President Donald Trump insists that a wall, built along the US/Mexican border, is the only way to curtail illegal immigration and protect our country from "bad" elements. Forget the fact that statistics show illegal immigration has declined to its lowest point in decades. Forget the fact that more violent crimes are committed, percentage-wise and overall, by those legally in the US than those who enter the country illegally. Let's put that aside for the moment and let's look at a real solution.
Putting a wall along the border isn't going to significantly affect the flow of drugs into our country. Most of those are through ports anyways. It won't stop "bad actors" who want to enter our country... they'll find a way to get in. And even illegal immigrants will find a way under, over or through the wall. Building such a wall is extremely expensive and maintaining it will be a drain on our tax dollars that will never end.
Even if it did lessen the flow of illegal immigrants, which is doubtful, it's only treating the symptom. What we need to do is treat the cause.
People come to the U.S. for opportunity. A better life. A higher standard of living. So why not allow them to have these things without leaving their country?
Instead of spending 5.7 billion or more on a border wall, take that money and invest in other countries. I'm not talking about charity. We're not giving money away. We are loaning money and expecting a return on our investment.
If a country doesn't have clean water, has a sub-standard infrastructure and many of the people are unemployed... then invest in those things. Send some of our American know how to these countries. Build water purification plants. Build roads. Build businesses. We can send knowledgeable workers to these countries to help set up and train local workers to be self-sufficient. Teach them to earn a living providing for their own country. It will boost the economy of these countries, raise the standard of living and provide opportunities for people to thrive in their native land.
Plus, these loans we make are repaid from the businesses that are created. As these businesses grow, they will make payments towards the initial investment. Instead of spending money on a non-revenue generating barrier, the money that was used is repaid with interest.
Sure, there are some countries where such an investment might be too risky. So we don't invest there. But when these countries see the benefits reaped by other countries that are participating in this venture with the U.S., they'll either get their act together so we can invest or see their population dwindle as citizens emigrate to countries that are thriving. And this won't mean them only thinking of the U.S. They'll go to countries closer to where they came from, boosting those countries up even further.
Plus it's a great P.R and economic win for the United States. All these countries that need help will look favorably on the U.S. and become markets for our goods. Trade agreements favorable to U.S. companies will boost our own economy at the same time. It's also a diplomatic win, as these countries will no doubt establish very good relations with our country and look to us as a world leader.
What will happen to the flow of illegal immigration into the U.S.? It will dwindle even further as people no longer feel the need to leave their native land to find opportunity, a better standard of living and a better life. As far as "bad actors" who try to camouflage themselves by blending in with groups trying to get into the United States, they will find such groups becoming sparser, strangling that avenue of entry into our country.
And since we are seeing a return on our investment, we can use that money to assist law enforcement in reducing the flow of illegal drugs into this country, plus work on improving our own infrastructure, tapping sources of renewable energy and boosting our own economy.
Is this a delusional plan? Obviously, I don't think so. There will be challenges. A lot of research will be needed to best implement this strategy. But in the end, we will have a planet where more people are healthier, happier and living a life of dignity.
Or we could waste our money on a wall.
What do you think?
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
Tuesday, February 5, 2019
Donald Trump's Approval Ratings Are About To Take Another Hit
Just wanted to point something out very quickly. Recently I decided it was time to start on my tax filing for 2018. I have all the paperwork, put in all the figures using an online service and waited to see what kind of refund I would get.
The answer was... none. In fact I owe.
Now for me, this is not a crisis. I don't owe a lot and I do have more than enough in savings to cover the bill. But I did notice that the standard deduction was the best one for me for the first time in many years. This is due to changes based on President Trump's tax legislation that put into place permanent tax cuts for corporations and temporary tax cuts for the middle class. While I did see a little bump in my take home pay when this legislation was enacted, that same legislation doesn't allow me the same deductions as a mortgage paying homeowner. So this changed my expected refund to an unexpected bill.
I have a feeling I won't be the only one affected. Many people will be receiving reduced refunds or will end up owing taxes this year. Yes, if they had noticed a bump in their paychecks and put that additional money aside, they would likely have more than enough to cover the difference. But how many people actually did that? I'm afraid there are a lot of people who live paycheck to paycheck. When they saw a bit of a bump in their pay (which will eventually go away), they likely spent it. An extra pizza night. Going to the movies. A little more shopping. Great for the economy, but these people were likely still anticipating a tax refund.
