Skip to main content

That time I defended both Ivanka Trump and Donald Jr.

I'd say that by now, roughly 98.7% of the U.S. population knows I have about as much love for Donald Trump and his family as a sloth does for Usain Bolt when racing him in the 40-meter. Also, while I feel children of First Families should be generally kept out of the tabloids, since both Ivanka and Donald Trump Jr. are involved in their father's presidency, I think they're fair game. Having said that, though, can we cut it out with the critiques of their photos with their children? Don't we have more substantive things for which we can go after them?

Over the past week or two, both Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr. have been loudly criticized on social media for posting pictures of themselves with a child of theirs. Ivanka received a great deal of heat for posting a picture of herself smiling, forehead-to-forehead, with her son while at the Jerusalem U.S. embassy opening ceremony. Donald Jr. was then criticized for posting a picture of himself smiling next to his son, holding his pre-K diploma (yes, there are such things nowadays).

While Ivanka Trump gives feminism a bad name (Bon Jovi better get to working on this track) and under the word prick in the dictionary is a picture of Donald Jr., they're both parents and deserve to be provided a little bit of flexibility in the public eye on that front. I don't care for either one of them, but when it all comes down to it, how would any of us feel to be roundly bashed after posting a picture of ourselves with one of our children? There are plenty of things we can criticize both Ivanka and Donald Jr. for, but let's leave their kids out of it.

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/ivanka-trump-slammed-for-being-tone-deaf-to-humanitarian-crises-1.6120165

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/donald-trump-jr-probably-didnt-expect-backlash-posted-pre-k-graduation-photo-son-210803508.html

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...
2 comments
Read more

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...
2 comments
Read more