Category: In the News

0 A Word on Warren

October 16, 2018
by Dylan Morgan
· In the News

My background is like that which Elizabeth Warren claims. The Democratic senator from Massachusetts stated in an interview her parents were forced to elope because her father’s family was unhappy with the prospect of him marrying a girl who was part Cherokee and Delaware. While my parents did not have to elope, there was concern about the prospect of my mom marrying a Black man. Don’t worry, everything’s good now. On this level I can relate to Warren except for one little fact: Warren is neither minority group which she purported herself to be: Cherokee or Delaware.

I have the advantage on Warren in being able to see the color of my dad’s skin and concluding he is, in fact, of African descent. Warren did not have this luxury, so she assumed because her family had high cheekbones she must be Native American. This is stereotypical to the point of being racist, but in a world where identity politics is king, one must grasp at the crown any way you can.

Warren’s claims to Native heritage would not be an issue if she had not used it to gain minority status and possibly advance her career or, at best, set herself apart. If this is the case, I can relate to the Senator’s efforts. When I was applying to undergrad I was Black. Despite my mixed racial background, I presented myself as darkness in the flesh. I did this of course knowing it would give me an edge over any White competitors and I was not wrong. Upon acceptance to the University of Washington I received a generous scholarship based on my race alone. Without application I was immediately given access to the university’s tutoring center which got me through all my introductory science courses. In short, it was awesome.

Something didn’t sit right with me though. It is one thing to promote cultural diversity at the school, it is another to give certain demographics resources not afforded to others based solely on their race. I was ruminating about these ideas around the time Elizabeth Warren entered the national scene in 2012. I remember thinking how terrible it was for someone to use race to promote themselves and realized I had done exactly that. I consoled myself by saying at least I was provably half-Black, but it is still much the same. If you cannot stand on your own abilities and credentials, then you have no business in whatever area you are trying to attain enrollment or advancement. Your race or ethnicity is not a credential. You earn credentials, you don’t work to be Black, White, or Native.

I have always poked fun at Elizabeth Warren’s stereotypical logic of her heritage – by the same token a person who speaks with their hands is Italian and someone who likes watermelon is Black. With the news coming out today, however that, after a DNA test, Warren is anywhere from 1/64 to 1/1024 Native American it is even more hilarious. Especially since the ostensibly Native American DNA was Mexican, Peruvian, or Colombian. If Warren is Native at all, she is 6 to 10 generations removed. Furthermore, as the Cherokee Nation said in a statement: a DNA test is not enough to claim you belong to the Cherokee or any, tribe. It’s hardly enough to claim you are Native American at all!

I would like to offer a word of sympathy for Warren. If she was raised believing these stories, and they may be true, she had no reason to assume she was doing anything wrong just as there was nothing wrong with me putting Black as the sole race in my applications as my dad often reminds me. However, the ethical implications of using race to get ahead should force someone to reconsider such an approach. Regardless, when faced with the fact you have negligible if any Native DNA, to apologize and desist would be the best approach. Unfortunately, as there is a leftist taboo against being White, Warren has and will likely continue to cling on to this minority status even if it is only 0.098%.

0 What’s Wrong with Reading as Written

August 28, 2018
by Dylan Morgan
· Culture · In the News

The hearings for the latest Supreme Court nominee will define the debate over the interpretation of the Constitution. On one side you have originalists; those who believe the Constitution should be interpreted by the written word and intent of its authors. On the other side you have those who believe in a living constitution; the idea the Constitution should be interpreted via the lens of current society. We can view both arguments in this way:

Let’s say a 14th century author wrote, “the nice gay boy tripped through the small town with a faggot.”

An originalist would claim the interpretation is, a foolish and merry individual skipped through a small town carrying a bundle of sticks. A proponent of a living constitution would say the statement could accurately be interpreted as, a kind homosexual stumbled through the small town with another homosexual. One claim would capture the intent of the author while the other would distort the story to a point incomprehensible to the writer. Is it fair to claim a story’s meaning changes based on the changing definition of words over time, or is the author’s intent more important?