Some will still get refunds. I know a lot of people who claim less exemptions on their taxes because they want a huge refund. Not realizing it would be wiser to claim the proper amount of exemptions and bank that extra money. Most accountants recommend that you structure your tax payments so you get either a very small refund or owe a very small amount in taxes. Because if you put that money in any type of savings account or investment, you'll earn SOMETHING on it. When it's a refund, you get no interest on that money. A refund is YOUR money that you basically lent to the government, interest-free. Why do people do this? Many of them because they don't think about saving.
But I have a feeling a lot of refunds will be reduced this year and many people who are used to refunds are going to owe. These people are going to demand an explanation. And when they find out it's due to the tax cut bill that President Donald Trump put through as his signature piece of legislation, they aren't going to be happy.
With the unpopular Government shut down fresh in people's minds and the prospect of another one, a flurry of people not getting the refunds they "deserve" is likely to negatively affect Trump's approval rating even more. The only upside for the President is, even if he won re-election, the middle class tax cuts aren't set to expire until 2025. So whoever succeeded him would have to deal with that issue.
Almost like he planned it.
The answer was... none. In fact I owe.
Now for me, this is not a crisis. I don't owe a lot and I do have more than enough in savings to cover the bill. But I did notice that the standard deduction was the best one for me for the first time in many years. This is due to changes based on President Trump's tax legislation that put into place permanent tax cuts for corporations and temporary tax cuts for the middle class. While I did see a little bump in my take home pay when this legislation was enacted, that same legislation doesn't allow me the same deductions as a mortgage paying homeowner. So this changed my expected refund to an unexpected bill.
I have a feeling I won't be the only one affected. Many people will be receiving reduced refunds or will end up owing taxes this year. Yes, if they had noticed a bump in their paychecks and put that additional money aside, they would likely have more than enough to cover the difference. But how many people actually did that? I'm afraid there are a lot of people who live paycheck to paycheck. When they saw a bit of a bump in their pay (which will eventually go away), they likely spent it. An extra pizza night. Going to the movies. A little more shopping. Great for the economy, but these people were likely still anticipating a tax refund.
Some will still get refunds. I know a lot of people who claim less exemptions on their taxes because they want a huge refund. Not realizing it would be wiser to claim the proper amount of exemptions and bank that extra money. Most accountants recommend that you structure your tax payments so you get either a very small refund or owe a very small amount in taxes. Because if you put that money in any type of savings account or investment, you'll earn SOMETHING on it. When it's a refund, you get no interest on that money. A refund is YOUR money that you basically lent to the government, interest-free. Why do people do this? Many of them because they don't think about saving.
But I have a feeling a lot of refunds will be reduced this year and many people who are used to refunds are going to owe. These people are going to demand an explanation. And when they find out it's due to the tax cut bill that President Donald Trump put through as his signature piece of legislation, they aren't going to be happy.
With the unpopular Government shut down fresh in people's minds and the prospect of another one, a flurry of people not getting the refunds they "deserve" is likely to negatively affect Trump's approval rating even more. The only upside for the President is, even if he won re-election, the middle class tax cuts aren't set to expire until 2025. So whoever succeeded him would have to deal with that issue.
Almost like he planned it.
Sunday, June 11, 2017
A Cosplayer's Journey at Philly Wizard World 2017 (National Conagraphic)
Check out this Mockumentary Short from Wizard World Philadelphia 2017.
Saturday, March 25, 2017
The Ultimate Con... and it's against Donald Trump!
Normally I don't post about politics... but I had a realization that I just couldn't keep to myself. And it's a doozy.
Check this out:
Many people in the U.S. are upset that Trump became our President. But he still has supporters who think his "outsider" status will help him speak for the little guy. But in this case, I think Trump has just entered an arena where he is the little guy. And he may have been conned worse than anyone who voted for him.
Let's go back before the election. The Democrats had Hillary. The Republicans ended up with Donald Trump. But when you think about it... would any of the other potential Republican candidates have been able to beat Hillary? Even just with the Electoral Vote? It's unlikely... Trump was able to motivate people who would have likely stayed home if any other Republican candidate came forward. So at first Republicans were all about stopping Trump... until it became apparent they couldn't. That's when I think a new plan was formed.
I believe Trump was used to gain the Presidency for the Republican Party. Which he did. But I don't think the Republicans intend for him to stay in that Office.
Look at what's been happening since Trump became President. He has ranted about fraudulent voters. His White House administration has sprung so many "leaks" that tell us how unqualified he is, how he prefers one or two page documents and how he gets his information from Fox and Friends. How his own staff has to manage his moods.
