A Note to Republicans (and a small one for Democrats) in the Wake of Roy Moore

A note to Republicans who have felt emboldened by Trump's win. Congratulations to you. It seems like most of you very much want to be told how wonderful it is that your candidate won. He did. Yay. Now, moving on to more than just winning a single election, it's time to talk about the big picture.

Yes, Trump won an election. One election. And yes, he won that election by tapping into disatisfaction of a large section of the population while the Democratic candidate struggled to make connections with the electorate. But winning one election is nothing, my friends. Where do you go from here? Well, if Alabama is any indication, many in the deepest of red states have decided to double down on the 'Trump Factor' in their Republican primaries, assuming that a whacky character with strong views - not all entirely sane - that spoke to the heart of disatisfied America was the winning strategy. Well, folks, it's not. It can win an election or two, outside of a dictatorship, it's not a recipe for lasting success.

Being angry, hateful, riled up, etc...they aren't lasting emotions. They are hard to sustain. And having such low standards for candidates comes with risks. Like, for instance, when your candidate has a pretty well documented history of staking out malls for young girls while working as a DA, thinks life was better when slavery was still legal, thinks that homosexuality should be illegal, and was suspended from the Alabama Supreme Court for failing to follow the law, it doesn't take much for any other candidate to hold the moral high ground over you. Party loyalty is a powerful drug, but even that can't get everyone to ignore massive character flaws and potential felonious behavior. In reality, Republicans are better off for Moore losing, and Trump Republicans should take this loss very seriously. If Moore-like candidates cannot win in Alabama, they cannot win anywhere. Perhaps it is time to leave the lost culture wars behind, accept life in 2017, live your life as traditionally, religiously, and modestly as you wish but leave every one else alone and try to find candidates that understand how to make good, thoughtful, and coherent policy. Just a thought. Democrats: People of color and women (especially women of color) carry your party. They carry your party in every state in the Union. Now it's time to stop taking those votes for granted and prioritizing their needs. Get to work.

The #transban highlights a huge flaw in our military culture

By now you've heard that 45 has been recklessly tweeting again, this time about a ban on Transpeople serving in the Military. Now, don't get me wrong. I don't actually think Trump cares about Trans people in the military. He wants his stupid wall built and Congress - while the country is burning to the ground - is having philosophical conversations about the 2-4 trans people in the entire country who might want to have Sex Reassignment Surgery on the government dime. You know, because this is the government expenditure that is an immediate threat to civilization. Therefore, Trump's ham-fisted response is to say 'No Trans People' in the military. Regardless, of his intent, this #transban has highlighted a very real and age-old problem with the American Military Culture. I want to preface all of this by saying that I deeply respect the military and this is not an attack on military service men, individually, but rather the culture that is fostered in the military in a broad way.

In the IDF not upsetting the worldview of the troops doesn't rank high on the list of priorities for military enrollement policy. Israel, a non-secular country, has no problem with Transpeople serving in their military. They also have no problem with gay soldiers. Or females ones. In fact, instead of making harsh limits on who can and cannot join, they try to find a place for everyone within reason. (They also have a draft, which I oppose, but that's a topic for another day) No one could argue the IDF is a weak or ineffective military. No one could argue that IDF doesn't face the same military realities of the United States. IDF fights are mandatory. The US is often meddling in business that isn't even ours.

As military reality changes, there are more military positions for those who might not meet the standard physical requirements of service, or who don't fit in the the 'old boy's club'. Israel has been on the forefront of finding the right fit for the right person to enhance military operations, but they aren't the only Western military thinking this way. In fact, many Western militaries have active serving trans people who are doing so proudly. No military break down. The logistics haven't caused a security risk. The men and women who fight alongside these trans people simply have to be grown ups. Military leaders simply have to set the example for that maturity and respect. It really is that simple.

But in America, 'boys will be boys' still prevails in the American Military. Even as more and more women join the ranks of the armed forces, rape culture continues to grow, sexism prevails, and leadership has little interest in curbing any of it. Moreover, that sexist culture is putting the more than 1 million women who serve in danger. So, while everyone is concerned about the feelings of the melting macho snowflakes and how they will handle taking a shower with someone who has breasts and a penis, no one at all seems concerned about the fact that military women don't feel safe with their brothers in arms. So much for a 'brotherhood' (or sisterhood), amiright?

This culture has to change. And no, that's not 'turning the military into a social experiment'. It is literally asking that anyone who serves respects the people they serve with. Regardless of body parts. Regardless of sexual orientation. Regardless of gender. Regardless of religion. You know, this concept isn't all that crazy. In fact, in 2017, it's more the norm than it isn't in the West.

