7 things @ 9 o’clock (8.30)

1. Liberals are for full employment. Conservatives are not. Rich Yeselson recalls how conservatives crushed Upton Sinclair’s call for a full-employment policy in California. Giving the unemployed jobs was then, as now, viewed with contempt as just another “hand-out” to the undeserving moochers. That’s what makes Rep. Steve King’s call to punish the unemployed, like children who refuse to do their chores, so vile. Don’t do your chores and we’ll send you to bed without supper. But it doesn’t matter if you’re begging to be given chores, we have no chores for you to do — and therefore you must be punished. Steve King really is an evil little wart.

2. Conservatives do not understand what “consent” means or why it matters.

3. Matthew Hagee, like his father John Hagee, is a prominent white evangelical in Texas. But he sure ain’t no Baptist: “Now when individuals say, ‘I believe there’s a separation of church and state,'” Hagee says, “I would give them this response. I would like to see what God’s opinion of your position is when you meet him in eternity.” Roger Williams, apparently, is in Hell, because only theocrats can go to Heaven.

4. Any discussion of Joss Whedon, theology and Paul Ricouer wins a link from me. But Julie Clawson misses one key point Mike Ryan makes in seconding Joss’ comment on “that thing in Temple of Doom where they revisit the shooting trick” — Temple of Doom is a prequel. We can remember the scene in the first movie, but Indy can’t, because for him the scene in the first movie hasn’t happened yet.

5. Religion News Service has a good round-up of ethicists and/or experts on the idea of military intervention in Syria’s civil war. Here’s Stanley Hauerwas, because these days if you want to understand the just-war tradition, you have to ask a pacifist:

The language of intervention and no-intervention is meaningless. America has hundreds of military bases around the world. We’ve intervened. The question is what are the limits of American intervention? Right now there doesn’t seem to be any.

6. Conservatives do not understand what “consent” means or why it matters. (Trigger warning on that link.)

7. Happy Birthday Lewis Black (video is, of course, NSFW):

YouTube Preview Image

 

Stay in touch with the Slacktivist on Facebook:

'You're better than this' vs. 'You should be ashamed of yourself'
Sunday favorites
Now we get moose and squirrel
Left Behind Classic Fridays, No. 96: 'Humbert Steele'
  • TomSatsuma

    Temple of Doom is a prequel…

    Temple of Doom is a prequel…?

    TEMPLE OF DOOM IS A PREQUEL!?!?!?

    My whole life just fell apart like a pack of cards…

  • Laurent Weppe

    While we’re at it, the nuclear fridge made perfect sense: before using it to heal his wounded father, Indy tested the Holy Grail and drank from it, which explains how he’s able to whistand nuclear radiations and also why at 58 years old he’s still able to run around like a young man.

    Hope I didn’t destroy what’s left of your life :p

  • Cathy W

    Although clearly the effect of drinking from the Grail wasn’t permanent – Henry Jones Sr. was (at least implied to be) dead at the time of Crystal Skull.

  • http://www.aeryllou.tumblr.com/ Aeryl

    The impression I got of the knight still there, was that you HAD to keep drinking it.

    According to the Young Indiana Jones tv show, Indy made it into his 90’s.

  • JP

    Wait – that means he was around to *watch* Young Indiana Jones, and to be aware of his whole franchise.

    I’m not sure whether I find that idea disturbing or amazing. Probably a little of both.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    ISTR it being implicit that the grail’s power didn’t extend past the seal on the floor.

  • themunck

    What does that mean, though? Jones Sr.’s wound didn’t reopen when he crossed the seal, after all.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    Well no, because his wounds weren’t, like, still there just suppressed by magic. His wounds ceased to exist when they healed. But the whole “people age over time” thing is still a function of being a human being. The aging he does after he leaves is new aging.

  • themunck

    So the grail’s immortality was an enchantment that kept you from aging while behind the seal, rather than a “you’ll live x years extra now” genetic change, that could only be renewed behind the seal? I guess that does make sense.

  • BaseDeltaZero

    The nuclear fridge… didn’t make sense. Not so much because of radiation, but just because of the acceleration. Tossing a fridge a couple of kilometers takes a lot of force, a lot more than a human can realistically survive.