Now there is a lot of talk about connections by his campaign to Russia. Which sheds a lot of doubt on his entire administration. Investigations are under way and it's looking more and more that either Trump was aware of Russia's help or oblivious to it... either one doesn't look good for him.
He has Sean Spicer and Kellyanne Conway out there as his spokespeople... and they don't seem to be the best people for the job. Spicer has said some ridiculous things in defense of the President and Conway clearly violated ethics regulations... among other gaffes.
It's a little over 2 months into his Presidency and he has the lowest approval ratings of any President at this point in their term. People who voted for him are now regretting it. Members of the Republican party invent lame excuses for him every day. His appointments are called into question and he even already had one resign.
But even worse... he has signed executive orders that have been suspended by Federal Judges. He accused President Obama of wire tapping his phones with no evidence. And the latest situation... he tried to force through a health care bill that failed... when his Party has both the Senate and the House.
Do you want to know why? Because it's NOT his Party. And here's why.
Here's what I think the Republicans had decided to do when it became clear the only way to get the White House was to have Trump win it for them. Back his candidacy 100%. But now that he's done it... they will "regretfully" impeach him. Or convince him to resign. The Republican Party rides to the rescue and removes an unqualified President from the White House before he could do too much damage. A large percentage of Americans would be so relieved. Our heroes, the GOP!
You know who has been pretty quiet? Who has been doing his best to seem statesmanlike and... compared to Trump... sane? Mike Pence. A man who would never have beaten Hillary Clinton in a race for President. But who will become President if Trump leaves office. Putting Paul Ryan as Vice President.
This is what the Republicans want. After they remove Trump, they will state that his more dangerous policies were never what they wanted. That Trump pressured them into it. Even the Health Care Bill. And at this point, if Trump claims he was manipulated into this situation or led into dangerous territory, few will believe him. Because he has lost credibility with a number of his claims... the fraudulent voters, the inauguration crowd and the supposed wiretapping. That is if Trump even tries to dispute them.... since it would mean admitting that the "Master Negotiator" was manipulated.
Then they are free to slowly put their own agenda in place. In small, seemingly sane steps... at least compared to Trump. And before you know it, they get everything they want. Obamacare repealed and replaced with a "better" plan. Tax cuts for corporations. Reduced "entitlements." And they will have Donald Trump to thank for it... not that they'll tell him that. He'll be kicked to the curb, disgraced as a failed President.
This is just a theory, but it fits with the facts. Only Trump could beat Hillary. Anyone else would have been just the same type of "business as usual" politician and would not have had the same theatrics that won Trump the Presidency. But now that he has won for the Republicans what they could not win for themselves... his days are numbered. Whether he is convinced to resign or gets impeached... the Republicans get the White House.
And all they need to do... is let Trump be Trump.
Insert maniacal villainous laughter here.
Food for thought.
Check this out:
Many people in the U.S. are upset that Trump became our President. But he still has supporters who think his "outsider" status will help him speak for the little guy. But in this case, I think Trump has just entered an arena where he is the little guy. And he may have been conned worse than anyone who voted for him.
Let's go back before the election. The Democrats had Hillary. The Republicans ended up with Donald Trump. But when you think about it... would any of the other potential Republican candidates have been able to beat Hillary? Even just with the Electoral Vote? It's unlikely... Trump was able to motivate people who would have likely stayed home if any other Republican candidate came forward. So at first Republicans were all about stopping Trump... until it became apparent they couldn't. That's when I think a new plan was formed.
I believe Trump was used to gain the Presidency for the Republican Party. Which he did. But I don't think the Republicans intend for him to stay in that Office.
Look at what's been happening since Trump became President. He has ranted about fraudulent voters. His White House administration has sprung so many "leaks" that tell us how unqualified he is, how he prefers one or two page documents and how he gets his information from Fox and Friends. How his own staff has to manage his moods.
Now there is a lot of talk about connections by his campaign to Russia. Which sheds a lot of doubt on his entire administration. Investigations are under way and it's looking more and more that either Trump was aware of Russia's help or oblivious to it... either one doesn't look good for him.
He has Sean Spicer and Kellyanne Conway out there as his spokespeople... and they don't seem to be the best people for the job. Spicer has said some ridiculous things in defense of the President and Conway clearly violated ethics regulations... among other gaffes.
It's a little over 2 months into his Presidency and he has the lowest approval ratings of any President at this point in their term. People who voted for him are now regretting it. Members of the Republican party invent lame excuses for him every day. His appointments are called into question and he even already had one resign.