It would be silly to apply the idea of “living literature” to the author’s story. The same can be said for the law. The law was written to capture the intent of the people at a given time. While the times change, the law’s meaning and purpose do not.

Suppose in the future a political party has decided it is in the best interest of the country to force people to house government employees at no cost while they are on an assignment. For instance, you must house the IRS agent who is auditing you. The passage of such a law is not implausible in the sense the party in favor only needs to hold both houses of congress and the presidency – a level of control which has occurred for the last four presidents. The upholding of such a law, however, would prove the greater obstacle.

An originalist judge would look at such a law as a direct violation of the Third Amendment which states: “No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” The intent of the law was to protect the civilian from the imposition of government employees in their homes. In 1791 this meant soldiers. Though the current scope and size of the government is beyond anything the founders could have imagined, a law forcing civilians to accept government personnel in their homes would still violate this right.

Today, you would be hard pressed to find a justice who would find otherwise, however someone who follows the ideology of a living constitution follows societal norms. 100 years ago, abortion would not have been a societal norm and yet in 1973, the Supreme Court found the right to an abortion in the Constitution and it is now virtuous to shout your abortion.

Thus saying, suppose in the future it became an acceptable idea for the government to force civilians to house government employees. If the party in favor of such action came to power, they could appoint justices who agreed rather than adjudicated based on the law. They may say that because the Constitution was written in 1787 it is no longer acceptable doctrine. Or maybe they will claim because the Third Amendment says soldiers it does not apply to an IRS agent. The reason is not as significant as the fact you could have government agents forcibly occupy your home. If justices are nominated simply to do the will of congress or the president, then why not abolish all branches in favor of a group of nine dictators?

Hopefully this example is universally abhorrent, but suppose a more contentious issue arose. Neither party would be in favor of judicial appointments to bend or create laws which are against the will of the people. The country is founded in such a way that citizens elect two of three branches (legislative and executive) who then combine to appoint the third – the judicial. The judicial branch then upholds the law which requires the greatest majority to pass: The Constitution.

The supreme law of the land is the Constitution. It is the job of the Supreme Court to ensure laws written by the legislative and signed by the executive branch abide by the rights guaranteed to the citizens. The Constitution can be amended in two ways. The only way utilized thus far requires the support of two-thirds of both houses of congress to propose and three-fourths of the state legislatures to ratify amendments. The other way, a convention of states, requires two-thirds of the states to call for the convention and three-fourths to ratify
any proposed amendments, skipping a congressional vote. Both methods require an
absolute majority of federal and/or state legislative bodies as elected by the citizenry.

The Supreme Court, by way of adjudicating the law as voted on by the people is what protects us from the tyranny of the legislative and executive branches. The utility of co-equal branches of government is lost, however, if one branch usurps power from another. The fear of progressives, in terms of the court, is more originalist judges would hold us strictly to the laws we passed while conservatives fear living constitutionalists would adjudicate by public opinion rather than the rule of law. The distinction of the utmost importance is, one group wishes to have laws written without fear of adjudication while the other wants the laws to be adjudicated as written.

The argument against originalism is truly mystifying to me. Originalists adjudicate based on what the majority of state and federal legislatures have agreed upon and written into law in their time. In other words, originalists do as they are instructed by the electorate. If the electorate wishes for a different outcome, they can put forth an amendment via the legislative branch or convention of states. This ensures a majority of citizens have a say on their rights. It is progressives who wish to remove this ability from the people by way of appointing justices who will interpret the law as it “should” be and not how it is.

Clarence Thomas, a stalwart originalist has often made decisions which go against his own personal interest. For instance, his discussion about the overreach of the federal government by way of the commerce clause would rule anti-discrimination laws and the ban on whites-only lunch counters unconstitutional. As a Black man, one would think Thomas should be in favor of such decisions. Maybe he is, but he insists that rulings, at least his own, be based on the intent lest any law be manipulated as justification to regulate beyond its designation.

It is worth noting that because a law is not constitutional at the federal level does not mean it is illegal at the state level. So, if Thomas were to rule something unconstitutional at the federal level, the states would not necessarily be barred from applying the same legislation.

