate those in opposition of the 2nd Amendment fall back on several arguments: the founders did not intend for people to have semi-automatic weapons, more guns means more gun violence, and guns aren’t necessary in a civilized society. I would like to take a moment to talk about why these arguments are incorrect, ill-informed, and ineffective.

More guns means more gun violence.

This is wholly untrue. In fact, today more people own guns than ever yet the rate of gun violence has steadily trended down. This is not to support the claim more guns means less violence, simply to say the opposite is not true.

The founders wrote the second amendment when everyone had muskets.

This is used to illustrate the supposed fallacy of the 2nd amendment defending the use of semi-automatic weapons. The intent of the 2nd Amendment however, is not just that citizens be armed, but that they are armed enough to defend themselves from a potentially tyrannical government. If citizens were armed only with muskets, they could not stand against a small-town police force, much less the federal government at large. While the need to be able to stand against a government may seem conspiratorial and outdated let me ask, which side of the aisle claims to be the “Resistance”? Which side of the aisle supports Antifa’s violence against our elected “fascist” leader?

No one needs guns!

This is generally used when you point out gun violence causes fewer deaths than car crashes. In fact, when you remove suicide and law enforcement related deaths, firearm related deaths in 2014 were 11,744 while vehicle related deaths were 33,736. Don’t get me wrong, I think cars are necessary, but are all of them?

Take motorcycles for instance. In 2014 motorcycle deaths per mile traveled were 27 times greater than cars, accounting for 4,594 deaths. Sports cars, like motorcycles, are built for high performance and are generally associated with unsafe driving. They have an average death rate of 54.6 per million per year compared to an average of 30 per million per year for all vehicles in 2014. This according to the IIHS. Mini cars don’t stand a chance in an accident with anything with a mass greater than the common grey squirrel. Their average death rate is 88.8. The fact of the matter is, if you qualified everything by safety and utility you would be left with luxury cars, pickups, and SUVs. It’s not so difficult a proposition; if motorcycles, sports cars, and mini cars’ are the least safe vehicular options, why shouldn’t they be regulated in the same manner people want firearms to be? If there are other, more safe modes of transport shouldn’t we eliminate those deadly machines?

The question is, can we make government big enough to prevent unnecessary death? Every state requires some form of driver’s education yet every year over 30,000 people die in car accidents compared to 461 accidental deaths from firearms. Every day 28 people die in car accidents involving an alcohol-impaired driver even though the combination is illegal. The null effect of making firearms illegal is on display in Chicago where 58 people, the same as were killed in the Vegas shooting, die from gun violence in the span of a month.

The reality we must face is no government can prevent all unnecessary death and we should not rely on the government to protect us from such spontaneous acts as occurred in Las Vegas. The government cannot identify every terrorist before they send shrapnel into a crowd with pressure cookers, or shoot up a nightclub or music festival. The responsibility lies on the individual and the community to help the mentally ill and defend against those who wish to do us harm – be they individual actors or our own government.

Page 1 of 7