But even worse... he has signed executive orders that have been suspended by Federal Judges. He accused President Obama of wire tapping his phones with no evidence. And the latest situation... he tried to force through a health care bill that failed... when his Party has both the Senate and the House.
Do you want to know why? Because it's NOT his Party. And here's why.
Here's what I think the Republicans had decided to do when it became clear the only way to get the White House was to have Trump win it for them. Back his candidacy 100%. But now that he's done it... they will "regretfully" impeach him. Or convince him to resign. The Republican Party rides to the rescue and removes an unqualified President from the White House before he could do too much damage. A large percentage of Americans would be so relieved. Our heroes, the GOP!
You know who has been pretty quiet? Who has been doing his best to seem statesmanlike and... compared to Trump... sane? Mike Pence. A man who would never have beaten Hillary Clinton in a race for President. But who will become President if Trump leaves office. Putting Paul Ryan as Vice President.
This is what the Republicans want. After they remove Trump, they will state that his more dangerous policies were never what they wanted. That Trump pressured them into it. Even the Health Care Bill. And at this point, if Trump claims he was manipulated into this situation or led into dangerous territory, few will believe him. Because he has lost credibility with a number of his claims... the fraudulent voters, the inauguration crowd and the supposed wiretapping. That is if Trump even tries to dispute them.... since it would mean admitting that the "Master Negotiator" was manipulated.
Then they are free to slowly put their own agenda in place. In small, seemingly sane steps... at least compared to Trump. And before you know it, they get everything they want. Obamacare repealed and replaced with a "better" plan. Tax cuts for corporations. Reduced "entitlements." And they will have Donald Trump to thank for it... not that they'll tell him that. He'll be kicked to the curb, disgraced as a failed President.
This is just a theory, but it fits with the facts. Only Trump could beat Hillary. Anyone else would have been just the same type of "business as usual" politician and would not have had the same theatrics that won Trump the Presidency. But now that he has won for the Republicans what they could not win for themselves... his days are numbered. Whether he is convinced to resign or gets impeached... the Republicans get the White House.
And all they need to do... is let Trump be Trump.
Insert maniacal villainous laughter here.
Food for thought.
Thursday, February 9, 2017
Changing Ethnicity of Comic Books Characters for TV/Movies
A few days ago, the trailer for the new Netflix series Iron Fist came out. Some people are excited... some people don't care... and some people are pissed. But why are they pissed?
Other than some thinking the main character isn't muscular enough for the role... the main reason some people are mad is because... the actor they cast is NOT Asian.
I certainly understand the desire to have actors who aren't Caucasian play various roles. I understand in our diverse society it better represents reality. I'm all for that, especially with Hollywood still not casting non-Caucasians as frequently for high profile roles as they probably should.
But in Iron Fist's case, casting an Asian would have been wrong.
The story of Iron Fist is that of an outsider to Asian culture... in this case a Caucasian boy... who was raised and trained by the mystics of K'un L'un after the death of his parents. In the original comics, a treacherous business partner of his father's was to blame... in the new Netflix series it appears to be a plane crash, though whether it was caused by a business partner is yet to be revealed.
Danny Rand is gifted and eventually has the opportunity to take the mystic power of the Iron Fist... which he does after a great battle. He eventually returns to New York to find his parents' killer... you get the idea.
Part of the conflict in this story is because Danny Rand is not Asian. Now you can go back and say when the character was created, they decided to go with a Caucasian character because Asian superheroes weren't marketable. There might even be some truth in that. (You could also say that by having the main character be white, it introduced Asian culture in a way that revealed it to the reader in the same way it was revealed to the character.) But the story possibilities with Danny Rand being an outsider are much more interesting than if they made the character Asian.
On a side note, why is it that a martial artist needs to be Asian? Isn't that promoting a stereotype that "all Asians know karate or kung fu?" I'm sure there are plenty who don't. Just as plenty of non-Asians have studied the martial arts that have originated in Asian countries.
So Danny Rand should not be Asian for this story, in my opinion. Could they have accomplished the same effect if he had been African American or Latino? Quite likely. Though if they made him African American it might change the dynamic with his old partner (though not yet on Netflix) Luke Cage. But yes, they could have chosen to go with someone who wasn't Caucasian. But they decided to go with the source material. Some people complain when they ignore the source material and some when they don't. You can't win.
I've heard that a potential casting of Nightwing might be Asian. That would be awesome. In cases where the ethnicity of the character won't change the dynamic of the character, I believe it's perfectly fine to cast a bit differently from the source material.