    Thing is, a lot of things happen in that series that Indy really shouldn’t be able to survive. It’s silly, yes, but the Indiana Jones series has never really been about hardcore realism…

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    Yeah. People get up in arms about the radiation, but frankly, it’s not all that hard to believe that he was at the least shielded enough that his exposure was in the “Cancer in the next couple of years” range rather than the “Hulk Smash” range. But when the fridge door opened after that landing, he should have poured out.

    (Or, y’know, he shoulda survived the landing but then slowly suffocated from being locked in a fridge.)

  • BaseDeltaZero

    (Or, y’know, he shoulda survived the landing but then slowly suffocated from being locked in a fridge.)

    My understanding is that ‘locked in a fridge’ is really only a problem for children who lack the strength to push it open from the inside… it doesn’t actually *lock*, after all…

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    Old refrigerators like that had latch-handles that physically held the door shut; you actually could not open them from the inside.

    (Just checked. You can actually see the latch when Indy gets into the fridge. And when it lands, there’s a unburnt square on the front of the door, which I assume is meant to be where the latch was sheared off in the explosion. So okay, not latched inside.)

  • aine

    So whatever happened to his awesome little Asian sidekick? I had hoped he’d be in Crystal Skull, all grown up and having his own adventures.

    (Had no idea of the prequel thing anyway)

  • Vermic

    According to Wikipedia, Short Round had a future in non-canonical Indy material. “The Lost Journal of Indiana Jones, published in 2008, detailed Short Round became an archaeologist and tracked down the Peacock’s Eye (the diamond from Doom‘s opening sequence).”

    Then: “He also appeared in the non-canonical crossover story in Star Wars Tales, where he and Indiana discover the remains of Han Solo in the crashed Millennium Falcon in the Pacific Northwest.” At this point I officially don’t even know what the fuck.

  • http://checkpoint-telstar.blogspot.com/ Tim Lehnerer

    I was hoping they’d cast Tony Jaa as a grown-up Short Round and that the fifth Indiana Jones movie would feature many scenes of fascists getting kicked in the eye.
    This went on to not happen.

  • Turcano

    That’s not how you spell “annoying.”

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Besides to Raiders of the Lost Ark? (Not familiar with the movies, so not entirely sure what’s going on!)

  • http://www.aeryllou.tumblr.com/ Aeryl

    Of course it was a prequel, THERE WERE NO NAZIS!! 8^D

  • Jenny Islander

    Hey, while we’re on this tangent, I got the impression from IJTD that the Indian bad guys were written to give the impression “Whoa, these people are full-on Pol Pot crazy, they have Jim Jonesed this religion” to Hindus as well, instead of the usual taking actual religious symbols and making up crap about them. But I know only a tiny amount about Hinduism. Any Hindus reading here have an opinion on this movie?

  • aunursa
  • Lori

    Your ability to change the standard of evidence so that it always favors those with whom you identify and goes against those you don’t like while continuing to think of yourself as the last honest man is really something.

  • aunursa

    I regret that I don’t understand your point. Are you arguing that conservatives are not as outraged as everyone else about the light sentence imposed on the rapist? That conservatives don’t really see it as, to quote Whoopi Goldberg, “rape-rape”? Or something else?

  • Lori

    I’m arguing that you have wildly different standards for Liberals and Conservatives. Conservatives with power & influence have demonstrated again and again and again they either don’t understand or don’t give a crap about consent and why it’s important. They continue to have power and influence. One Conservative asshole finally does something so egregious that some Conservatives complain about it and that somehow makes it not true that Conservatives don’t understand or care about consent.

    Fox News says Obama did something you don’t like and that’s the Liberal position unless we all join the chorus.

    I’m sure there’s a poll to back that up, but it’s still crap.

  • aunursa

    My point was merely about #6. It may very well be the case that we evil conservatives conform to your caricatures of us and we’re so diabolical that we ignore or reject consent and don’t understand why it matters. But our host’s citation does not support the claim he was trying to make. When I said “not true,” I meant that his link does not support his point.

  • Lori

    First of all, cry me a river aunursa. It is no longer possible to caricature movement Conservatism. It outran satire a few years back. If you don’t want to be associated with that then you know, don’t associate with it.

    More to the point, see my other comment about why your links are rather more part of the problem than part of the solution. Asking what’s wrong with Montana does not demonstrate an understanding of the issues.

