Why fire anyone? Screw the FCC!

I’ve always hated Federal Communications Commission, not just as an institution but the mere idea of it. How is it that the US constitution enshrines your right to say whatever you want, but somehow that right is not extended to TV? As someone who values free expression the FCC appals me, and it should appal all supporters of free speech whether you’re left-wing or right-wing. So it bothered me when the whole #FireColbert fracas showed up. Apparently the failing agitprop artist Stephen Colbert made a lame quip about Donald Trump’s mouth being fit only for being “Putin’s cock holster”, which is about the edgiest thing he’s said in years.

With #FireColbert, I think it was both the left and the right willing to piggyback on this, and I wouldn’t feel the need to bring it up at all were it not for the emergence of a second FCC-related hashtag campaign, this time targeting someone who I cannot believe I am forced to defend here. This week, John Oliver did a segment where he again campaigns for net neutrality (which is actually one of the few things I agree with him on), in light of the Trump administration’s plans to roll back Obama-era net neutrality laws.

He launched a campaign called “Go FCC Yourself”, in which he urged viewers to send complaints to FCC chairman Ajit Pai, in the hope that he might reconsider his plans axe regulations put in place under the Obama administration. However, the campaign seems to have been marked by DDOS attacks against the FCC, which appear to have happened soon after the campaign. FCC executive Matthew Berry also took to Twitter to denounce the many racist messages and death threats that people have submitted seemingly through Oliver’s campaign.

Many people have lashed out against John Oliver on Twitter, including Rebel Media reporter Jack Posobiec, who accuses John Oliver of deliberately inciting “racist fans” to attack the FCC, as if the FCC did nothing wrong. Oh but it gets better. Now Posobiec wants you to think John Oliver is some sort of “racist hatemonger”. What the hell is he thinking? He’s literally playing the race card in the same way the SJW’s always done, and his followers are eating it up. In fact, various other right-wingers, in their zeal to get him fired, are now starting to sound exactly like the authoritarian leftists they despise. It’s not just on Twitter. On Milo Yiannopoulos’ post sharing an article I found, several commenters seem more interested in the fact that John Oliver is a leftist, than the dilemma posed by the FCC getting involved. They don’t care because John Oliver is a political opponent of theirs.

They don’t seem to be getting that this is the exact same problem, but because the FCC is targeting leftist comedians for “obscenity”, somehow it’s okay. I can guarantee however that if the FCC-compliant Steven Crowder did the exact same kind of campaign that John Oliver did, and people sent racist messages through it, he would likely come under fire from the authorities too, but everyone on the right would defend him. In fact, I suspect that most of these right-wingers don’t care about the FCC now that Donald Trump is the president, but if Hillary Clinton had gotten elected, then they would be the first to oppose the very existence of the FCC.

I really dislike having to defend John Oliver, but this time, he is actually innocent, or at least I think he had good intentions with his campaign, but he grossly underestimated what could happen with online campaigns. The problem here is that the campaign was a golden opportunity for people who wanted to screw with him. Think about it. The campaign was filled with bot accounts, and was apparently a conduit for DDOS attackers. This tells me that his campaign might have been intercepted by malevolent individuals who probably hate John Oliver to the point that they wanted to make him look bad, so they hijack his online campaign by sending DDOS attacks to the FCC, and flooding the comment section with racist bot comments in order to make it look like John Oliver was leading an army of racists, hackers and trolls against the FCC. That’s my theory at least.

Of course, nobody seems to be interested in the more important question – why does the FCC even exist? All it does is impose stifling regulations on TV and radio, and thanks to them, American cable television is so heavily regulated that nearly all of it is boring, offensively bland, and so formulaic that it it’s incapable of edgy, boundary-pushing content. Just about all the TV imported to Britain is forced to comply with these regulations, so for me, it’s no different to watching heavily regulated British television.

I think a lot of the controversy, particularly with regards to Stephen Colbert, could be resolved if President Trump did the noble thing, and simply axed the FCC. If he did that, not only would he save money by eliminating a pointless regulatory body, but he would also attract more supporters, especially from libertarians such as myself. Again, I don’t like defending people like John Oliver. I’ve gone on record denouncing him as a liar, and I consider him to be a hypocrite (which I’ll talk about in a later post), but I also believe that it’s wrong to try and get him fired because of something that offended you, which is what the left has been doing for the past few years. With Trump in power, am I going to have to sit here and watch the right turn into the left? I should hope not, but as the Trump years drag on, I worry that this may be an inevitable reality.