For a society obsessed with being the leader of Western Culture, we are falling drastically behind in our own progress. Our insistence that men can't be expected to treat people who aren't like them with respect isn't something to be proud of. It is something to change. If we are at risk because the same military minds who plan elaborate and complex war strategy can't figure out how to configure bathrooms or showers, then we have bigger problems than I think we realize. If you are so worried about paying for the tiny number of people who may seek Sex Reassignment Surgery, but you couldn't be bothered to get upset about the thousands of military women violated by the Marine photo scandal, or the women who were raped and given little justice in the Air Force Acadamy rape scandal you really have no business talking about what will and won't be harmful to military security. It seems, what you are really saying is 'it might make a section of macho snowflakes melt, and we can't have that.'


*photo credit 1: Star Tribune, Steve Sack
*photo credit 2: The Invisibile War, Kirby Dick

Climate Change and Libertarianism. Are they at odds?

It looks like 'environment' and 'Climate Change' are about to go on my social fixer filters. Guys, Climate Change is real. I used to be a skeptic. I had reasons to be skeptical given that many politicians have utilized Climate Change for things that have less to do with the environment and more to do with wealth redistribution and grabbing more money from taxpayers. The Paris Accord was far from perfect, and I don't actually care if Trump leaves it...so long as he plans to put something better out there to help push us to a sustainable energy policy. But while you can be skeptical of politicians, you can't ignore evidence in your face, or the earnestness with which scientists are appealing to you to see reason. Yes, politicians might be trying to take advantage of the moment for their own economic goals that doesn't mean you throw up your hands and pretend there isn't a real problem. Climate Change is an existential threat. Whether it is in 15 years of 350 years, it will kill us. And if you don't think it is an existential threat, you are going to be much less interested in doing anything about it. Well, a nation that just elected a man who thinks 'exercise drains your fixed energy' and there is a 'question about vaccines' and 'Climate Change was invented by the Chinese' unfortunately cannot be trusted to act rationally about the environment in the market. The free market is wonderful. It will fix nearly any economic problem you have. It won't fix stupidity. It won't fix willful ignorance. It won't choose the moral path if an easier, more comfortable path exists. And for that reason, the free market alone cannot deal with Climate Change. Advocates of the free market need to be mindful that while our economic theory corrects recessions, depressions, monopolies, and encourages upward mobility, less poverty, and price reduction, it has nothing to do with acting morally or preemptively on disaster. Now, I know what 'purists' will say. They will argue, if we use this 'morality' argument in relation to the environment, we can use it for anything. Not really. Most problems people seek to fix by meddling in the market are not existential crises. Moreover, most of their 'fixes' actually don't work as well as the market self-corrects. But the safety of our planet, our clean air, our water - these are things that are existential risks. When a company does something that puts another person's existence in jeopardy, that's a violation of the NAP. That violation cannot be ignored in the name of 'the free market'. There is an understanding that the 'free market' cannot violate the civil liberties of someone else. Normally these disputes are handled via unions, sometimes labor laws. But in the case of the environment, who is the representative of the community's air, water, and interest of existence to a company? Maybe, you argue, people just won't shop there. That would be nice. But when Big Carbon is actively lining the pockets of people in Washington and elsewhere to promote archaic energy, that option doesn't exist. Perhaps, we could argue that in a real free market this 'shop elsewhere' scenario could work. But the threat is real, imminent and we are not even close to our free market utopia, yet. We don't have time to wait for a Libertarian majority to correct the cronyism in our system to see how people will react in a truly free market. Not when the Doomsday Clock is counting down. We need to incentivize clean, renewable energy. We need to do it now, not when we are 20-50 years out from extinction. And to do that, we are going to have to realize that Climate Change is an existential threat and change our behavior accordingly. This isn't a blank check to the government. Government is just one teeny, tiny part of the solution. But if your best take away from leaving the Paris Accords is anything other than, 'Okay, so what will our solution be to the problem be,' then you are why we can't just 'leave it up to the market'.

Arvin Vohra Needs to Go

A short but important one, guys. Arvin Vohra, Libertarian Party Vice Chair, needs to go. After several months of absurdly unnuanced, black-and-white, morally superior postings and 'open letters', the outspoken Vice Chair finds himself pissing off exactly the last people libertarians should seek to piss off: Military service people and vets. (credit for meme: Matthew McGowan at Dankertarian Family - facebook)

Yes. That's right. After a 2016 campaign that showed active service members preferred the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, Arvin's genius plan is to end war, one anti-military personnel post at a time. And while the LP has been quite adept at making the case that you can oppose war and not oppose the soldier, such a distinction seems difficult for Arvin. Probably a good reason not to allow him to be a mouthpiece of the Party.

His supporters, of course, are whining about how 'out of context' his statements are being taken. Or how 'that's not what he meant, dummy!' Let me nip that shit right in the bud. He did mean soldiers are immoral, and I can prove it:

See that? 100% of soldiers are acting immorally. And did you notice that nod to Adolf Eichmann/Nazi imagery? So, please, Arvin-lovers, miss me with 'you just don't get it' nonsense. I'm quite adept at nuance. It's one of the reasons I cannot stand Arvin Vohra as a Vice Chair. He has all the nuance of a freight train. He lives in an An-Cap world of moral superiority, and he brazenly expresses his biased opinions of human action as fact. Constantly.

