Actually, that’s not what she said. A lot of Atheists are kind of up in arms and the thing is, I think what she said is worse than if she just targeted atheists.
Asked what causes poverty, she responded:
To me, it’s broken people. People not being in a relationship with their Creator, and therefore, not being in good relationship with their families and their communities, and not being productive members of society. I think that’s the ultimate answer.
So yeah, she could be talking about atheists. But let’s assume, for a moment, that what she meant was broader. She meant that people are poor because they don’t have a good relationship with god. God literally looks down from heaven (or up from heaven given that Earth is a sphere and we don’t actually know where heaven is located) and says “those people don’t go to church enough. I’m going to make them poor.”
It suggests that the only people who are productive members of society are people who have a good relationship with their creator. That would obviously exclude people like Bill Gates, who is an open atheist. He’s clearly not being productive.
It would also include people who call themselves Christians but don’t really go to church or do much to support their faith.
Basically, she’s blaming poverty on a lack of belief in god.
It seems silly to me given that Jesus was poor and I thought his relationship with god was supposed to be pretty solid. Poverty is not caused by god. It is caused by people. People who, like San Antonio Mayor Ivy Taylor, treat poverty as some sort of punishment which people deserve.
They suggest that if we just get poor people to church, god will fix them. Never mind that the poorest states in our nation are some of the most faithful. Faith has nothing to do with poverty. Belief in god doesn’t make you rich or poor any more than atheism makes you rich or poor.
Her answer is insulting to poor people. And atheists. And people of faith. When it comes to hitting a tone-deaf home run, she killed it.
United Airlines had a fully booked flight but also had several employees who needed transport to where they would be working the next day. They asked passengers to give up their seats for an $800 travel voucher. Nobody volunteered.
Maybe because it was a Sunday night and they all had work the next day. And their boss wasn’t going to pay them for the day off. What a bunch of selfish pricks.
Anyway, rather than upping the offer (which they totally could have done), the airline opted to pick people at random. And one guy didn’t want to go. So they had security drag him off the airline in front of a bunch of cell phone cameras.
As you might imagine, it has been a bad week for United.
But it has also been a bad week for the passenger who was dragged off the plane. As soon as his name became public, news organizations began to dig into his past and it turns out he’s not a perfect person.
I’m shocked to discover that as everyone else I’ve ever met is completely perfect.
His past transgressions have nothing to do with not wanted to be forced to take a different flight after he paid for his ticket and the airline made some poor planning decisions.
The response from a few corners of the internet have been, basically, he deserved it.
Um…no. The guy was violently removed from the plane. Not removed from the plane. Violently removed from the plane.
You can argue all you like how three other people voluntarily left after being randomly selected. Doesn’t matter. Beating people up just isn’t something you should be doing unless they are a Nazi.
And in spite of all the muckraking our media has done over this fellow, they have not been able to turn up any evidence that the guy is a Nazi. So I’m going to say the beating was entirely unjustified.
He didn’t deserve it. That’s the problem with this whole “let’s wait for all the facts to come out” mentality. It doesn’t matter what type of guy he was. It doesn’t matter if he was a little bit belligerent when told he’d have to leave the plane after buying a ticket.
He was violently removed from the plane. He didn’t deserve it. That is the only fact that matters.
Look – as someone who has done a lot of improvisational theater in my life, I have a lot of respect for improvisation.
But Donald Trump feels like an improvisational President. Syrian President Assad uses chemical weapons on his own people and Trump’s first response is “we should do something.”
So everyone responds by saying “yeah – OK – can you be a little more specific?”
And Trump responds by saying “BOOM! Just bombed a military base! How do you like that something?”
And everyone is like “?????”
Never mind that Trump pretended to be a dove on the campaign trail and managed to convince far too many people Hillary Clinton would have us in a war with Syria before she finished her inauguration speech. Never mind that this bombing run did nothing to prevent the next chemical weapons attack on civilians.
In the end, it is military theater. It makes Trump look tough without actually risking anything. Nobody really cares about what is going on in Syria anyway. I mean, we care in the sense that it sounds awful but we don’t care in the sense that it affects our lives in any tangible way.
Kind of like the way that military strike affected the actions of Assad.
If you haven’t seen the new Ghostbusters, stop reading my column and go. It isn’t the greatest movie ever but it is very good and it should make a pile of money just because of shit like this.
Trolls, spurred on by the likes of Milo Yiannopoulos (I might have misspelled his name but I don’t give a fuck), bullied Leslie Jones right off of Twitter. In response, Twitter banned Yannipopcorn for violating their terms of service. He claims this is the end of Twitter. He claims it is a violation of free speech.