Have Green Day lost the plot?

green day

Despite the fact that Green Day is one of the bands that I detest the most, I was hoping that there was no way Green Day could possibly annoy me much further, but a recent article from NME has shown otherwise. Apparently the members of the band, and this is especially true of frontman Billie Joe Armstrong, are worried about video games becoming increasingly violent (and for some reason they’re worried about mixed martial arts being shown on TV), and they’re concerned that violent video games might take a mental toll on their children.

Ladies and gentlemen, Green Day have officially drunk the Kool-Aid and have become the kind of moral guardians that their target audience has always hated. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard the whole “violent video games will corrupt our children’s minds” malarkey, and at this point they sound like Wayne LaPierre, the former head of the NRA who likened violent video games with “the sickest form of pornography”.

They claim that video games are becoming so violent that they will scar children, which was the standard authoritarian conservative line just a decade ago. Of course, they’re ignoring the statistics that would tell them that video crime has actually decreased as the sale of violent video games have gone up. There is also no evidence to suggest that video games cause psychological harm to children, so how Green Day can come to the conclusion that violent video games are bad for children, with no proof at all by the way, is just baffling.

At this point, it’s fair to assume that Green Day can no longer be considered the edgy anti-establishment “punk” band that they profess themselves to be. Then again, I never considered them to be cool at all, not even when I was a kid. In fact, I would argue that they were never as edgy or anti-establishment as people might they were, being that they’re a pop-punk band. I’ve written about my opinion of the band before, and how they’re basically a “corporate punk” band (think corporate rock bands with a punk image and you should get the picture), but I didn’t think they would start becoming old men yelling at clouds, as bassist Mike Dirnt seems to be indicating.

Known for their political posturing, Green Day are about as left-wing as it gets (their album American Idiot reads like typical whining, leftist America-bashing nonsense), but their kind of politics isn’t exactly edgy. Even when George W. Bush was president the media and pop culture have always had a left-wing bias, and in that climate, Green Day became media darlings for telling their audience exactly what they want to hear. The problem, however, is that they’re morphing into moral guardians and SJW’s in order to appeal to the next generation, but instead they sound like the boring progressive establishment. You have their frontman Billie Joe Armstrong yelling on about how Donald Trump is “worse than Hitler” just because he doesn’t like him (which is what everyone else in the media wants you to believe), and now he comes across as a progressive preacher whose politics may as well have come straight from Buzzfeed.

Sadly, Green Day are a good example of a band that had long past the point where they were relevant, and are now hopelessly trying to stay relevant, even if that meaning appealing to the social justice crowd. The problem is that most young people like video games, and I’m willing to bet that a big chunk of Green Day’s fans are also gamers, and you won’t exactly win over young people by acting like Jack Thompson. Also, I’m sure most people are tired of hearing leftists like Billie Joe Armstrong jabber on about how America is awful, and I’m sure its even more insulting to hear it coming from a manchild who pretends to be a punk just to appeal to young people. That’s all I really have to say on this. Then again, they didn’t exactly say much, but it speaks volumes about the band’s attitude (or lack thereof), and of how desperate they are for attention. At this point, they’re basically just shouting into the air, as I might as well be trying to read into this.

Why so-called junk food isn’t the real problem

fast food

When will people stop slandering that poor defenceless burger over there?

With childhood obesity still a concern for people with nothing better to do, it’s only natural that the moral guardians pick on what they’ve deemed as “junk food” (which they only seem to call junk because it isn’t as healthy as an apple). People are so quick to blame fast food, soft drinks and sweets alone for childhood obesity, but I think that’s just because they’re easy scapegoats.

While I admit that it would be hopelessly myopic to blame all childhood obesity on parents, I hold the belief that many parents don’t seem to like confronting the issue of childhood obesity, because when they do, it’s one of those situations that forces them to take a look at their ability as parents. Many parents don’t like to believe that they’ve failed as parents, and a lot of parents try their best. But not all parents have fine motives, and it’s the bad parents who either:

  • Allow their kids to be morbidly obese.
  • When confronted with childhood obesity, shift the responsibility of raising a healthy child onto fast food and advertising corporations, as if they’re the ones doing all the work.

When people talk about so-called junk food, it’s almost always in a negative context, and nearly all discussion seems to focus on how it’s bad for you. I’m aware of the possible health risks, and I still eat it, and I’m perfectly fine. Have any of the moral guardians who complain about unhealthy foods even tried to eat in moderation? In my opinion, if you got a heart attack from eating to many cheeseburgers it’s your own fault. The same goes if your kids gain a little too weight – it’s their own fault for eating too much junk food, not the parents or stores that supply them.