And, he's got 99 problems. This is just one. He frequently posts 'probing' questions like this one:

In case you don't know, Agustus Invictus is a known white nationalist parading as libertarian down in Florida. The only appropriate response to him by a Party leader is that he is illegitimate and his positions do not reflect the Libertarian Party. The end.

Or this nuanced as a sledgehammer position:

Or this incredibly tin-foil hat post: 

Or this science-phobic gem:

Then, of course, there is his manic obsession with education and how not even one dime of public money should go to educating children. So militant is his hatred for the very idea of a tax (even a consumption tax) going to help allow kids a chance at upward mobility, he posts about it at least once a week. 

When pressed about how a 5-year-old teaches himself to read and write on the computer, unassisted, he hadn't much of an answer other than 'oh, well it should be privately paid for'. Okay. Well, in purely ideological terms, sure. In reality, if you leave poor parents with no educational options for their children you are only contributing to a deeper economic divide. The free market can only work if people have a reasonable access to the skills needed to participate in the market, dude. Also, did you happen to notice the appropriation of the hashtag #EndTheRapeCulture? Classy.

His anti-school obsession is so insane that he wages war on charters and vouchers, even though they are a free-market alternative to failing public schools that are mostly very popular outside of Teacher's Union circles.

Here's the kicker. Arvin Vohra runs an online school. So, not only is he passing off terribly unpopular policy on a weekly basis, it is to promote a business model that he directly profits from. Think about that for a minute. Either he is incredibly stupid, or he is saying things like 'lectures, labs, and school work are useless' for selfish, personal economic gain. You be the judge.

We have a Party Chair who is absurdly good at articulating nuance. Nicholas Sarwark is such an effective communicator, he can get people who are not libertarians to, at the least, understand that he is making a reasonable point. Arvin Vohra is like walking into a Libertarian FB page and taking the top An-Cap comment. He's unnuanced, unreasonable, and should not have any role in articulating the Party platform to people. Principle over pragmatism is fine for typical facebook commenters. It is terrible for someone who is supposed to be making the party relevant to people who, you know, serve in the military or have children in school - the exact people we need to vote for us if we ever hope to win any elections.

it's time for Arvin to go. Sorry if that chafes, but it is what it is. 

Libertarian Philosophy: The Basics

As has been explained a billion time now, libertarians are a diverse group of people. They run a range of political identities all the way from an-caps who consider themselves libertarian to libertarian socialists. There are socially conservative libertarians (these people are usually personally very conservative but often don’t seek to use the government to make everyone else live the way they do) and there are socially progressive libertarians (like myself).

Socially Progressive, ‘Bleeding-heart’ libertarians, like myself do not oppose government intervention because we are stockpiling arms in our basement for the great war. We don’t oppose government regulation in the market because we want Goldman Sachs to get rich. We think healthcare works best when the patient is the customer, not the government or insurance companies.

The primary beliefs of libertarians are:

1) The NAP. The Non-Aggression principle. Clinically defined this is ‘an ethical stance which asserts that aggression, coercion, force (preemptively) are inherently illegitimate. To a libertarian, this principle applies to individuals and governments. When you think about it, following the NAP is basic common sense. If an individual isn’t allowed to take your property, or make you fight his battles, then a government should not be extended those rights - especially since the government is supposed to be ‘of and by the people’. How is that any different than a collection of people being allowed to break the law?

NAP applies to personal interaction but also to property in the form of ‘tax’. That is where ‘Taxation is Theft’ comes from. Many non-libertarians think this catchphrase is silly. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ROADS!?!?!? They cry, clutching their pearls, hyperventilating that, without stealing someone’s production, roads could not exist. Well, they could. But putting that aside, most libertarians agree that some form of taxation is required. Otherwise, we are in anarchism territory. A government needs some money for basic infrastructure. Libertarians differ on just how much infrastructure is necessary or right. That’s a conversation for another day. But suffice it to say that zero-tax is a pipe dream that nearly all of us know is infeasible. So, to libertarians, a more voluntary tax code is ideal. This means consumption tax. Consumption tax allows you to control how much you want to pay, in many ways. If you spend less, you pay less. It doesn’t punish people for earning money. It doesn’t take their labor and, essentially, make them work for free for several weeks or months in the name of ‘income tax’.

Obviously, NAP also applies to war efforts, violation of civil liberties, etc. This is why most libertarians don’t think we should get involved in conflict unless we have been attacked. Again, this doesn’t mean libertarians do not care about the plight of others. They just, reasonably, question whether out involvement is right, helps, or is within our responsibilities. ‘We have to do something’ is the battle cry of bad foreign policy more often than not, though there are exceptions (like WWII). The violation of civil liberties is a violation of the NAP and libertarians agree that the individual is the most basic minority there is.