Because we are a nation that values the rule of law, we have (usually) abided by decisions of the courts with the state or federal government enforcing their rulings. This, however, is done with the understanding that the Supreme Court serves the people through the law, which is why it is an appointed rather than an elected position – the job of the jurors is to be right, not necessarily popular. Furthermore, it is important that the branch that makes the decision is not the one who enforces it. If justices are nothing but legislative or presidential puppets or worse, authors of legislation, then government can simply be vacated and a tribunal of despots put in its place.

The founders understood the nature of centralized power and its inherent tendency to be abused. Therefore, they created a system of checks and balances wherein each branch had specific and enumerated powers. While it may be satisfying to see your party win at the expense of co-equal governance, you cannot then protest when the other side follows suit.

If you want to ensure what you stand for today remains tomorrow, your initial intent must remain intact. Before you castigate a justice for holding this opinion ask yourself why is it wrong to base your justification on those that were given by the author instead of another’s interpretation 100 years later? It is not the job of the judicial branch to manipulate legislation to satisfy society, but that of legislators to make new laws befitting the society they represent. The job of the Supreme Court is to hold us accountable for those we elect and the laws they pass. If you are unhappy with a law, elect politicians who will change it instead of interpreting it as convenient lest convenience replace justice.

0 Identity Politics Puts Ideas Second

July 10, 2018
by Dylan Morgan
· In the News

Conservatism is the ideology of the individual. To be a conservative, you must look at any political movement not on the basis of its effects on a particular group but rather its effects on individuals across all groups. For example, when discussing a federal minimum wage it is insufficient to merely look at the benefits of raised income to minimum wage workers; one must also consider the effect on industries who must now adapt to the increased cost of a minimum wage imposed upon them. You must also look at how an increased minimum wage affects those currently at or above the new minimum wage and consider that the policy’s effects may vary in different locations based on the local economy. A minimum wage supposes all entry level jobs and employees are of equal value and hinders a company’s discretionary ability to pay an employee based on their individual contributions. Certainly, this is a much more complex argument to make than simply saying people need a living wage and something must be done to help them.

This is why the Democrats have more success in modern media. They can capture an image of crying children on the border then attack proponents of stronger border security for the alleged actions taken on that individual. They have the inability to break down illegal immigrants into smaller groups such as asylum seekers and MS-13. (Democrats defended the gang whose motto is, “rape, control, kill” saying they had a spark of divinity.) Another example of this can be seen in the case the cover of one of Time Magazine’s June editions on the topic of family separation at the border. Leftists were not able to individually view the case of a child whose mother had run from her husband in Honduras, taking the young girl on a dangerous journey. This child was, in fact, not separated from her mother as the current border narrative suggests. When Time corrected the error, they stated the facts were wrong but it captured the narrative.

It is a beautiful fact of humanity we can see images of those in need and feel the need to help them. However, when the “do something” crowd is interested in action more than results, it is incumbent upon conservatives to ensure the outcome is in line with the intent. While this is a worthy goal, it often gets conservatives labeled as heartless because they, for example, don’t want to eliminate borders to allow all families into the country. Remember, those families are coming here to get away from something and the border is what protects us from the same fate the families are trying to escape.

Unfortunately, it appears as if the right is tiring of making these cases and is turning to group-based politics themselves. Identity politics, the belief groups based on ethnicity, religion, or race will reliably hold the same values, is modern racism – assuming you like fried chicken and watermelon because you are Black is no different than the assumption you like Maxine Waters because you’re black. Until the 2016 election, identity politics was a political strategy held only by the left. Identity politics holds that, not only can we tell what you think based on your race, but if you think differently than the group, you are no longer part of it. Enter Kanye West.

Kanye blew up the internet with his tweet, “I like the way Candace Owens thinks.” Candace Owens is a Black conservative and is arguably the current leader of conservative identity politics. Her desire is to be the leader of a Black political revolution and turn the 80% of Blacks who lean Democrat to conservative. This, it would seem, is something I could wholeheartedly get behind as that is the case made frequently on this website most notably here. However, I struggle with the idea it is necessary to turn to identity politics to accomplish this goal.

