So the father in question dressed as an SS officer and dressed his kid up as Hitler.
Now we could argue that this was just innocent cosplay except for two things: the dad’s other social media posts indicate he is at least sympathetic to the Nazi ideology and there is no way dressing your kid up as Hitler is innocent!
This guy knew what he was doing. He was using Halloween as an excuse to dress up as a Nazi because he’s always wanted to dress up as a Nazi. He claims it is because he and his kid “love history” but there is a whole lot of history that isn’t Nazi Germany to pick from.
Now, if adults at the Halloween event came up to a child who looks to be around 5-7 years old and yelled at that child for his costume choice, that certainly doesn’t help matters. They should have instead yelled at the father dressed as an SS officer.
I mean, it’s pretty clear where the issue starts, don’t you think?
I don’t feel sorry for this guy. He’s a white supremacist who viewed a holiday as a coming out party.
I feel a little sorry for his kid because he’ll either turn out a white supremacist or spend most of his life estranged from his parents. So please, adults, do a better job adulting, OK?
The kid is still a kid and he doesn’t understand what he’s doing.
Please note: Don’t threaten this guy or his family. Leave his kids alone. Holy fuck.
Here’s where we ask ourselves the question “why the fuck does the President of the United States keep inserting himself into this shit?”
I mean, that’s what we would ask if it wasn’t becoming so commonplace. But Trump has already made it clear that he is standing up for the American Flag against Kaepernick, who famously chose to kneel during the national anthem to protest racial injustice. He has chosen Football as a battleground and Kaepernick as the opposing general.
But let’s back up.
This weekend, Nike released the following image:
I’m going to say something that may be polarizing.
Nobody should have a problem with this.
So for the last few years, some players at Football games have knelt during the National Anthem to draw attention to racial problems in America. The NFL had allowed it but clearly it pissed some people (like our whiner-in-Chief) off.
The reasons are spurious. It doesn’t disrespect the troops because the National Anthem never used to be about the troops. It doesn’t actually hurt ratings because television ratings are falling for the NFL at the exact same rate they are falling for all other network broadcasts. It doesn’t even disrespect the country because the right to voice concern with what is happening in our country is literally built into the first amendment. Yes, these people protesting are rich but they aren’t protesting for themselves you myopic dickbags. This may be hard to believe, but people can give a shit about others and some try to use their public platform to help those people.
I guess it just pisses off (mostly white) people who don’t think that (mostly non-white) people have anything to complain about.
So the “compromise” the NFL has come up with is to require players to stand during the National Anthem or, if they can’t do that, they can stay in the locker room. Failure to do so will result in a fine levied against the team. The team then can decide what to do to the players including fines or suspensions.
32 people (all but two of them white) have decided that protesting players (who are mostly black) should stay out of sight rather than quietly taking a knee during the national anthem.
Our President has responded by saying that if you can’t respect our flag and country by standing for the anthem, maybe you should leave the country.
So our President has basically told black people in America that they should leave. Because apparently staying out of sight isn’t good enough.
What the President said is really important here. Because you can’t separate the rise of white nationalism from that asshole. When he makes statements like he made this week, he is empowering people who think that America is for white people.
The other part of this conversation is the number of people who respond to all of this by saying technically it is the right of the employer (a NFL team) to impose restrictions on how their players behave in public. Because technically it is. I mean, what the owners are doing is legal.
But it is a straw man argument. So what if NFL teams have the legal right to tell their players to stand up and shut up? By doing so, they are sending the message that their version of patriotism is more important than anyone else’s. Further, they are sending a message that rich people get to control the lives of everyone they pay.
They are forcing players to be patriotic. Which isn’t even patriotic. What will be patriotic is when players kneel knowing there are potential consequences for the action.
And that’s going to happen, by the way. Anthem protests were mostly over. This new policy means they will probably be bigger than ever next season as players engage in a game of chicken with owners to effectively say “OK, I’m kneeling. Now what?”
But please stop defending the billionaires because they can legally do this. Yeah. I get it. They can.