2) The individual. In theory, the individual is autonomous, free, and not beholden to the government. In practice, libertarians differ on how this applies to everyday life and politics. Some libertarians look at ‘the individual’ as a refutation of identity politics. They believe that people, at their core, are individuals first, and that ‘group’ or ‘identity’ politics and mentality are detrimental to individual liberties. Conversely, I think that perceptions of certain marginalized groups require that they ‘identify’ together to promote equality for their identity group. In a perfect world, we would all be individuals. In practice, though, the world still sees us in groups. Acting as a group for a common goal need not interfere with the promotion of individual liberties as well. Either way, at the core, the individual is the most likely to have her rights violated as the individual is the most basic minority.

3) Civil Liberties. The vast majority of libertarians believe, deeply, in federal constitutional protections of rights. The Bill of Rights are natural rights, bestowed upon us by merely existing. Any violation of these rights is the government (or in some cases, companies – but that is more rare, and nearly impossible in a free market economy) violating those natural, inherent rights. While localities and states should handle most problems – as they have the most accountability to the people who elect them – a state or locality cannot be allowed to violate any individual's natural rights.

4) Property Rights. For a libertarian, the right to your own property is as serious as your right to free speech, religion, fair trial, etc. Property is property. Taking it without consent is theft – even if someone who was elected with 48% of the vote does it. In my opinion, sales tax or consumption tax should replace it, and government should be limited to work within its means. Federal government should return to its intended role of managing defense, upholding civil liberties, and making sure the union doesn’t collapse and states should take responsibility for themselves.  

If a society is responsible for its most vulnerable (and I think it is) it should do so voluntarily with efficient private means. Voting to have the government pick someone else’s pocket is not compassion or morality. It is passing the buck to someone else to do the things you claim to care about. It is using the force of guns to intimidate people into being nice (in the way you describe nice). It is not liberty. Not at all. And if you believe strongly in a particular issue, contribute to it. You will get more for your money in helping others if you do so privately than you ever will through the government. The government is not the only entity that can help. In fact, it’s not even very adept at the task.

5) The Free Market. This is not to be confused with Corporatism, as it almost always is by the left. The free market is literally what it says. It is a market free of government collusion, corruption, intimidation, favorite playing, and regulation. That last one is scariest to most folks. Without government regulation, how will stop baby formula companies from putting crack cocaine in their formula!?!? Well, for one, if a baby died of a drug overdose from drinking Similac, that would put a pretty good dent in Similac’s stock portfolio.

It does a company absolutely zero good to sell you something unsafe that you don’t want. Consumers aren’t as stupid as you think. If they are car shopping and notice one brand’s cars' breaks cut out in 6 months, they probably won’t buy that car. Even if they do, it is because they’ve made a qualified assessment that this is fine. They will pay less for the car now and simply replace the breaks more often. That works better for them.

The very essence of business is to find something that people want, make it, and sell it cheaper than a competitor. This leads not only to better goods for consumers but lower prices. Workers operate in a free market, free to unionize for better representation if they wish, and consumers and producers can interact without the government managing every step of the process. When businesses knowingly act in bad faith, they should face harsh penalties.

But while we are on the topic of regulation ‘protecting’ the consumer, it rarely actually works that way. We are currently living in a time of the most business regulation, by miles, in American history. And yet, the top 1% have gotten richer while everyone else’s wages have not seen such a boost. Corporations are getting bigger while small, local businesses are getting squeezed. The reason is that government regulation of business almost always rewards whoever has the deepest pockets. This is for a number of reasons. 1) Big businesses are usually lobbying for the regulation as an act of protectionism and monopoly building. 2) Big businesses have more capital to institute expensive regulations. Small businesses have much slimmer profit margins. 3) Congressmen and women get direct kickbacks for helping corporations. This is a bipartisan problem. Both do it constantly.

So, while you think those regulations are helping you, they are actually helping grow corporations and make the rich richer. The free market is imperfect but it is, without a doubt, the fairest system there is.

In all these issues, like with any political ideology, there are nuances, exceptions, diverging opinions. But no, we aren’t pro-corporation, anti-rich, selfish children. Most of us have thought long and hard about all of these issues and come up with this system as the fairest and ultimately best political ideology given our priorities. We are no different than Republicans and Democrats except we have to make far fewer excuses for our candidates’ shitty behavior and we don’t hold any power.

No, Confederate Monuments Don't Belong on Public Land

I'm going to do a thing that is going to annoy a lot of people. I'm also going to be accused of 'invoking Nazis' - the dreaded 'Godwin's Law'. But there is a reason people use Nazi comparisons. It's because, with the exception of well-established anti-Semites, everyone knows Nazis are the literal worst and they don't go around trying to defend them. What I'm going to posit is not a perfect comparison, nor am I going to equate all southerners to Nazis. I am, however, going to explain why glorifying, commemorating, reverent monuments to Confederate leaders and generals has no place on public land.