What I really hate is when people blame fast food restaurants for their own health problems. Are people so afraid of taking responsibility for their own choices that they’ll resort to cheap scapegoating? Is that really the mature way to handle your problems? I say absolutely not. I think some parents just get upset about this because they tend to rely on fast food restaurants like McDonalds to feed their kids so that they don’t have to cook. That’s not why fast food restaurants exist. They exist to satisfy their customers with (hopefully) good food at a usually affordable price with instant service. If every restaurant existed to feed an ever-growing population of children so the parents don’t have to cook, then the food would be dirt cheap, and nobody other than the people who work at the restaurants would know how to cook.

fast food

On the plus side, the fast food and catering industries would be booming.

My point is that if we continue blaming our health problems on fast food, then we’re only continuing to prove to ourselves that we can’t eat responsibly. When will people learn to take responsibility for their health. If they did, we wouldn’t be having this problem in the first place.

Before I finish, I should clear something up. Eating responsibly doesn’t mean staying away from “junk food” altogether. If you like it, you can still have it, but don’t have too much of it. Eating responsibly simply means having a balanced diet, which can include occasional fast food. The way I see it, fast food alone doesn’t kill people. We’re slowly killing ourselves by having too much of it.

As for childhood obesity, I think the real solution is to teach children to eat responsibly. I know that children normally have higher rates of metabolism, but it makes no difference if they consume more calories than they work off. If we teach kids to eat “junk food” in moderation rather than trying to deprive them of it entirely (which is ultimately a self-defeating effort because they’ll always find a way to get it), I think we’ll produce a healthier generation of children, and hopefully turn the tide of the obesity problem without sacrificing the food we love.

An accurate description of moral guardians (from someone who hates them)

moral guardians

A moral guardian is any person who tries to get a book, video game, TV show, or movie banned for no particular reason, and without any regard for actual statistics on violent crime. They’ll say that they’re doing it to “protect their children”. But here’s the reality behind them.

They don’t give a damn about “protecting” children. They oppose the things they oppose because it defies their dogmatic values, which stand against the right to free expression. Understandably, most moral guardians are religious, particularly of the fundamentalist Christian variety, and we all know what they’re like. Here are some typical statements made by moral guardians (all of which are completely false):

  • “Video games cause suicide and violence”
  • “Harry Potter encourages devil worship”
  • “Heavy metal is brainwashing our kids”
  • “TV is corrupting our kids”
  • “Catcher in the Rye caused the killing of John Lennon”
  • “Drugs are evil and should be banned”
  • “New Kids on the Block is the best band ever”
new kids on the block

If this gets me into heaven, then I’m going straight to hell.

Isn’t it rather odd that these moral guardians are only attacking the popular things, and embrace everything kids hate? There are a lot more violent movies from Asia, and you don’t see the moral guardians complaining whenever they get released to America. There’s a maelstrom of sexual content all over the internet (most of it being repetitive and ugly), and you don’t hear them complaining on the news (or at least not often). In fact, the gossip industry is far more immoral than any other facet of the entertainment industry, and yet the moral guardians seem to have embraced it.

Have you ever wondered why they complain about the entertainment industry? It’s really that simple. They want to control their children’s lives. They want to keep their children wrapped up in a little bubble to keep them away from the real world, while they get to participate in some of the most depraved activities there could be. For instance, the moral guardians who oppose pornography and homosexuality could actually be some of the most depraved perverts in the community, or be closet homosexuals themselves.

The entertainment industry has literally no obligation to conform to the outdated morality of a few zealous parents. The reason why those parents think they should be “more moral” is because they use TV as the sole babysitter and educator of their children, so that they can absolve themselves of any responsibility whatsoever. In that sense, they are more immoral than the things they oppose.

Speaking of that, the parents who are like this used to be in the position of “the ones being repressed”, and when they were teenagers or young adults, they used to smoke pot and engage in intercourse and listen to rock music whenever they wanted, and without any restraint whatsoever, and you’re telling me that now they want all of that to be banned. This is the reason why people almost never take them seriously. They’re the real world equivalent of internet trolls, and to become moral guardians, they had to sell out their own beliefs. They aren’t rebels anymore, they’re just hatchet bearers for an old, dying morality code that means nothing to us now.

And that, dear viewers, is an unbiased description of moral guardians.