Is Star Wars:Rouge One Diverse?

     Many have said the "Star Wars" franchise has finally joined the diversity universe. "Rogue One," the latest film set in a galaxy far, far away, boasts a wildly varied cast of human actors -- Asian, Hispanic, African-American, Pakistani. George Lucas' creation has for years been populated by humans who are almost overwhelmingly Caucasian, with the occasional minority thrown in for spice: often only one or two per movie.  But these earlier, pallid attempts at multi-culturalism don't hold a candle to the range of colors and ethnicities in "Rogue One." The heroes of the film, nearly all members of the Rebel Alliance attempting to steal the plans of the Empire's ominous Death Star, include a Mexican (Diego Luna), Puerto Rican (Smits), Englishwoman (Felicity Jones), African-American (Forest Whitaker), Dane (Mads Mikkelsen), two Chinese men (Wen Jiang and Donnie Yen) and a British/Pakistani/Muslim (Riz Ahmed). As if to heighten the contrast, the leaders of the Empire -- who include a brilliant CGI rendering of actor Peter Cushing, who died in 1994 and appeared in the original "Star Wars" -- are all preening Caucasian imperialists; you can imagine them goose-stepping around their space ships.

     We are told that  in Rogue One, a woman can lead a dangerous mission to turn the tide against an enemy that seems insurmountable. Anyone can be a hero, no matter what they look like.  I guess you can get this message, as the character of Jyn Erso is there in the movie.  Except she is not much of a hero or even a leader.  Though granted she is much more anti-hero, or well anti hero light anyway.  She shoots a couple bad guys, runs around, but does not get to do anything heroic or even anti heroic.  She only gets recruited by the rebels as she knew someone.  Not for her skills or abilities or anything she as done or could do...she just knows a guy.  This starts the big missed opportunity for the character.  In the movie she is just a criminal that knows a guy.  The character could have been a thief/scoundrel/expert hired for her skills.  And what is the most heroic thing she does?  She hits the send button?  And she does nothing to lead.  The character, by itself, just is not a good hero leader.  And it's only worse that the character is a woman, as you get the feeling the character was made female.  You'd be hard pressed to put a man in that character.  In the aftermath of the OscarsSoWhite (and Male?) controversy, numerous studies supported the contention that women and minorities were being woefully under-represented on screen.  So if you want to count ''Rouge One'' as a movie meeting some sort of woman quota then it does so, but she sure does not give an Oscar worthy performance.  But at least she can be nominated for ''lead in a movie'' or such, right?

     The rest of the diverse cast is not much better, they are simply a diverse cast of boring characters.  And you might also notice the female diversity drops to just about zero.  And the only reason it is not zero is that we see a woman fighter pilot for about three seconds.  So why not have one or two women in the Rouge One band?  Wonder why they just dropped that diversity?  They say, somehow, diversity leads to more creative stories.  Yet, the ''Rouge One'' story is not very creative.     Things heated up on Twitter when Rogue One writer Chris Weitz tweeted, “Please note that the Empire is a white supremacist (human) organization.” To which Gary Whitta, another writer, responded, “Opposed by a multi-cultural group led by brave women.” In response to a big ol’ backlash (and concurrent uptick in #DumpStarWars tweets), both deleted their tweets the same day, and Weitz apologized.  So where does the ''white supremacist Empire'' come from other then the Nazis?  Why does not the Empire have humans of all colors?  Why does the Empire have no women?  And why no aliens?  This is not explained in any Star Wars movie.  The narrative set up of  ''all white men are evil, racists'' and ''the diverse mix is beautiful'' is a bit much.  Still, the movie is obviously trolling to make a lame political point, dragging in a fashionable left-wing trope where it once again does not belong. Not only is it tiresome to imply that being white and male is something vaguely shameful, the white-supremacist angle makes no sense in the context of the other chapters in the Star Wars story.




      If the rebels are some sort of coalition of minorities, women, and sarcastic robots, specifically opposed to white supremacy, why did they subsequently turn to Obi-Wan Kenobi, Luke Skywalker, and Han Solo to lead them? Weitz and Whitta (both white males) are injecting dumb liberal talking points into the franchise.   Moreover, the decision to leave white males out of the rebel crew is indefensible from a marketing perspective. Like any Star Wars movie, Rogue One hopes to sell a lot of action figures. Little kids presumably like to buy action figures they can identify with, and though I don’t have any marketing data to back it up, it seems likely that white males are the single biggest market for Star Wars swag. Why would you turn your back on your best customers? It’s yet another example of how Hollywood’s incessant need to prove it is on the progressive side of the political Force sabotages Hollywood’s own best interests.  Multiculturalism has a strong justification in marketing: if you want to sell to girls, boys, and every ethnicity and race, you’ll give everybody a hero that looks like them. So why leave out white males? The only white guy in Rogue One who has much value to the rebel force is an Imperial scientist played by Mads Mikkelsen who has misgivings about his work for the bad guys.