This is an emotional topic, and I went to college in the South, so I expect backlash. I've been unfriended already on this topic just in the last 24 hours. If you can, please try to remember that I'm not attacking the South. In fact, I loved going to college in the South. It is very likely that one day I'll move there. People are warm, friendly, and usually less neurotic. But we have to talk about the reverence for The Confederacy.

The first thing I'm going to be told is something along the lines of 'It's heritage, not hate'. You will notice this is a luxury of only white people to say. Because the heritage of the Civil War for black people isn't quite the Scarlette O'Hara melodrama. The 'heritage' that preceded the Civil War for black people was enslavement, beatings, rape, torture, child abduction, and worse. Ignoring these facts is no different than calling the 1950s the 'good old days' and not having the ability to understand that the 1950s were abysmal for anyone who wasn't white, heterosexual, cis, and straight.

Next, will be that The Civil War wasn't really about slavery. Well, okay. It wasn't only about slavery, but it was about slavery. Yes, there were other State's Rights issues. Yes, there were taxation issues. Yes, the North did envy the Southern Economy. There are various untruths perpetuated by Confederacy Advocates that claim Southerners were soon to ban Slavery (they weren't), or that the North aggressed them first (Ft. Sumter would suggest otherwise), or that the generals themselves may not have even supported slavery. But let me get to the crux of the issue here. Even if the Civil War were about 50 things, if one of those things was to keep the 'right' to own human beings, you are on the wrong side of the conflict.

Here's where the Nazis come in. Nazi Germany was not 100% bad. They did a number of things to help the people of Germany crawl out of desperate poverty and depression. Not everything they wanted was entirely insane, either. The Treaty of Versailles was draconian. Some of their sovereign land had been confiscated. Are we to say that because they had some cause, because they were taking back what was rightfully theirs, that the other parts don't matter as much? Becuase we can find some reasonability in some Nazi goals, do we write off their genocide? Or the global domination they sought? No. Of course not. And therein lies the problem with Confederacy Advocates. You are, by nature of your argument, delegitimizing the horror of American Slavery. It was no less horrifying than the Holocaust. I was no less unjust than any other human rights atrocity of the same scale.

When you gloss over slavery to talk about taxes, you are, essentially, glossing over the Holocaust to talk about the Treaty of Versailles. When you say slavery is but one small factor, you are saying global domination and racial purity is just a small part of the story, not as important as the other parts, like the Germans in the Sudetenland being repatriated. When slavery, genocide, ethnic cleansing, mass deportations, etc are your reasons for doing something, or even in your solution to a problem, you are on the wrong side of the fight. Every. Time.

Which brings us back to the monuments. If we can agree that Slavery was at least a contributing factor to the Confederates' secession (and all reasonable people can. Read a book) the personal ideology of the generals doesn't matter, in the least, when talking about appropriate monuments for public land. Many Nazi generals didn't side with Adolf Hitler. They were fighting because it was their duty to fight and they believed in Germany First. Nothing inherently wrong with that. But would you say 'it's just history' if Munich City Hall erected a statue or monument to a Nazi General? Do you think Jews who would be outraged by such a thing are being 'snowflakes'?

Why is it so hard for you to understand that people are outraged by the commemoration of generals in a war that was fought, at least in part, to maintain the right to continue human rights atrocities? Is it because you don't know how horrifying slavery is/was? Is it because you don't care? Or do you think the very thing that separates the South from the North is this bitter insistence that the Confederacy was a noble 'last stand' against Federal tyranny? Newsflash, States never had the right to own people, it just took until 1860 for the Feds to actually stand up for what was already expressly part of The Constitution and what are now obviously understood as natural civil liberties.

So, no. Homages to Confederate soldiers and 'Old South' ideas of white supremacy have no place on public land. If they mean that much to you, I fully support you erecting them on private land, though. But maybe ask yourself why you want to.

Actually, Movies do matter...

It's a common criticism of Hollywood that it is frivolous, out of touch, and unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Certainly, the upper echelon of Hollywood personalities are in a bubble. They can be tone deaf and self-important. But that's true of any group of people who are absurdly rich and live in a closed community. It's not unique to Hollywood. More importantly, the art these people work together to produce (along with many average, middle-class tradesman and artists, btw) is vitally important. Don't write it off. Movies do change the world.