Well look, Yolopenguin, you keep going on about free speech when you really mean consequence free speech.
The rest of us are going to see Ghostbusters again and again for two very important reasons.
One, Leslie Jones (and the rest of the cast) is awesome.
And two: Fuck you. Read More…
In a classic white guy move, Rudy Guiliani makes the Black Lives Matter movement all about him. He doesn’t seem to understand that the statement “black lives matter” is not the same as “white lives don’t matter” or “black lives matter more.”
Instead, he focuses on black people trying to find a voice and calls it racist. He tells the BLM protestors that they are doing it wrong because they aren’t protesting every murder in Chicago.
Chicago is a big thing with the right. They bring it up all the time. Why isn’t BLM protesting every death in Chicago?
Hey, good question, Rudy! While you’re at it, why don’t you ask why people who are against the Death penalty don’t protest every death in America?
And hey Rudy, you’re pro-life, right? So after you go to those pro-life rallies, do you ever go to a rally protesting parents who beat their children to death? If I used that argument on you, would you call me racist?
Black Lives Matter is focused on a specific part of the black experience in America. It is not the only part.
But – and this is the crazy thing you don’t get Rudy – they are all related. You can protest one particular part of the problem (police brutality that disproportionately targets black men) and have an impact on all of it.
However, when you tell the BLM movement that they are doing it wrong, all you are doing is proving their point. They are saying white America needs to stop thinking about race from our point of view and spend a little time trying to understand it from their point of view.
And then we say “but you don’t understand my point of view.”
And we wonder why they block traffic so we’ll listen.
A Senseless Massacre in Orlando
I pretty much have to lead with this, don’t I? There’s no way to avoid talking about a killing spree in which almost fifty people were gunned down in the largest mass shooting in US history. Although that depends on how you define mass shooting, as the internet has been careful to remind me.
As if arguing over the how extreme the slaughter was actually matters in the least. Would it matter less if the gunman had only managed to kill five people?
The only thing that now seems to matter is that he was a Muslim. Even though there is enough evidence to suggest that he was a homophobic man who was also likely dealing with a lot of self loathing because he was secretly gay, the narrative is all about his religion.
He may have wanted it to be that way because he pledged allegiance to ISIS during the attack. But that is the narrative he wanted.
He wanted to be known as radical Islamist. Is that because he didn’t want to be known as gay? I have no idea. What I do know is that the narrative revolves around radical Islam and that narrative originated with the man who did the killing.
No matter what, we haven’t spent enough time recognizing that whatever he used to justify his act, he deliberately targeted the GLBT community. This act of violence was done specifically to harm a community he found objectionable. The reasons he found the community objectonable are irrelevant because there is hate speak coming from everywhere. Not just Islam. I’ll get to that later.
We’ll talk about all of this for a few weeks. And then we will forget about it until the next mass shooting takes place.
At which point, we will only talk about the killer’s religion if they are a Muslim.
One note though: if you want to talk about gun control, or not gun control, or Islamic fundamentalism, or whatever else you want to talk about, that’s great. And it is important. But please do something tangible as well. there is a Gofundme campaign that has raised over 5 million for the victims. I know it seems like $5 won’t make a difference. But it will. If you want to make a difference, please do more than talk. Contribute to the campaign or donate blood or do something to support your local GLBT community. Do something.
Just a quick note: I was on vacation for two weeks so a few of the things that pissed me off this week are old. I didn’t want to forget about them, though. So you’re welcome, I guess?
Let’s count all the ways this is wrong.
- On the air? Are you fucking kidding me?
- Her dress was not indecent. You could see her shoulders. If that was distracting people from the regional temperatures, those folks have some serious issues that go far beyond what their weather person is wearing.
- Although they were not, apparently, so distracted that they were unable to text and e-mail while she was still on the air.
- They asked her to cover herself while she was on the air!
Guys – assume for a moment you are a weather person and you wear a shirt someone finds objectionable. Or, you decide to do your morning report in a muscle shirt. Do you think you’d get half the e-mails that this young woman did?
The fact people made it their business to whine about her dress should be embarrassing. To them.
It shouldn’t have been embarrassing to her. Except it was because the station made the incomprehensible decision to fix it. On the air!
Point is, women in media are subjected to this kind of scrutiny all the time. They have to think about every style choice they make because the “wrong” choice might just result in an embarrassing situation like this one. Men in media basically need to decide which tie to wear.
People don’t send a lot of e-mails about ties.