When FOX rebooted the Fantastic Four, Michael B. Jordan being cast as Johnny Storm wasn't that big of a deal for me. Though personally I thought it would have been better to avoid the whole adoption of Susan Storm... they could have made Susan also black and that would have been fine. I actually thought if they were going to cast a member of the team as African American, it should have been Reed. Making the leader and smartest member of the team African American would have made a better statement if that's what they were trying to do. And if they weren't trying to make a statement, it totally avoids having the explain anything about adoption. Not that adoption isn't a viable explanation for the casting choice they made (or anything to be ashamed of)... I just thought it a needless element. Fantastic Four didn't fail because of the casting or having Johnny Storm be black. It failed because it was a badly written piece of drivel. I enjoyed the previous two Fantastic Four films a great deal more.
The point is... casting existing characters as a different ethnicity can be a good thing... if it makes sense for the story and doesn't change the character on a fundamental level. (Because then... why not just make a new character?) The amount of source material from the original comics that can often inspire or be translated into a TV series or movie is incredible... and in most cases, should be respected. Can some stories be modernized? Certainly. But they should be true to the spirit of the original character.
So give me a black Batman. A Latino Flash. A female Thor (oh, they did that in the comics). Lots of changes can be made and still remain true to the spirit of the source material and in line with what the original creator intended.
But I'm glad they didn't make Danny Rand an Asian. Nuff said.
Other than some thinking the main character isn't muscular enough for the role... the main reason some people are mad is because... the actor they cast is NOT Asian.
I certainly understand the desire to have actors who aren't Caucasian play various roles. I understand in our diverse society it better represents reality. I'm all for that, especially with Hollywood still not casting non-Caucasians as frequently for high profile roles as they probably should.
But in Iron Fist's case, casting an Asian would have been wrong.
The story of Iron Fist is that of an outsider to Asian culture... in this case a Caucasian boy... who was raised and trained by the mystics of K'un L'un after the death of his parents. In the original comics, a treacherous business partner of his father's was to blame... in the new Netflix series it appears to be a plane crash, though whether it was caused by a business partner is yet to be revealed.
Danny Rand is gifted and eventually has the opportunity to take the mystic power of the Iron Fist... which he does after a great battle. He eventually returns to New York to find his parents' killer... you get the idea.
Part of the conflict in this story is because Danny Rand is not Asian. Now you can go back and say when the character was created, they decided to go with a Caucasian character because Asian superheroes weren't marketable. There might even be some truth in that. (You could also say that by having the main character be white, it introduced Asian culture in a way that revealed it to the reader in the same way it was revealed to the character.) But the story possibilities with Danny Rand being an outsider are much more interesting than if they made the character Asian.
On a side note, why is it that a martial artist needs to be Asian? Isn't that promoting a stereotype that "all Asians know karate or kung fu?" I'm sure there are plenty who don't. Just as plenty of non-Asians have studied the martial arts that have originated in Asian countries.
So Danny Rand should not be Asian for this story, in my opinion. Could they have accomplished the same effect if he had been African American or Latino? Quite likely. Though if they made him African American it might change the dynamic with his old partner (though not yet on Netflix) Luke Cage. But yes, they could have chosen to go with someone who wasn't Caucasian. But they decided to go with the source material. Some people complain when they ignore the source material and some when they don't. You can't win.
I've heard that a potential casting of Nightwing might be Asian. That would be awesome. In cases where the ethnicity of the character won't change the dynamic of the character, I believe it's perfectly fine to cast a bit differently from the source material.
When FOX rebooted the Fantastic Four, Michael B. Jordan being cast as Johnny Storm wasn't that big of a deal for me. Though personally I thought it would have been better to avoid the whole adoption of Susan Storm... they could have made Susan also black and that would have been fine. I actually thought if they were going to cast a member of the team as African American, it should have been Reed. Making the leader and smartest member of the team African American would have made a better statement if that's what they were trying to do. And if they weren't trying to make a statement, it totally avoids having the explain anything about adoption. Not that adoption isn't a viable explanation for the casting choice they made (or anything to be ashamed of)... I just thought it a needless element. Fantastic Four didn't fail because of the casting or having Johnny Storm be black. It failed because it was a badly written piece of drivel. I enjoyed the previous two Fantastic Four films a great deal more.
The point is... casting existing characters as a different ethnicity can be a good thing... if it makes sense for the story and doesn't change the character on a fundamental level. (Because then... why not just make a new character?) The amount of source material from the original comics that can often inspire or be translated into a TV series or movie is incredible... and in most cases, should be respected. Can some stories be modernized? Certainly. But they should be true to the spirit of the original character.