In fact, it is precisely because of how effective and important film is in changing people's perceptions that Conservatives often find themselves at odds with Hollywood. Actors and writers have long been, in general terms, more progressive or liberally-minded people, and for that reason have been ridiculed or censored by the right. Not to get too far in the weeds of film history, but in the late 1920s, to fight what some saw as 'obscene' lack of guidelines in the film industry, Production Codes (Hays Code) were put into place to limit things like swearing, sexual content, miscegenation, etc. Basically, anything that would be deemed obscene by a conservative audience would not be permitted. The Code even applied to actors and actresses outside of work. The Code was mostly abandoned by the sixties when it became impossible to enforce. In the 1950s, of course, there was McCarthyism, rooting out 'Communists' from the Film Industry before they could spread their obscene ideas. So hysterical was 'The Red Scare', films like It's A Wonderful Life were considered 'communist propaganda' for maligning the banking industry. At this time, actors, directors, producers, and writers were called before U.S. Congress to defend themselves against accusations that they were using the film industry to brainwash the masses into hating Capitalism or embracing Communism. While there were some actual Communists in the industry, most of these people were just making movies, telling human stories. Some of those stories just happened to have come to odds with American Nationalism or Exceptionalism.

One cannot ignore the fact that film has a huge impact on the people who watch it. Writing it off as frivolous is the desperate hope of people who do not wish for these films to have an affect on audiences. Since audiences watched that 'first' film of the the train coming into a station (L'Arivée d'un Train Ä la Ciotat), Film has evoked a specific and strong response from humanity. Moving picture changed how we viewed the world and how we spread our messages. One-hundred and twenty years later, Film has become one of the most widely consumed artistic mediums. With more and more access to it, filmmakers are able to convey a story, or message, or feeling to a mass audience, globally. The importance of this shared experience cannot be overstated. Language and culture might divide us, but Film can and does bring us together. For this reason, the political forces that are less than liberal or progressive have sought to delegitimize the medium, or in some cases, outright ban it. Illiberal societies enforce strong censorship rules on film so that the impact of these movies cannot incite their populations to act against them. If people see other people, lifestyles, cultures, religions, races, etc on a daily basis through the medium of film, it becomes harder to demonize those groups.

For anyone who argues that film can't change the world, I offer you examples to prove you wrong.

• Birth of a Nation (1915): This D.W. Griffiths film which celebrated the Ku Klux Klan as the savior of Southern Whites in the face of post-slavery black 'aggression' is remembered for its horrifying racism. What you might not know is how that racism impacted the entire nation. While the KKK has mostly disbanded by the time the film was released, it resurged after, and its numbers topped 4 million by the mid-20s leading to a new era of violent race discrimination. 
• The Triumph of the Will (1935): This Nazi Propaganda film, though appalling, was like rocket fuel under the Nazi movement, mobilizing support for the Nazis and marking the surge of Geman Nationalism and hero worship (of Hitler) that would give him the political capital he needed to do his mass-murdering, war mongering deeds. 
• Citizen Kane (1941): While not drastically changing the social make-up of America or the world, Citizen Kane did set a standard for every film that followed. The industry changed after this movie, employing many of its techniques in modern pictures. This movie was the best of its age telling a story that resonated with a mass audience. 
• Rebel Without A Cause (1955): This film is the first of its kind to highlight the underlying depression and angst in the picturesque 1950s, while taking on the topic of generational divide. Things were changing and the chasm between the older generation and the younger was never more artfully and articulately depicted as in this James Dean classic. What followed was a rebellious, activist generation of young people who would not be satisfied with the status-quo. 
• Jaws (1976): Yeah, I said Jaws. Jaws was the first of its kind 'Blockbuster'. The expansion of the film market increased the number of people regularly going to the movies. Moreover, the film led to a group of Japanese documentaries that uncovered lethal levels of mercury in fishing waters which allowed for a class-action lawsuit against the company that poisoned the waters. 
• Philadelphia (1993): Released after the height of the AIDS epidemic but still timely, this story of a gay man, suffering from AIDS, fighting a lawsuit against his employer for wrongful termination is not only a must-see, it humanized gay people and AIDS victims in a way that is not actually hard to quantify. There was a massive shift in perspective about AIDS after the release of this movie. 
• Pay It Forward (2000): A touching and heart-breaking movie about a boy who devises a plan to help people with the condition that they 'pay forward' that act of kindness with three other acts of kindness. It seems a simple premise, but the impact this movie had on culture is astounding. 'Pay it Forward' has now become a regular part of our North American lexicon, prompting regular people to 'pay it forward' in ways as small as buying coffee for the person behind them in line to building companies that help the impoverished have a chance at upward mobility. 
• Crash (2004): Often considered one of the most 'undeserving' Best Picture Oscar Award winners, Crash does have problems. But it is often forgotten how much this film challenged stereotypes and humanized the race-relations issue in America. 
• Thank You for Smoking (2005): Not a runaway hit, but Thank You for Smoking sheds comical light on how lobbying works and the lengths corporations will go to, to get specialty treatment from lawmakers. Perhaps the only other film to ever hit this point so hard and so impactfully was Mr. Smith Goes to Washington almost 70 years before. 
• Blackfish (2013): This disturbing documentary about Orcas in captivity in America's largest Marine Attraction Park, SeaWorld, led to the company abandoning its Orca exhibit altogether. It enraged millions who lobbied the Orlando-based company to either stop capturing and tormenting Orcas or face boycotts. 

