It’s a subject that I have gone back and forward on for several years. To this day, I haven’t been able to form a decisive opinion on the subject. Professional athletes and Hollywood personalities may not have been born into privilege, but it’s difficult to see people so widely praised for their fame and wealth droving out opinions as if they’re their insight is a gift to the general public. At the same time, I understand that everyone is entitled to their own opinion as an American, and believe that their spot in the public eye can be used to spread awareness on a given topic. Here’s my take on it. 
Against:
Despite being liberal myself, I believe that Hollywood Liberalism is one of the most atrocious forms of Liberalism on the planet. It’s often self-indulgent and provides critique without solution. One of the worst forms of Hollywood liberalism came from an actress who is immensely talented and brilliant in her own right, Meryl Streep. As someone who loathes Donald Trump, I figured that I’d love whatever this woman had to say about our elected president, but I actually found her speech to be pompous and grossly misinformed. Her primary point touched on immigration and its impact in Hollywood. She pointed out various actors who emigrated from other countries, praising them one-by-one. To start, Republicans aren’t trying to prevent immigration in this country. They are trying to prevent illegal immigration, which is something that actually leads to economic inflation. I was against the notion of building an impractical wall and putting a temporary ban on people from primarily Muslim countries, but I am not against us enforcing the law. People spend time working to come to the US legally, so others shouldn’t be able to cut in line.
Her most memorable statement was, “If we kick them out, we’ll have nothing to watch but football and mixed martial arts, which are not the arts.” I have an issue with this for 2 reasons: 1. The colleagues that she was referring to in her speech have remained in the United States legally by obtaining green cards or have been granted citizenship. 2. She created a massive disconnect by inferring that Hollywood is our primary means of obtaining culture. It alludes to the notion that we’d be stuck watching crude and mindless television without Hollywood, an institution that consistently pumps out plenty of crude and mindless entertainment… Individuals on both sides of the political spectrum can’t relate to people like this, because those within the public eye consistently put themselves on a pedestal. I have no problem with public figures spreading awareness or providing their opinions, but the American public does not rely on them for guidance.
For:
Colin Kaepernick protesting social injustice in a peaceful manner (while also donating millions to several different causes), Ashton Kutcher using his fame to promote awareness of and prevent human trafficking, Leonardo DiCaprio’s work for environmental conservation, and several others have done it right. What I enjoy most about these stars is that they use their fame to spread awareness, while investing their own personal time and energy into a cause. They aren’t merely providing criticism or implying that they’re a beacon of hope for each of us to follow. They’re acting as an example, but most importantly, they’re actually doing something to create change. Through these actions they immerse us in a cause and hope to get us all involved.
So, it seems that the disconnect lies within those who merely preach a message and those who act as the message they’re seeking deliver. I learned at a young age that talking will only get you so far. I also learned that talking too much will eventually make you look like an asshole. Talk is cheap. Those who sit at the podium and merely speak about how things should be, are not the individuals we should be listening to. Those who are willing to get their hands dirty and put themselves on the same pegging as the common man are the ones who deserve an attentive ear.
An Understanding of Terrorism: What the Trumps Lack
I’ve grown tired of terrorism. It’s a disease that has infected this country and has been fueled by our own society. Our media feeds into terrorism with the provision of constant attention and plays into the fear that terrorism is meant to evoke. That is truly what defines terrorism from an act of murder. An act of murder, while being morally contemptable, does not have the lingering effect that an act of terror does. Acts of terror are not only meant to target the victims alone; rather, they are meant to strike fear into the heart of an enemy. Politicians use this fear to manipulate us in their own right. They make us believe that they can keep us protected at all times and use that belief to gain our favor. Donald Trump preached this message within his own campaign to sway his supporters, making promises that no president can truly keep. While each government will do its best to combat terror, someone will always manage to slip through the cracks.
What’s interesting to me is that the notion of terrorism still isn’t recognizable to people. Some only believe it to be an act of senseless killing, but not a tool to manipulate us. They don’t understand why terrorists are committing the acts that they are or their reasoning behind committing those acts. Terrorists want their actions to be known to the world. These mentally skewed human beings believe that killing others will provide them with glory and honor. They have been indoctrinated since their youth to believe this and vary in every moral sense from your average, everyday American.
Last September, the Mayor of London said that terror attacks are “part and parcel of living in a city.” Considering that most major terrorist attacks have been committed in densely populated urban areas, that’s really not something invalid to say. If our enemy is trying to promote a widespread message through violence, they’re obviously going to commit these acts in places where people will see it. If they’re looking to generate fear within a community, they’re looking to strike at its heart. What’s interesting to me is that some people have failed to grasp this. It doesn’t take a military expert to understand these basic concepts. It merely takes common sense.
Donald Trump Jr. recently tweeted his outrage regarding Mayor Khan’s comments, and I was completely dumbfounded. Sorry Jr., terrorists aren’t flying out to rural Kansas to blow up corn fields. Yes, acts of terror can occur anywhere, but people living in urban environments are at a greater risk from those living in suburban and rural areas. My knowledge of this has nothing to do me being a longtime member of the military or some intelligence expert. It’s just logic. You’d figure that the son of our president would have been provided with this simple knowledge, but his father’s glaring lack of expertise has been inherited by the next generation… Much like everything else that Donald Trump, Jr. has received. I hope in time that we come to understand Radical Islam, so we no longer play into what it aims to achieve. As for Trump, Jr., keep your opinions to the golf course.