  • http://flickr.com/photos/sedary_raymaker/ Naked Bunny with a Whip

    It may very well be the case that we evil conservatives conform to your caricatures of us

    You do, actually. Even you, personally, do.

    See, that’s because it’s a not a caricature. It’s an expectation built up by years of observation.

    If you don’t like what we see, don’t blame us.

  • aunursa

    I’m not disagreeing with you. Personally I am the most diabolically evil person I know.

    [insert sinister “BHAAAHAAHAA” laugh here]

  • Lori

    You must know a lot of really boring people.

  • http://checkpoint-telstar.blogspot.com/ Tim Lehnerer

    >> It may very well be the case that we evil conservatives conform to your caricatures of us <<
    I'm not certain that there are any statements or acts so grotesque and extreme that they'd be considered beyond the pale for any of the John Birch / Teabagger conservatives that are running the Republican party as this point.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    Fox News says Obama did something you don’t like and that’s the Liberal position unlesseven if we all join the chorus.

    ftfy.

  • Lori

    Fair point.

  • aunursa

    I seem to recall that O’Reilly was barking for months about some liberal judge in Vermont who gave no jail time, or virtually no jail time, for an offender who molested a child. I don’t recall O’Reilly or anyone else at Fox News suggesting that all liberals were to blame for the judge’s actions. Rather, he called on liberals and conservatives alike to denounce the miscarriage of justice.

    But if you want to blame all conservatives for the egregious actions of one judge, despite our anger over it, go right ahead.

  • Lori

    You are nothing if not consistent. You will always misread a thing in the way that most suits you.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Holy crap, you actually repeated the Fox News talking point “liberal judge”. Good lord, do you really parrot this stuff like a 1984esque duckspeaker?

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Your links kind of back up the fact that “consent” is taken as a joke by some judges and juries.

  • Baby_Raptor

    30 days. The man got 30 Fucking days, and you say these assholes understand consent?

    Somehow, I get the feeling that YOU don’t understand consent.

  • Lori

    The links are to Conservative sources complaining about how terrible the 30 day sentence was. aunursa is trying to say that the fact that some Conservatives get that this case was way over the line renders untrue the notion that Conservatives don’t understand consent.

  • Baby_Raptor

    Yeah, I follow.

    To me, the idea that this light a punishment shows anything but “We have our heads up our rears” just means that the person doing the touting really has no idea how bad the issue is.

  • Lori

    I think that if this was an isolated incident it would be totally reasonable to say “This judge has his head up his rear, now what do we do about this case/him?”

    Obviously it’s not an isolated incident and yet the links aunursa provided talk only about this case. One even asks what’s going on in Montana, as if this is a Montana issue instead of a societal issue in general and an issue with Conservative politians in particular. So yeah, nothing but the most generus possible reading would result in those links making the point aunursa wants them to make.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Because the fact that there’s an Anti-Kitten Burning Coalition proves that they’re not horrible people, because we all hate anyone who burns kittens.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    This message brought to you by Old Folks at Home Cottage Cheese, the only cottage cheese that says right on the lable that it contains no arsenic or strychnine. We’re not saying other cottage cheeses contain arsenic or strychnine, but isn’t it a little funny that they don’t just come out and say it?

  • JustoneK

    And now, the weather.

  • http://www.nicolejleboeuf.com/index.php Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little

    To me, it’s not the horrifically light sentence given to the rapist that demonstrates the conservative judge’s failure to understand consent.

    It’s the judge blathering on about how she “seemed older than her chronological age” and was “as much in control of the situation” as the teacher, and how these were somehow mitigating factors. THAT’s the bit that demonstrates failure to understand 1) consent, 2) informed consent, 3) power dynamics that fuck up the whole idea of consent, and 3) the legally acknowledged inability of minors to grant consent.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Reminds me of the judge that somehow came up with some totally ridiculous reason why a 3-year-old was “sexually precocious” and so her rapist wasn’t responsible for what he did. (>_<)B

  • themunck

    ….Right, excuse me. I’ll just go somewhere and be sick.
    At least Humbert Humbert went for 12-year-olds, who are at least developed enough to have at least -entered- puberty and know that sex might actually be a thing. Youknow, something for the insanity to work with. But 3? A child at 3 is barely recognizably human. And you’re telling me this person somehow became a judge? I just…I don’t even….