This list is only a tiny sample of the ways films have made an impact on society, directly. There are an infinite list of real life impacts that individual films have had. Did you know that the wine tasting comedy Sideways actually hurt Merlot sales as people began buying more Pinot Noir? But more important than these concrete, quantifiable, results of particular movies is the hazy, slow marching progress that films have helped lead us to. 

Among the most controversial issues to be articulated by Film to an audience that might not be totally ready were race relations and race mixing, gay rights, women's rights, religious hypocrisy, and poverty. While Conservatives often have seen these social issues in film as 'propaganda' or 'brainwashing' the truth is that film was not necessarily intended to be 'mindless' fun. It is an artform. In its highest form, it should make you think, change your perspective, and introduce you to moral dilemmas that you might not have considered before. That's art. The cultural impact of that art being readily available to the masses has had as much impact on society as the printing press, in my opinion.

Today, we can walk into a movie theatre and be exposed to worlds, perspectives, and realities that might be foreign to us, but they are real for someone. That exposure makes it hard for us to marginalize, hate, or discriminate against those who are different. The 'Harry Potter Generation' is the most tolerant, least obsessed with differences, generation in history. It is no accident that this change has come with the widely read titular work as well as life-long (or nearly) access to a global community of people who are different via the internet. It is easy to fear illegal immigrants when you don't know any. It becomes harder when you can go to the movies and immerse yourself in a story from their world.

Film matters and, yes, it's also a generally liberal medium. That's no reason to demonize it. Time marches on. Society progresses. If film helps people make connections and set aside hate, fear, and resentment that should be celebrated, not demonized. You don't have to agree with the perspective of every filmmaker. In fact, you shouldn't. But you should not seek to silence them. And you certainly shouldn't pretend their medium is frivolous. Clearly, it isn't, or the right-wing wouldn't have spent the last century trying to either censor it or bend it to their will. 

For Tomi Lahren, Matt Walsh, and anyone else still confused about the #WomensMarch

I deserve a medal. I actually took three whole minutes to listen to angry, arrogant troglodyte, Tomi Lahren and her strawman filled rant about the peaceful and impressive protest of nearly 3 million women the Saturday after Donald Trump's Inauguration. As per typical, she missed the whole point (likely on purpose) and spews erroneous rhetorical bullshit at the function from her expensive set.

There are many things wrong with what she has to say, not the least of which is that she (like so many others) is either ignorant of what the function was about or pretends to be so. According to her (and many), all the men, women, and children who stood for women's equality on January 21st are just sore losers. Whining 'snowflakes' who should shut up and accept that Donald Trump is 'their president'. You know, like right wingers did of Obama in 2008.

Here are a couple of refutations, though, for anyone interested:

-She accuses the marchers of "hissing at well-dressed men". Citation needed. But even if that were true of a few people at the marches, who the fuck cares? Honestly. Ohh, were they hissed at? How upsetting that must have been! Almost like getting followed down a street and being told, repeatedly, to smile, and then being called a bitch when you don't.

- She says that the march was not an inclusive one, but rather "a dozen special interests groups marching together, not to advance the nation as a whole, but rather their own special interest." Okay, well, this one is easily debunked. Special interest groups attended, those groups didn't make up the majority of the march. Most women showed up by themselves or in small groups, unaffiliated.

But let's get to the meat of this. The implication that Trump is inclusive while the Women's Marches are not is laughable. I've been openly critical of the Women's March's explicit absence of sex workers from their groups of people who are specifically marginalized in America. And, yes, the march wasn't fertile ground for pro-life groups. For one, pro-life groups are working hard to limit women's reproductive rights, so this is just common sensical. Here's the thing. Even if the Women's March excluded some people, who can possibly say that Trump doesn't exclude more? His anti-Mexican and Latino rhetoric is exclusionary. His law and order, pro-DEA stance is exclusionary. And, btw, have you ever seen an assemblage of Trump supporters even one-tenth as diverse as the women's march? Save your bullshit fake outrage about lack of 'inclusiveness' for people who actually believe you give a shit, Tomi.

-She continues her phony outrage by juxtaposing pictures of the signs left at Trump Hotel and a 'Fuck Trump' sign with 'environmentalism' and 'tolerance' respectively. These are such tired arguments from the right. Is the left often 'intolerant'? Yes. Hell yes. They can be the biggest hypocrites in the world on the issue of tolerance. But singling out the Commander in Cheif for outrage and anger when he's campaigned on Nationalistic populism is 100% justified. Being 'tolerant' doesn't mean you let people do bullshit things and say nothing about it. It doesn't mean you keep quiet when you see injustice. And, for the last time, the signs were dropped in front of Trump Hotel deliberately. It wasn't just litter. It was a point of protest and I promise someone was paid to remove them, so everyone take a pill and relax.