     
     This "diversity for the sake of diversity" thing has long since gotten old.  Demanding that our entertainment stringently conform to demographics is undermining the very concept of entertainment.  I don't necessarily care if a film has X number of black actors and Y number of Asian actors.  I care if it has GOOD actors, and is telling a story that sounds interesting to me.  Beyond that, the melanin content and ethnic background is of less interest than the precise number of kernels in my bucket of popcorn.   I have a really crazy, radical idea.  How about instead of obsessing over having X number of this race and Y number of that race, whether we're discussing the cast of a film or the staff of an office or the student body of a university, we go with who is best suited for the position in question?  You know, you actually succeed or fail based on your merits rather than your melanin, and you're invited to sit at the table based on what you bring to said table, rather than "This table lacks a trans half-Maori half-Japanese person who identifies as a toaster oven."

     The whole idea of "Star Wars" is something murky. Almost always a bunch of terrorists try to undermine the authority of the "superior culture" . Who exactly do the white viewer empathize with ? The series should be inspiring for ISIS , Al-Qaeda and the rest of terrorists because at least they have an equivalent  for "Superior being"; Americans who support Israel , create wars based on lies (Iraq) , create terrorist groups like ISIS and unduly violate the law. despite their overwhelming technological and cultural differences.  Rogue One leans into the broad political strokes that George Lucas set out when initially creating Star Wars in 1977. It’s a tale of rebellion against a totalitarian government, of guerrilla fighters striking a blow against uniform regiments of stormtroopers and the brutal dictator they serve. The idea that such sentiments would be remotely controversial is indicative of just how much the 2016 election has seeped into every aspect of pop culture. Rogue One is a tale of good guys and bad guys, just as Star Wars always has been.

Did Russia Interfere With The U.S. Elections?

     Since their defeat on November 8 liberals have been looking for scapegoats to explain how Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump—an unexpected outcome that many on the left seem literally unable to process and accept. First, Hillary and her minions blamed the FBI and its director, James Comey, for allegedly throwing the election to Trump by announcing that the Bureau was reopening its investigation of Emailgate—then pulling back.  When blaming the FBI proved insufficient to explain away Hillary’s defeat, her allies in the mainstream media turned their spotlight on an alleged plague of “fake news” that supposedly transformed millions of low-information citizens into Trump’s dupes. While there undeniably is a problem here—as in the age of the Internet wholly false, indeed absurd stories can gain traction for a time before they are debunked—this problem is hardly present on the right-wing only. Not to mention that more than a few MSM mavens are willing to term as “false” certain stories which they merely don’t like and don’t want to talk about.




     This brings us to the Russians, the ultimate election bogeyman. Since it’s a fact that Putin and his covert operatives interfered with our election in a propaganda sense  bitter-ender liberals have now decided that Kremlin hacking threw the election to Trump. The president-elect is therefore illegitimate and, presumably, Hillary can now move into the Oval Office which the left considers rightfully hers.  A secret assessment conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency confirms that yes, Russia deliberately meddled in the U.S. presidential election. And no, they didn’t do it just to undermine confidence in the American election system, they did it to help Donald Trump win.  And all before Dec 19 so that the electors can make a decision that won't haunt them for the rest of their lives.  Some of the most ardent advocates of this Kremlin-did-it conspiracy theory were big fans of Snowden and Wikileaks—right until clandestine Russian shenanigans started to hurt Democrats. Now, they’re panicking.  The Liberals sure seemed fond of Russia when the country was redistributing wealth, suppressing free speech, and on a crusade to end capitalism. Lately, not so much.



     President Obama  has been completely inept president in foreign affairs, talking complete nonsense about US decline, weakly dealing with the Middle East in a horrible way, and Putin stepped into the vacuum.  Obama promised to “reset” the U.S. relationship with Russia, and he succeeded: Russia went from disliking, but respecting, America and President Bush, to loathing, and looking down upon, America and, especially, her president.  Obama promised that he would fundamentally change America. Those who weren’t paying attention were stupid to think that this promise was a good thing. It’s not. It’s a very, very bad thing, and the jackals, including the big, bad, oil rich Russian jackal, are beginning to circle.  Obama has gutted the US military . America will no longer be a superpower if we continue with this course. But that's what Obama wanted to level the playing field were there is no superpower anymore.

 

     And Hillary Clinton has the same worldview as President Obama, so she would act much the same way.  So ask yourself why Russia would not want another president just like Obama?    Would not the Russian's want someone like Hillary that would continue the gutting of the US military?



     Our Intelligence Community has been on high alert for months, looking for evidence of Russian interference in our election. If they have any—it would almost certainly come from NSA and be classified Top Secret-plus—it has beyond any doubt been shared with the White House. And that information would be so politically significant that the spies would find a way for President Obama to share that information first with Congress, then with the public (the latter albeit in highly redacted form).
To date, we have heard nothing but rumors. Without any delivered evidence what-so-ever, the Times and Post are selling the deflective White House/Democrat “blame Russia” narrative by pointing to intelligence agencies including the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper – and the Director of the CIA John Brennan.   Even if there is no direct connection between the Russian government and those who supposedly acted to interfere in the U.S. elections, it makes perfect sense that Moscow might have been orchestrating such a scheme from behind the scenes. There’s one simple reason to assume this: It’s common for governments to interfere with elections in other countries. The governments of Russia, the United States, and several other nations do so all the time.