We all know that. Why can’t you all shut up about what they have the legal right to do? If you aren’t OK with it, don’t be OK with it. It’s like you want to hide behind the legality of the action to throw your hands in the air and say “what can I do? It’s their right!”
Are you OK with them taking advantage of that right or not? The rest is window dressing. It’s like saying “I agree with Black Lives Matter but they shouldn’t block traffic.” Fine. You don’t like that some protests block traffic. Do you no longer agree with Black Lives Matter because they blocked traffic?
Either you agree with what the owners did or you do not. Their right to do it is not relevant. When they exercised their right, were you OK with it or not?
I’ll remind those who are paying attention that the two players most readily identified with the anthem protests – Colin Kaepernik and Eric Reid – still don’t have a job. Reid, especially, is considerably better than average at his position and he has been contacted by one team this year. That team owner specifically asked Reid if he would kneel for the anthem.
So making the choice to speak up (by silently kneeling) is costing some people jobs. But we don’t seem interested in the risks those players have taken for exercising their first amendment rights. Only the rights of the billionaires who don’t like what they are doing.
This week, I’ve been listening to white people talk about how these are “important issues” but the anthem “isn’t the right time” to call attention to them. They say that they watch football to “escape” from politics and that minute and a half when someone kneels quietly at the beginning of the game just makes it impossible to enjoy the three hours of football that follow.
Excuse me for being indelicate but fuck them.
While they complain about how politics “invades” their enjoyment of football, pretty much every black man in America sweats out a traffic stop because they want to make sure they don’t get shot. Do these assholes whining about politics invading their play time stand at attention during the anthem? Or do they simply expect the players on the field to do so while they can concentrate on their fantasy football scores?
If you think this is just about the NFL, you are mistaken. It is about black people trying to tell white people something and white people constantly saying “you need to tell me in a different way.”
First, they said “you can’t block traffic or I won’t listen.”
Then they said “you can’t kneel quietly or I won’t listen.”
Now they are saying “Just stay out of sight. Then I promise I’ll listen.”
When you read the ad, you think it has to be a complete fabrication because nobody would be so stupid as to say they are looking for an African-American to make them look more diverse. They certainly wouldn’t be so crass as to offer $10 and “all the doughnuts you can carry, would they?”
And they definitely wouldn’t include “must be able to read” in the job description, right?
This is a tricky one to write about because while the ad looks genuine, I haven’t been able to find the source. Snopes is silent on it so far so I’m going to guess it is genuine. Or maybe it isn’t.
Thing is – if it is some kind of joke post to generate a response from the internet, it is too believable to be funny. The reason it is generating a response is because it doesn’t feel like something that is impossible. And I mean, who is your target for ridicule? Black people who would be justifiably offended by it?
So either this is real and it was generated by a clueless moron or it is fake and it was generated by a clueless moron.
OK, so a little perspective.
Last year, my band had a holiday show scheduled on a day that was forecast to have a horrible snow storm. Even though we didn’t know how bad the story would end up being, we chose to cancel the show and refund the tickets because driving was supposed to be dangerous. The snow happened but it wasn’t nearly as bad as predicted and we could have done the show.
Earlier this week, a gigantic storm was predicted by every weather service. The local school systems opted to close school slightly early and the result was a lot of busses trying to get kids home in the midst of the worst of it. Some children were stuck on busses until past midnight.
That, my friends, is a logistical failure.
Now far be it from me to add to the outrage culture in a weekly blog entitled “Shit that Pissed me Off” but the problem here is the fact the school system then blamed the weather forecast with the implication they never could have known how bad it was going to be. This ignores from the fact they were told how bad it was going to be.
It wasn’t snowing in the morning. I know because I dropped my kid off at school and it wasn’t snowing. By noon, it was horrible. Again, I know because I drive for a living and I was driving in it.
The issue here isn’t the fact kids got stuck on school busses. It’s easy to say “they should have known because they literally did know” but when do you cancel school? Before the storm hits? What if we only get an inch? So they tried to send kids home early once it was clear the storm was going to be as bad as predicted but the end result was they waited too long and some kids (and their parents) had a really shitty night.