Southpaw has a few valid points, but most of what he writes on this subject is missing the point entirely. Yeah, to be successful in a campaign of terror you have to have good press. And yes, the media uses terrorist acts to sell advertising space and time, and yes, some governments use terrorist acts the same way that terrorists do – to coerce people into a desired mode of behavior.
Terrorized
But he is absolutely wrong that terrorists have to strike “at the heart of the community” to be effective. The San Bernardino killings were in the suburbs. The ISIS beheadings and executions take place in remote desert areas. Terror is “extreme fear or dread,” and people can be terrorized in the city, in a cornfield, or in the bedroom. If you think about the subject for more than a second, the proof of a successful terror campaign is when ALL the people are scared. If terrorists only attack in the city, then people who live in other places don’t worry about it. “Good” terror is when it evokes 24/7 dread, everywhere.
Trump Jr. was crticizing the muslim mayor of London for his seemingly casual remark that terrorists acts are “part and parcel of living in a city.” (Trump was pointing out that the events in London yesterday are the type of thing that the London mayor was addressing.) Regular city life? Really? Terror attacks are to be accepted, like traffic, and noise, and crowds, and bad air are all “part and part and parcel to living in a city?” What a moronic thing to say!! Are urban people just supposed to get used to death by terrorist? Just accept that you might get blown up on the subway, or hit by an airplane, or intentionally run over by a tractor-trailer at the downtown Christmas fair? Another routine day on the way to the office, stepping over dismembered bodies and smoldering pieces of automobiles? I think not. Way not.
If this mayor is trying to defuse “extreme fear” by making into normal, everyday fear, he has a strange way of defeating terrorists. Maybe a daily terrorist attack is “part and parcel” to living in a multi-cultural European city peppered with hate-filled radical enclaves that the host country promotes and condones, but if that idiot London mayor thinks that we will ever accept that as the norm in America, he is much dumber than he looks. – Pops
Calling Out Kaep
It’s strange to think that the President of the United States exercises his authority via Twitter. It’s something you’d expect from an angry teenager, but it’s nothing you’d expect from our Commander in Chief. 
Trump has continuously attacked celebrities and media outlets over social media, flexing his Twitter muscles whenever possible. Though it’s hard to believe that he could sink lower than before, Trump has done it again. During one of his speeches, Trump credited himself for NFL teams not wanting to sign Colin Kaepernick. To Trump, the reason for Kaepernick not being signed has nothing to do with his play over the years, or teams viewing his involvement in social activism as a distraction. Rather, teams aren’t signing Kaepernick due to their fear of Trumps Tweets.
Trump’s logic is fundamentally flawed for several reasons, but let’s just start with football. A player’s ability to perform on the field is the primary factor that would prevent them from being signed, and Colin Kaepernick isn’t undesirable by any means. Contrary to popular belief, he wasn’t released by the 49ers. He opted out of his contract to become an unrestricted free agent. His last few years haven’t been his best, but a lot of that has to do with the dumpster fire that is the 49ers organization. The 49ers have gone through 3 coaches in 3 years, lacked surrounding offensive talent and have had one of the worst defenses in the league since Jim Harbaugh departed after the 2014 season (Ranked 32nd in 2016). Colin’s decision to opt out of his contract gives him the ability to draw up a new contract under Kyle Shanahan, and it also gives him the ability to move to another market. Either way, throwing 16 touchdowns, only 4 interceptions and having a passer rating of 90.7% doesn’t make Colin Kaepernick undesirable. He’s only been a free agent since March 2nd and these things take time.
Though Trump may think his influence affects the mindset of 32 NFL team owners, their decisions are mostly their own. NFL owners, whether they agree with Kaepernick’s choice to protest the National Anthem or not, may not want to deal with the distraction. Politics are secondary to football, and organizations only care about winning. The NFL is a business and losing is detrimental to that business model. If a player’s actions have a negative impact in the locker room, NFL owners may not want to risk signing him. So, any reason that Kaepernick wouldn’t get signed has to do with his own actions, but his ability to get signed has nothing to do with Trump’s Twitter feud.
Whether you agree with Kaepernick’s decision to protest the National Anthem or not, it’s difficult to criticize his character. He’s known for his charitable nature, hosting camps for underprivileged kids and donating millions of dollars to several different charities. He most recently donated $100,000 dollars to the Meals on Wheels Foundation (An organization that would lose funding over Trump’s newly proposed budget) and the Love Army for Somalia Campaign. If I were an NFL owner, I would rather have this man serving as a distraction instead of the players committing acts of domestic violence or getting arrested for drug/alcohol related crimes.
Trump’s thought process may be flawed, but his supporters believe that his criticism was provoked. Kaepernick called out Trump for being racist, leading to Trump’s predictable retaliation. Regardless of who started the fight, it’s sad to see that our president thinks that this is an issue even worth addressing. Most importantly, it’s pathetic for our president to believe that his Twitter persona carries enough gravity to affect someone else’s NFL career. I’m just hoping that Kim Jung Un doesn’t Tweet Trump anytime soon. If he does, we could be looking at World War III.
If you accuse someone of being a racist, you should be ready for a strong response. If that person has a big microphone, the response may be MUCH bigger that you bargained for. But I would agree with Southpaw that Mr. Trump would be better suited than to use his Presidential hammer to swat a mosquito. – Pops.
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- …
- 42
- Next Page »