When the left uses identity politics they are saying if you are X you therefore think Y. The right’s reaction to this, it turns out, is if you are X you can only agree with someone who is X. This philosophy is what Candace Owens captures: Black people will listen to what she and all conservatives call reason because she is also Black. Perhaps it is not the notion of right identity politics that bothers me so much as the fact it is apparently necessary. There are two possible explanations I take from this. One is people are too lazy or ignorant to follow the line of logic put forth by conservatives or, more likely, we are hopelessly divided by race and identity group.

The job of a conservative is to be able to tell an individual how their policy would help him/her. It is troubling to think the logic can only be followed when it comes from someone who looks the same. There are indeed individuals from minority groups who are stalwart conservatives but the trick pulled by the left is to remove them from that minority group. Calling back to our earlier equations, if X believes Z instead of Y then X is no longer X. This gets Black conservatives labeled as Uncle Toms and coons. Rather than looking at why an individual turned from a group, they reclassify them in a group which can then be excoriated.

I truly believe in not only the power but the necessity of the individual. If we are resigned to think of ourselves as a member of a group rather than an individual, it becomes incumbent upon us to defend the group even when it’s against not only our personal interests but those of other groups as well. The case needs to be made that while a policy may not be of benefit to a group as a whole, the sum of individuals across all or many groups is enough to merit its passing. The knee-jerk reaction to help a group when we see them crying at the border may not be as beneficial as policy affecting individuals across all groups.

While I am concerned the message may now be less important than the messenger, if the right’s identity politics encourage more free thought then I am open to its use. If instead it promulgates the virtues of identity over ideas, conservatives have lost the battle and have moved to a racist tactic which does naught but drive us further apart. Do not fall prey to the identity another puts upon you, but pick the right identity for yourself and don’t let a group define you.

1 Why the World Needs Dads

June 17, 2018
by Dylan Morgan
· Culture · In the News

Since I was little, I wanted to be like my dad. He did all kinds of cool things like wear chaps, drive tractors, and chop wood. I didn’t know why, but I wanted to do those things too. I wanted to be like my dad so much that when I was in eighth grade I decided I would do exactly what he did with his life: go to university on an ROTC scholarship and become a dentist. My life goals are as original as Will Smith’s music.

My upbringing, however, was much different than his, as when I was five years old my parents got divorced. I lived with my mom five days a week and, when I wasn’t participating in baseball or basketball tournaments, I would spend the weekend with my dad. There was a stark contrast between parents as my mom allowed for more play and my dad always seemed to be working, so much so that he ostensibly created a business just to teach my sister and me the value of a good work ethic. The dichotomy of parenting styles created two different expectations of me: while living with my mom I was essentially held to the same standard as my sister. My dad, however, established different expectations for the two of us. For example, if he needed to go work on a stretch of fencing, Connie was given a choice whether or not to participate. I, on the other hand, was not afforded the same opportunity.

My dad’s expectations of me created a drive to prove myself worthy. This was made more difficult by my dad making it clear he didn’t think we should be wasting our time on frivolous extra-curriculars when there was work to be done. Due to this opinion, he hardly came to any of my sporting events as he wouldn’t take time off work. Since my athletic prowess wouldn’t impress him, I found other ways. I remember the first time I carried a fifty-pound bag of grain on my shoulder not because it was a momentous occasion in my life but because he noticed! He didn’t say good job or anything, but I knew he was thinking it. I also remember his compliments any time I made a good point about some aspect of working the ranch. But more than the good, I remember my failures in his eyes.

I remember getting yelled at for stepping on the track of a tractor while it was moving. I remember almost coming to tears because I couldn’t unhook the gooseneck trailer from the truck before my dad got back from a horse ride. My sister and stepmom asked me what was wrong, seemingly not comprehending the fact that, though I was likely around ten years old, I was the man and it was my job to handle such things as unhooking trailers. How could I prove myself worthy if I couldn’t handle such menial tasks as that?!

My dad also has the ability to make me laugh – usually just at how funny he thinks he is, though his dad jokes often come R-rated or politically incorrect. Like when told a movie he had purchased was going to set off the alarm when he left but just to ignore it, he said to the clerk, eyes lighting up like he had been waiting his whole life for this moment, “I’d better let you take this then because I’m a Black man and they’ll shoot me.” He had a gift for making me laugh when I was angry especially when my ire was directed at him. I would fight so hard to keep from laughing thinking, “shut up dad just let me hate you for the next five minutes” but I never could.