Where they screwed up was in blaming the weather report rather than saying “we screwed up.”
The weather report was right. They didn’t act fast enough. They should simply blame themselves.*
*Note: Later in the week, the Superintendent of the St. Paul Schools sent out a very well worded apology that blamed their own shortcomings. So good for him.
Sorbo is a Conservative Christian and while I don’t agree with him on…well…most anything in the political arena, that’s his right. So it doesn’t piss me off that he is speaking at a big old anti GLBTQ “values voters” conference more that it pisses me off that the conference exists.
I will note that twice divorced Donald Trump is also speaking at the “values voters” conference so I begin to wonder exactly which “values” are important to these folks. Apparently dumping your wife for a younger model is a completely acceptable value.
But Sorbo, star of the immensely popular (in Conservative Christian circles) but objectively horrible God is Not Dead, is outspoken about one thing that really bothers me – how persecuted he is for being a Christian.
In the article linked above, he talks about how he had trouble getting jobs after he “came out” as a Conservative Christian. I mean, his acting in “Hercules” was amazing so he should have been working all the time. I don’t know when he “came out” but I see he was in an obscure series called “Andromeda” for five years.
I mean, did David Schwimmer “come out” as a Conservative Christian? Because he hasn’t had a ton of work since “Friends” went off the air.
How about every actress in Hollywood who is over forty? Did all of them “come out” as Conservative Christians?
Sorbo’s bullshit idea that he had trouble getting work because of his Christianity doesn’t hold up to the number of credits on his resume. On the other hand, given how many of those credits are shitty Christian apologist films, his narrative is probably very useful in getting him roles in those kinds of films.
And I’ll bet those roles pay.
Poor Kevin Sorbo.
Meanwhile in Texas, the Alamo Drafthouse Cinema has announced they will be holding a women only showing of Wonder Woman on opening weekend. This idea was so popular, they had to add an extra showing almost immediately.
Now, you might wonder why it would be a problem to hold a women’s only showing of the first mainstream super hero film featuring a woman as the protagonist. Especially when the movie is going to be showing on several thousand screens across the country and there are, currently, two showings that will not allow dudes.
The problem, several guys tell us, is discrimination! In fact, they say, a man who has publicly announced he is purchasing a ticket to this showing is basically fighting the same fight as Rosa Parks.
For those of you who don’t know who Rosa Parks is, let me assure you that you know only slightly less than these pigs.
So let’s consider a few ways in which this is not segregation.
First, of course, this is a private entity and they can do whatever the fuck they want. More importantly, though, this is not a “separate but equal” situation where the “separate” showing is notably inferior. Guys can go to any other showing of Wonder Woman and see the same film. They are not being told that if a woman wants to watch the movie, they will have to give up their seat. They are not being sent to screening rooms with inferior projectors or seats.
They will get the exact same experience. Except, I guess, there won’t be hundreds of women in the theater.
Another way in which this is not segregation is men are not a marginalized class of citizen. Men have all the power. If you wanted to understand what it feels like to be marginalized, you entitled fuck face, you would need to consider a situation in which there were two showings of Wonder Woman that men were permitted to attend. Further, you would need to assume that women could buy tickets to every other showing but even if those showings did not sell out, men would not be allowed in the theater. Further, you would need to assume that if a woman wanted your seat in one of the two men’s only showings, she could have it and you wouldn’t get your money back.
That is being marginalized. You just don’t get to go to two fucking screenings of a movie.
Also, your men’s right’s hero is not anything like Rosa Parks because he’s not a tired black woman who just wanted to be able to sit down after a long day of work. He’s not running the risk of being put in jail and/or beaten for violating the law. At most, he’s going to be ejected from the theater and not given a refund. Unless he gets petulant. At which point, he could possibly be forcibly ejected. To compare this privileged buffoon to Rosa Parks is to identify yourself as an unthinking jackass more concerned with your own imagined needs than you are with other people’s very real rights.