So give me a black Batman. A Latino Flash. A female Thor (oh, they did that in the comics). Lots of changes can be made and still remain true to the spirit of the source material and in line with what the original creator intended.
But I'm glad they didn't make Danny Rand an Asian. Nuff said.
Friday, October 21, 2016
Halloween is Nigh... Do Cosplay Rules Apply?
Many people look forward to Halloween all year long. It's a time when millions of people... adults and children alike... will be wearing costumes... and it's not limited to those who identify as cosplayers and costumers.
The majority of people who will be wearing costumes to celebrate the holiday would not characterize themselves as cosplayers. Which is fair... while the definition of cosplay states it's "the practice of dressing up as a character from a movie, book, or video game, especially one from the Japanese genres of manga and anime"... and certainly Halloween celebrants might qualify... it's my opinion that the title of cosplayer is something one decides to take on. It's a decision to be a cosplayer.
Am I saying that you can't be a cosplayer if you dress up in a costume for Halloween? Am I saying that you can't be a cosplayer if you buy a Halloween costume from a store? Absolutely not. Cosplayers love to dress up for Halloween just as many others do... and wearing a costume, no matter the source, qualifies you to be considered a cosplayer. I'm just saying it's your choice if you want to be considered a cosplayer.
So if anyone wearing a costume can be considered a cosplayer, does that mean anyone who wears a costume IS a cosplayer? Someone actually said this would be the case. But if you attend a Halloween party... that is attended by people who only wear a costume for Halloween parties... and ask them if they are a cosplayer, most of them will say no. Some of them might even ask "what's a cosplayer?"
Traditionally, those who consider themselves cosplayers wear costumes at other times of year besides Halloween. This is not a rule, just an observation. There is no law that states you cannot call yourself a cosplayer if you only dress up for Halloween. But there's also no law that states that you must call yourself a cosplayer if you dress up in a costume.
Halloween can be (and has been) a jumping off point for many cosplayers. But for some, Halloween is the only time they care to wear a costume and might object to being called cosplayers. While those of us in the community view the title with pride, those outside the community have varying views of what a cosplayer is. Not everyone who wears a costume wants to join the cosplay community.
(Of course, anyone who does want to join is more than welcome... they are encouraged and applauded.)
So we will have a lot of people dressed in costume who do not call themselves cosplayers. So do the cosplay rules apply?
For those who might not be sure, here are the rules for cosplay (as I see it):
1) Have fun
2) Respect other people
3) Respect other people's costumes and props
4) COSPLAY IS NOT CONSENT
These are the basic rules of cosplay. Anyone can cosplay whomever and whatever they want because it's all about fun. What cosplay might mean to you individually is not a rule, it's your take on cosplay (such as making your costume, striving for screen accuracy, etc.).
You've probably figured it out, but all these rules STILL apply.
It should be obvious that they would apply, but in my opinion it's better to state the obvious than have someone say "I didn't know."
One rule I would like to point out especially is that cosplay is not consent. It's the principle that just because someone is dressed in a costume, this gives no one the right to have any physical contact with them without their permission.
I've always found this rule, while laudable, to be a little narrow in it's focus. A better rule would be that EXISTENCE is not consent. Whether someone is wearing a costume, a bathing suit, a party dress, tight pants or any (or no) outfit... in any situation... this doesn't give anyone license to have any physical contact without their permission. And with so many parties coming up for Halloween, to be clear, someone who is drunk to the point of impairment cannot give consent.
To force physical contact on someone, especially in regards to physical affection, is harassment, assault, sexual assault and even rape. It's a violation of another person no matter what they are wearing. It's not just breaking cosplay rules, it's breaking the law.
So by all means... put on a costume, call yourself a cosplayer or not, get out there and party! Have lots of fun!
Just remember that your fun should never take away from someone else's fun.
The majority of people who will be wearing costumes to celebrate the holiday would not characterize themselves as cosplayers. Which is fair... while the definition of cosplay states it's "the practice of dressing up as a character from a movie, book, or video game, especially one from the Japanese genres of manga and anime"... and certainly Halloween celebrants might qualify... it's my opinion that the title of cosplayer is something one decides to take on. It's a decision to be a cosplayer.