As I got older I came to two realizations: chaps really weren’t as cool as I remembered, and I had a long way to go before becoming the man my father was. The former realization needs no explanation, but the latter came to me in two events. First, I witnessed my dad throwing 100-pound bales of hay 6-8 feet over his head into the loft after the hay elevator broke down. At this point he was over forty and not in good shape throwing the most awkward, cumbersome thing over his head. I mean, holy shit.

The second event came when I was seventeen or eighteen. While working one day, he locked our food in the car and took off on a ride with the keys. This meant I had to wait a full hour before eating! When he finally returned I made a snarky, smart-ass comment to him expressing my distress. The world stopped. There became an epic stare-down between man and boy. My dad who grew up dirt poor looked at me, who had the nerve to mouth off about not eating for an hour. I knew behind that steely gaze he was calculating the odds he could get away with beating me in public. Not wanting to blink lest I lose all dignity I stared back, hiding my fear behind a façade of righteous indignation, calculating the best routes of escape. After what seemed like forever, the battle of wills ended when he simply said, “you’d better remember who you’re talking to” and he threw me the keys. As I walked to get my lunch I almost laughed at loud: the laugh of someone who has just survived a near death experience. I realized that not only did I have a lot of room to grow, but my dad could have snatched my head from my shoulders before my life worked up the nerve to flash before my eyes.

My dad clearly impacted the type of man I’ve become. He is not alone fulfilling the fundamental role of father, a title which is becoming more rarely used. As of 2017 24% of homes with children under eighteen are single-mother. A staggering 55.3% of Black mothers fall within this category. There is some hope, as a study highlighted by the New York Times showed that not only is your own father important, but in his absence, male role models in the community can fill the role of father and negate the deleterious effect of a fatherless home. This could mean reducing the numbers of youth suicides, rapists, high school dropouts, and incarcerations. The issue, however, is there are so many fatherless communities that don’t allow for the realization of this benefit.

My dad never sat me down and said, “son, don’t rape people.” In fact, he only gave me direct life instructions once and that was, “if you get a girl pregnant, you’re pregnant.” The reality was he didn’t have to directly define his expectations. By watching him and listening to him talk about movies or shows we watched, I was able to interpret the expectations of a man: provide and protect.

Provide: As a man, you are the provider for your family. This is not to say a woman can’t provide, but a man needs to be in a situation where he is capable of doing so no matter how arduous a job is. My dad demonstrates this by owning two businesses even though he would do fine in his primary career.

Protect: My dad’s catch phrase, “just kill ‘em,” is likely only slight hyperbole. He leaves no doubt that should something happen to my sister, myself, or anyone in the family they will face the wrath of a mad Morgan. There was never a time in my childhood I didn’t feel safe because I knew my dad would take care of anything that came up; witnessing one such occasion myself. And, after watching him throw bales of hay around I think I can objectively say my daddy can kick your daddy’s ass.

Those are the two basic tenets of being a man. My dad showed me how he exemplified them and now it’s up to me to determine my own way. I will never be as physically strong as my dad but because of what he has instilled in me I know there is no excuse to not be able to protect. I am on track for a comfortable career but I am well prepared to work beyond that if necessary and in fact I plan to.

It was not until I grew older that I realized my dad, while fulfilling the tenets as well as most men could hope to, was still flawed. This was not an earth-shattering experience: in fact it seemed only natural. He was human after all and only a human can be a hero.

I cannot explain why fathers are necessary. It’s not difficult for a mother to explain a man’s role to her son. Maybe the need boys experience for dads is scribbled across the Y chromosome. Maybe it’s because boys love their moms and if she picked your dad there must be something worthwhile there to learn. Regardless of your explanation, it is apparent fathers are the most important aspect for the development of boys and their continued absence will have a negative effect on society as a whole. So today, tell your dad happy Father’s Day or be a dad who deserves one.

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.

Page 2 of 9