    …HOW FUCKING EASY IT IS TO BECOME A JUDGE THESE DAYS?!?
    I apologize for yelling, but it seemed proper.

  • http://algol.wordpress.com/ SororAyin

    Okay, I understand your indignation and outrage. I share it.
    But, I’ve got to ask you about this one statement of yours: “A child at 3 is barely recognizably human.”
    That’s a little…um…I don’t know what to call it. The statement just makes me uncomfortable.

  • themunck

    My apologies. I can see why it might make people uncomfortable.*
    ———
    *[Grumpy mode]I stand by it, since I find children severely unsettling. I do not blame the children for this, though, and simply avoid them whenever I can. [/Grumpy mode]

  • http://algol.wordpress.com/ SororAyin

    *giggles* Okay, now I understand.

  • Ima Pseudonym

    I just died a little inside.

    Stop the world. I want off. Now.

  • Marshall

    You guys get that originally Montana Man was given diversion (NO jail time), right? That the 30 days was for violating the terms of his diversion by hanging out with some kids at a family gig where adults were present? But apparently the original judge didn’t make stupid comments.

    It also appears (I only know what I read in the papers) that the girl killed herself from public humiliation while the rape case was being prosecuted. Maybe the whole thing was handled really really poorly. Not clear to me why to put the hex on “conservatives”, except “Montana”.

  • fencerman

    Isn’t withholding food from children as punishment generally considered child abuse?

  • Oswald Carnes

    Not by conservatives who vote to cut food aid it isn’t. As with most things conservatives believe, the exact opposite is true.

  • Vermic

    “Hunger can be a positive motivator. What is wrong with the idea of getting a job so you can get better meals? Tip: If you work for McDonald’s, they will feed you for free during your break.” — Missouri State Rep. Cynthia Davis, 2009

    “My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals … You know why? Because they breed. You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that. And so what you’ve got to do is you’ve got to curtail that type of behavior. They don’t know any better.” — South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer, 2010

    “The appetite of workers works for them; their hunger urges them on.” (Proverbs 16:26)

  • Figs

    When I worked at McDonald’s, in the late 1990s, I had to pay half price for everything I ate (not including the chicken nuggets I’d sneak on the sly while working the grill). That means that a manager would watch me prepare my meal and would charge me to the penny for every piece of extra cheese I put on my burger.

  • http://www.aeryllou.tumblr.com/ Aeryl

    YES THIS!! I don’t know anyone who ate for free at fast food, unless you were doing a favor for management, like working over your scheduled shift, then they’d comp it.

  • Figs

    More than that even, I had one week where I worked enough to go over the full-time threshold, and my managers shifted some hours to the following week so that wouldn’t be the case. At this point in my life, obviously, I know how crazy wrong that was. But at that point, I was a sixteen year old kid looking for gas money and didn’t really know any better. And even if I had tried to fight it, it would have been protracted, I would have been let go, it would have cost me a lot of money, etc. It’s a damn shame.

  • Lori

    WTH? During my fast food days I worked for one of the biggest jerks I’ve ever personally known, and even he didn’t pull crap like that. If the manager couldn’t make up the schedule correctly it was on the manager, not the employee. Also, why did they even care if you were over the full time threshold for 1 week?

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    What’s simply maddening is how widespread is this practice of purposely jiggling around schedules in a way that never quite settles into any kind of consistency for workers in the low-paid food service sector.

    If I were in full-on tinfoil hat mode, I’d conclude that every single restaurant manager and owner was somehow issued a secret directive to do this from a central authority.

    Absent that, I suspect that word of mouth about “the way to make sure you don’t need to pay full-time benefits” is probably how this thing seems to get around by osmosis.

  • http://www.aeryllou.tumblr.com/ Aeryl

    I worked for Wendy’s(16 years ago, goodness where does time go?), and we didn’t have this. Pretty much everyone, high schooler to full time daytimer had a set schedule. The full time daytimers only worked M-F with weekends off, and the more reliable high schoolers got daytime shifts on the weekends so they had nights off.

    But then again, we were owned by Bridgeman Foods, and Junior Bridgeman, who I met a few times*, seemed like a decent enough guy, so that may have had something to do with it.

    *Surreal experience for a 17 year old, is to walk into work one day, and see several very tall black men in suits working the grills, fryers and making sandwiches.