-She says, "American women, the most privileged and blessed women on earth," (citation needed) were marching for "subsidized Abortions". WRONG. Nope. Not true. I didn't meet a single person at the March in San Antonio who was marching for subsidized abortions. What they believe is that women should have reasonable access to abortions. That is very different, Tomi. The reason abortion is such an issue in these marches is because red states around the country are trying to limit women's access to abortion every day. They pass bill after bill that gets spanked in the courts. If Trump is given the ability to stack the SCOTUS, it might make it so one of these bills actually gets upheld. And that would be catastrophic for women's health.

-She, then, goes on to that tired argument about the #WomensMarch being pointless and useless. But that she was part of an 'inclusionary march...into the voting booths'. For one, so were the women marching. Do you imagine they didn't also vote?  They just happened to lose. But more than that, are you arguing that voting is more important that the constitutionally protected right to protest? She insists that all of this was just 'causing a scene' with no hope of benefit. Please tell Martin Luther King and the Suffragettes how protests don't work. Hell, the Tea Party was so successful more than fifty Tea Party Candidates were elected to U.S. Congress!



See, the thing is, Tomi, you enjoy an immense amount of privilege because people that came before you protested things that were unjust. I imagine you'd be one of the women in the early 20th century claiming the women standing in front of the White House with 'Votes for Women' signs were rabble rousers 'too ugly to get a man to keep them in line'.

-She is obsessed with Democrat/Republican rhetoric, but these marches were about more than a political party. Libertarians who never believed their candidate would win the election were there. Independents were there. This wasn't a Democrat function. It was a grassroots movement...Just like that Tea Party Movement that I'm sure you did not think was a waste of time or causing a scene or 'throwing a fit'. Funny how when your own ideas are represented in a protest you think it has value. When it is opposing views, they should just go home and shut up.

-She then, hilariously, posits that "outspoken people like me are a threat to your bubble". I'm sorry, is there any plane of existence, on this planet or any other, that Tomi Lahren doesn't exist in an echo chamber or bubble? Come on, girl, your entire business is predicated on keeping people in a bubble. Get out of here with that. Pot. Meet Kettle.

-Multiple times, she refers to Trump Supporters as the 'Silent Majority'. Literally, no one on earth could accuse Trump Supports, and specifically her, of being silent. I wish she'd be silent occasionally. But more than that, you aren't the majority either. You won the election. That doesn't mean you are the majority. For one, you lost the popular vote which means, by definition, you are not the majority. And that leaves out the many millions who didn't even vote because they didn't give one blessed fuck about Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.

-Then she explains all the terrible things that have happened to America in the eight years of Obama's presidency (jeez, she's giving one man a lot of credit). She claims we are "less American". What does that even mean? Also, citation needed. She says that in eight years "men have been encouraged to be less manly and women to be less womanly". Jesus. What does this have to do with the president and how would Trump fix it? Mandatory gender role adherence? What a weird thing to be worried about. And finally, she concludes that we've had "eight years of watching jobs go overseas while illegals pour in". Is there an eye-roll emoji? Because this needs one. For one, outsourcing isn't new, and Trump is a huge fan of outsourcing. Most of his stuff is not made here. Secondly, Obama deported more undocumented immigrants than any president in history. Not that 'illegals' are America's problem in the first place.

Everything will be all good now, though, because Trump is a 'real' American who wants to make us great. You won, Tomi. Why are you still so angry?

In other parts of the interwebs, human garbage dumpster, Matt Walsh points out that women are totally equal, so what are we whining about. The irony of this coming from a guy who thinks women shouldn't work and that gay people don't deserve equal rights is staggering. He tweeted this:

Matt, someone should explain the difference between legal and actual equality to you. A group can be 'legally' equal but still face discrimination, social inequality, and targetted laws against them. Just look up the difference in crack and cocaine offense sentencing, or any number of the sexist laws certain states are passing to shut down women's health clinics and shame women. Saying that women are equal because we have legal equality is like saying blacks were equal in 1870 because of the 15th Amendment.

I imagine it's hard for you, Matt, to perceive these injustices and inequalities while you sip your hipster-brand whiskey, basking in your echo-chamber of other white dudes telling you how 'on-point' you are for sticking it to these 'snowflake whiners'. It would require empathy, compassion, and an ability to see past yourself - skills you've made it clear you don't possess. But remember, just because you blog or tweet about something doesn't mean that what you say is gospel fact. Each time you ignore that blatant injustice exists, you show yourself for the idiotic, dimwit you are.

I have some advice for anyone else sharing these tweets, videos, and this rhetoric. Before you speak up about the Women's Marches around the world, why don't you try talking to some of the people who went about why they were there and what is important to them rather than erecting strawmen because you are upset that millions had the audacity to stand up for something that doesn't matter to you.