Am I saying that you can't be a cosplayer if you dress up in a costume for Halloween? Am I saying that you can't be a cosplayer if you buy a Halloween costume from a store? Absolutely not. Cosplayers love to dress up for Halloween just as many others do... and wearing a costume, no matter the source, qualifies you to be considered a cosplayer. I'm just saying it's your choice if you want to be considered a cosplayer.
So if anyone wearing a costume can be considered a cosplayer, does that mean anyone who wears a costume IS a cosplayer? Someone actually said this would be the case. But if you attend a Halloween party... that is attended by people who only wear a costume for Halloween parties... and ask them if they are a cosplayer, most of them will say no. Some of them might even ask "what's a cosplayer?"
Traditionally, those who consider themselves cosplayers wear costumes at other times of year besides Halloween. This is not a rule, just an observation. There is no law that states you cannot call yourself a cosplayer if you only dress up for Halloween. But there's also no law that states that you must call yourself a cosplayer if you dress up in a costume.
Halloween can be (and has been) a jumping off point for many cosplayers. But for some, Halloween is the only time they care to wear a costume and might object to being called cosplayers. While those of us in the community view the title with pride, those outside the community have varying views of what a cosplayer is. Not everyone who wears a costume wants to join the cosplay community.
(Of course, anyone who does want to join is more than welcome... they are encouraged and applauded.)
So we will have a lot of people dressed in costume who do not call themselves cosplayers. So do the cosplay rules apply?
For those who might not be sure, here are the rules for cosplay (as I see it):
1) Have fun
2) Respect other people
3) Respect other people's costumes and props
4) COSPLAY IS NOT CONSENT
These are the basic rules of cosplay. Anyone can cosplay whomever and whatever they want because it's all about fun. What cosplay might mean to you individually is not a rule, it's your take on cosplay (such as making your costume, striving for screen accuracy, etc.).
You've probably figured it out, but all these rules STILL apply.
It should be obvious that they would apply, but in my opinion it's better to state the obvious than have someone say "I didn't know."
One rule I would like to point out especially is that cosplay is not consent. It's the principle that just because someone is dressed in a costume, this gives no one the right to have any physical contact with them without their permission.
I've always found this rule, while laudable, to be a little narrow in it's focus. A better rule would be that EXISTENCE is not consent. Whether someone is wearing a costume, a bathing suit, a party dress, tight pants or any (or no) outfit... in any situation... this doesn't give anyone license to have any physical contact without their permission. And with so many parties coming up for Halloween, to be clear, someone who is drunk to the point of impairment cannot give consent.
To force physical contact on someone, especially in regards to physical affection, is harassment, assault, sexual assault and even rape. It's a violation of another person no matter what they are wearing. It's not just breaking cosplay rules, it's breaking the law.
So by all means... put on a costume, call yourself a cosplayer or not, get out there and party! Have lots of fun!
Just remember that your fun should never take away from someone else's fun.
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
Can you judge a candidate by their supporters?
In what has to be one of the most vicious Presidential campaigns in history (at least until 2020), I have seen a lot of complaints about the morals and quality of Clinton supporters.
It doesn't matter who you support, but think about this.. Lindsay Lohan is supporting Hillary Clinton... and somehow this is supposed to reflect badly on Clinton. Ann Coulter just confused Beyoncé with Nicki Minaj... and the point being that Beyoncé (really Nicki) had some very sexually explicit lyrics. And as Beyoncé is a Clinton supporter... shame on Clinton.
I say... so what? None of these supporters that are being singled out are doing anything illegal. You may or may not care for their form of entertainment, but that's a matter of taste, not law. But the real point is... this country is filled with people who can vote that others might not like. As long as they are a U.S. Citizen who holds the right to vote, they can be anything. And they are.
Here are some groups who might support either candidate and can vote in the election.
Porn stars. Attorneys. Strippers. Employees of the IRS. Hunters. Ivy League School graduates. Tattoo artists. Walmart employees. Tailors. Star Trek fans. Dog breeders. Car salespeople. Ballet dancers. Stand up comedians. Wall Street Brokers. Firefighters. People who sing karaoke. Eagles fans. Dallas Cowboy fans. People who don't like sports. People who work out everyday. People who will work out... someday. Tall people. Short people. Rappers. Jazz singers. Military personnel. Hippies. Psychics. Vegans.
These are just some of the groups... and you may admire some of these groups and hate others. But everyone in this country has the right to vote and support whomever they like.
Do we really want to start blaming a candidate for their supporters? Okay, then.