  • Turcano

    A more likely explanation is that all the regional managers went to the same seminar on “just-in-time labor management” or something along those lines, and then sent those changes down the pipe.

  • Baby_Raptor

    They don’t want to leave any wiggleroom whatsoever for you to be able to claim you qualify for benefits.

  • Figs

    Not really sure. If I had to guess, I’d suppose it’s for the reason Baby Raptor outlined below. I don’t remember if I had picked up a shift for someone else or what, but like I said, generally they managed it so that I only ever topped out at around 30 hours a week.

  • Oswald Carnes

    My first job was at Burger King when I was 16. On Saturdays, I had to mop the dining room, bathrooms and kitchen prior to opening and was allowed 30 minutes to do this. It was physically impossible to do the whole place in 30 minutes, so I had to work an unpaid extra half hour to be sure to finish before opening.
    I think it would be a great thing if every fast food worker at every fast food place went on strike for a week at the same time.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    There actually was a mass walkout recently. Of course the usual suspects tried to dismiss it as “showboating by organized labor”.

  • Lori

    Again, WTH? When I worked fast food the floors were mopped at closing, not before opening.

    Also, if you needed an extra half hour to mop, and therefore had to be in an hour before opening how did you get in? Your manager unlocked the door and let you in and then didn’t let you clock in until 30 minutes before opening? So totally illegal. I know stuff like that happens all the time, but damn.

  • Oswald Carnes

    This was so long ago it was before Burger King had breakfast so it was easier to let everybody go at night and save the mopping for the morning. I’m pretty sure the place didn’t open until 10.
    Manager lets me in and heaven help me if I clocked in before I was supposed to. And of course if I was in the middle of mopping and not paying attention to when the first half hour was up – oh well, sucks to be me. I only lasted about two months because I didn’t need this job for food or shelter or anything like that, so I was one of the lucky ones who could walk out with no notice.

  • Figs

    Yeah. I’m sure shit like this happens all the time, and generally, it happens to people who need the job and think they can’t afford to say no (often they’re right).

  • banancat

    It’s funny how things like this work out. I’m an engineer and I’m not supposed to ever be part of a union, and unofficially I’m not supposed to support them. But my company is relying heavily on perma-temp people, where we are “contractors” but still can be let go at any time but we get no benefits or potential for career growth. When projects are successful, the permies sit around in a circle jerk with some average catered food and thank each other for being successful, while the contractors that have been there for just as long and did just as much work aren’t even considered as an afterthought.

    And I’m not saying that a union is the best way to address this specific problem, but I have wished frequently that we would all just leave at the same time. After all, we are just “contingent” and can’t be expected to stay around anyway. So they’ve taken a bunch of engineers who would have likely remained neutral towards unions and started making us sympathize deeply with them. I’m sure if the union at my current place went on strike, it would be a for legitimate reasons because this place won’t treat you fairly unless you force them to. I mean, there is someone who gets paid six figures just to make sure that I get paid as little as possible. I have absolutely no more good will or trust for companies in general.

  • Donalbain

    It’s funny how things like this work out. I’m an engineer and I’m not supposed to ever be part of a union, and unofficially I’m not supposed to support them.

    What the? Who the? Why the?

    Seriously, who says you are not supposed to be part of an union, and who the flying fuck says you are not supposed to support them?

  • banancat

    In college during one of my courses, probably my ethics course, we discussed codes for engineers. I’m in a field/industry where I don’t really need a specific engineering license because I rarely work independently as a consultant, but I do remember that part of getting some licenses and being part of some associations means you have to agree to never be part of a union.

  • Donalbain

    What on earth would be unethical about an engineer being in a union?
    It amazes me that such a situation as you describe would even be legal in a civilised country with a basic system of worker’s rights.

  • BaseDeltaZero

    I can only assume the idea is that since you’re already a member of the guild/association that qualifies engineers, you can’t be part of a *different* union, because it would be a conflict of loyalty. Or something like that.

    If the association in question actually *did* something useful, it wouldn’t really be a problem, but… somehow, I don’t get that impression.

  • banancat

    The point wasn’t that it was immoral or unethical in a general sense, only that it was included in some codes that you would have to adhere to for certain licenses or membership in organizations.