     Therefore, either the Intelligence Community has no evidence of Russian hacking of our election, or the president has decided to sit on that explosive information. Which would make Obama part of this Vast Right Wing Plus Kremlin Conspiracy. It’s binary, there is no third option here. Liberals need to make up their minds.

Chicago tops 700 homicides for 2016

    
     Chicago has reached another bloody milestone.  There have been 701 homicides recorded so far this year in the city, per the Chicago Police Department.  There were 480 homicides in 2015.
It's the first time the city has recorded more than 700 homicides in nearly two decades. Chicago had 704 homicides in 1998 and is on a pace to easily break that mark.  Guns are driving the violence, with more than 90% of the 2016 homicides gun-related.   There have been 3,315 shooting incidents this year, police said. Opolice have recovered 8,000 guns, a 20% jump over last year, and gun arrests are up 8% over last year.  Most of the killings occur in five police districts on the south and west sides of the city.  The bulk of the violence has been concentrated in neighborhoods on the South and West sides that have been plagued by decades of poverty, entrenched segregation, gangs, rampant narcotics sales and other social ills.
Two of the city's historically most violent police districts — Harrison and Englewood — account for almost one-fourth of Chicago's homicides and shooting incidents.

      Most of the great civilizations throughout history were destroyed from within, not by conquest. If, as you foretell, our entire moral foundation is a risk, then we are truly headed for destruction. Early Greece, the Roman Empire, and so on, all eventually destroyed by their own weight.  Drugs are the scourge of society. Whether they are legal or not, the effects of addiction creates a huge cost on society, in both financial and moral terms.  No man-made law can take the place of a strong moral foundation. Our legal system is based on the concept of "voluntary compliance." In other words, it is up to each of us to obey the law. No law can, by itself, prevent its intended action from occurring. Only our compliance, our voluntary compliance, prevents the designated illegal activity. If we do not comply, then there is a penalty to be paid, up to and including death. But if a person does not fear the penalty or the ramifications of violating the law, then it provides no safety.  Over the past 20 years we have seen every state pass some form of laws providing for qualified citizens to carry a firearms. There are almost 20 million concealed carry permit holders in the US today, and that doesn't include states with open carry statutes, where permits may not be required at all. Why? Because they do not feel safe in society.

      If we see further erosion in morality, no one will be safe.

     Where are the Black Lives Matters activists?  Where is Jesse Jackson? Al Sharpton? They should be outraged!  The Black Lives Matters movement has created anarchy in Black neighborhoods. No cop with a brain goes there without a team of reinforcements. The cops are just letting the culture do its thing. When the people want law and order they will have to beg the cops to start shooting the gang killers. Probably won't happen as clearly the violence is supported by the people who continue to elect the same corrupt Democrats who created the culture in their own image. I suspect that next year will have another 50% increase in murders. Only the Black Culture can stop it and they don't seem to care.  How is that liberal utopia working out for you. The city is broke, taxes are out of control, crime is out of control, corruption is out of control. Bravo Democrats...another fine job.  Most blacks are just normal people not looking to use race to divide us. The problem is they have leadership that uses this to get white America to,feel,guilty so they can extract money for themselves. The BLM doesn't really represent blacks,but democrats don't have the courage to stand up to race baiter because it may cost them part of the black vote and they can't win if they only get 80%'of it.

      Contrary to liberal excuses, Chicago's crisis is not caused by a lack of jobs, lack of education, or lack of opportunity. It is caused by a lack of morality. The vast majority of these shootings and killings (90%,) are gang related and predominately caused by African-Americans and Latinos. It is a culture of violence. They place no value in human life. It is a lack of morality.




      There are many low income, predominately white communities in this country with the same issues related to jobs, incomes, education, and opportunity, but do not have daily shootings and murders. Why? Because despite their socio-economic conditions, these people still have a moral foundation that believes killing people is both legally and morally wrong. They have been brought up with guns in their homes, which in rural America is very common, yet they do not commit these daily shootings and killings. Rural America has far more guns in it than urban America, as hunting and target shooting are favorite pastimes. Also, when a police/sheriff response is at least 15 minutes away, you learn to provide for your own security. Despite being poor, lacking a college education, with high unemployment rates, they are law abiding people that do not turn to killing to solve their problems. For it is their moral code, not laws, that keeps them from killing.

      The solution to this crisis is not more gun laws, it is not more cops on the street, and isn't finding more jobs. It is addressing this culture of violence that is predominate in these minority communities. Teach children that killing is morally wrong. Instill in them that all human life is priceless. Teach them to accept responsibility for their actions and help the develop that moral foundation.