If we are going to say Hillary Clinton is morally bankrupt because Lindsay Lohan supports her... what does that say about Donald Trump, who is supported by Andrew Anglin, a well known Neo Nazi? Or "Don Black, a former grand dragon of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and founder of the neo-Nazi site Stormfront; Rocky Suhayda, chair of the American Nazi Party; and Rachel Pendergraft, a national organizer for the Knights Party, the successor to David Duke's Knights of the Ku Klux Klan." (From How Trump Took Hate Groups Mainstream - The full story of his connection with far-right extremists by Sarah Posner and David Neiwert.)
No matter who is running for President, there are going to be supporters of that candidate that others don't like.
Trump supporters try to point at people they feel are "morally bankrupt" and support Hillary Clinton to show how "evil" she is. Others say Clinton has the backing of Wall Street, which also makes her corrupt and evil. Brokers on Wall Street like to make money (which is so evil). They back Clinton which may mean... that they feel her Presidency will be good for the economy so they can make money. And a good economy means that others will make money too... by being employed, having money to spend, etc. I'm not saying there aren't greedy, uncaring people who work on Wall Street. Those are everywhere. But if these guys make money when the country is in good shape financially and they support Clinton... think about it.
Which brings us to Donald Trump. What does the endorsements of White Supremacists, Neo-Nazis, the Klu Klux Klan and other hate groups show about Trump? If he is such a savvy businessman, why isn't he supported by financial analysts?
If you want to judge the candidates by their qualifications, experience and plans to deal with the issues we face as a nation, then good for you. If you want to judge them by their supporters... well, go ahead. I'll take twerking over hate crimes any day.
It doesn't matter who you support, but think about this.. Lindsay Lohan is supporting Hillary Clinton... and somehow this is supposed to reflect badly on Clinton. Ann Coulter just confused Beyoncé with Nicki Minaj... and the point being that Beyoncé (really Nicki) had some very sexually explicit lyrics. And as Beyoncé is a Clinton supporter... shame on Clinton.
I say... so what? None of these supporters that are being singled out are doing anything illegal. You may or may not care for their form of entertainment, but that's a matter of taste, not law. But the real point is... this country is filled with people who can vote that others might not like. As long as they are a U.S. Citizen who holds the right to vote, they can be anything. And they are.
Here are some groups who might support either candidate and can vote in the election.
Porn stars. Attorneys. Strippers. Employees of the IRS. Hunters. Ivy League School graduates. Tattoo artists. Walmart employees. Tailors. Star Trek fans. Dog breeders. Car salespeople. Ballet dancers. Stand up comedians. Wall Street Brokers. Firefighters. People who sing karaoke. Eagles fans. Dallas Cowboy fans. People who don't like sports. People who work out everyday. People who will work out... someday. Tall people. Short people. Rappers. Jazz singers. Military personnel. Hippies. Psychics. Vegans.
These are just some of the groups... and you may admire some of these groups and hate others. But everyone in this country has the right to vote and support whomever they like.
Do we really want to start blaming a candidate for their supporters? Okay, then.
If we are going to say Hillary Clinton is morally bankrupt because Lindsay Lohan supports her... what does that say about Donald Trump, who is supported by Andrew Anglin, a well known Neo Nazi? Or "Don Black, a former grand dragon of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and founder of the neo-Nazi site Stormfront; Rocky Suhayda, chair of the American Nazi Party; and Rachel Pendergraft, a national organizer for the Knights Party, the successor to David Duke's Knights of the Ku Klux Klan." (From How Trump Took Hate Groups Mainstream - The full story of his connection with far-right extremists by Sarah Posner and David Neiwert.)
No matter who is running for President, there are going to be supporters of that candidate that others don't like.
Trump supporters try to point at people they feel are "morally bankrupt" and support Hillary Clinton to show how "evil" she is. Others say Clinton has the backing of Wall Street, which also makes her corrupt and evil. Brokers on Wall Street like to make money (which is so evil). They back Clinton which may mean... that they feel her Presidency will be good for the economy so they can make money. And a good economy means that others will make money too... by being employed, having money to spend, etc. I'm not saying there aren't greedy, uncaring people who work on Wall Street. Those are everywhere. But if these guys make money when the country is in good shape financially and they support Clinton... think about it.
Which brings us to Donald Trump. What does the endorsements of White Supremacists, Neo-Nazis, the Klu Klux Klan and other hate groups show about Trump? If he is such a savvy businessman, why isn't he supported by financial analysts?
If you want to judge the candidates by their qualifications, experience and plans to deal with the issues we face as a nation, then good for you. If you want to judge them by their supporters... well, go ahead. I'll take twerking over hate crimes any day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)