    There was probably some historical reason for it, most likely because unions are considered to be for the “real” blue collar workers and engineers are supposed to be better than that, classism-wise.
    I don’t know how many engineers actually feel this way anymore, and it surely varies by discipline and will never effect me personally because of the type of engineering I’m in, but it still does exist to some extent even if it seems antiquated.

  • Donalbain

    Being in any way punished or disadvantaged (such as being denied a license to work) for joining a trade union is, in my opinion (and that of the UDHR) a denial of one of your fundamental human rights. I think it says something very sad about the society that you are from that such a thing is accepted.

  • Cathy W

    The only possible ethical concern I can even remotely see is that someone, long ago, figured “a union member would treat loyalty to the union as a higher priority than the ethical standards of professional engineers” – one of which is supposed to be “serving the needs of your clients”, and I guess if your “client” needs you to take a pay cut and give up your pension and benefits, then you should serve that need or walk away from the client?.. but I’ve also heard “unions are for tradespeople, and it’s demeaning to a professional to be in one” in my workplace, sadly from the leadership of my union. (I’m educated as an engineer, but I work as a chemist. Also, the engineers in my workplace are unionized, and I’ve never heard anyone mention that it put their license at risk – so the license thing might be on a state-to-state basis.)

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    That has to be all kinds of illegal. There is, in most Western nations, an understood right (if not enshrined in a constitution) of freedom of association and freedom of assembly.

  • FearlessSon

    I have been an orange-badge several times, though never a blue-badge (Microsoft terminology) and I would sometimes hear grumblings about some kind of organization in protest of exactly the conditions you described. But it never happens. Last time they tried (via class action) the company settled and established new rules that punished contractors in the future (while many of the ones doing the class action got payouts or full-time positions, and damned the ones entering the industry later.) There is also legitimate fear for our jobs too if we tried. Blue-badges get severance, but orange-badges have at-will contracts and can be terminated with no reason given with no means of legally challenging it.

    I thought that with enough contract experience I could eventually transition into a full-time job. Seven years later, and I still have never held a full-time, non-retail job.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Networking new economy get proactive repurpose your skill sets nobody is indispensable

    Lemme guess, you got all the standard excuses (and buzzwords) for why “what you know” isn’t important.

    And let me also guess that whoever the manager in your division happened to take a liking to because their daddies drank beer together was the one who got the permanent position even if he was a complete and utter brainless clot when it came to coding.

  • FearlessSon

    I have had different managers and worked in different divisions, which is part of the deal of being a contractor: you only get to remain at a contract for a maximum of one year then you are kicked out (part of the rules added to prevent another class action.) This means that you are guaranteed to be out of a job at least once out of every twelve months, usually for at least three months at a time (though often more.) Since this means that they are always hiring to replace the mandatory losses, you can find a new contract reliably enough when times are good, but when the economy starts to slip, well, suddenly a lot fewer contracts are offered and there are a lot more people competing with you in the talent pool due to layoffs.

    Interpersonal networking does not hurt, but it is no guarantor of getting a full time job either. As often as not, you are back to applying for positions from the general public with no one to pull strings for you because no one in management gets to see your resume unless it comes through human resources, and human resources just does not care. Of the thirty or so full-time positions I have applied to at MS through the years, I have received exactly one call back from a recruiter (who only started the job two weeks prior at that) and all the resumes he passed on (including mine) were discarded. My girlfriend suspects that they do not actually really need someone, they were just fishing for resumes in case someone really exceptional came along that they could nab. After all, it costs them nothing to put lines out there even if they do not expect to catch anything.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Like I said, all the buzzwords out there boil down to one thing: Creating a breeding swamp for increasing levels of favoritism and nepotism and blatant game-playing to jockey for a permanent position.

    You should by sheer weight of tenure have been first in line for permanent hiring the instant that opened up. This constant contingent-labor-force model that now anchors the way businesses approach workers is ethically wrong and morally indefensible.

  • FearlessSon

    If it was just a matter of nepotism and favoritism, I could deal with that. I know how to make friends, get connections, etc. But much of that matters little in the end. There is a bigger structural issue at work here.

    Let me put it like this, if I had been doing the same job faithfully and productively for several years, then yes, I would think that I should be tenured into a full-time position at some point. However, that is not the case precisely because I can never work at one position more than a year. When they look to hire full-time employees, they want someone who has been at the same job for a full product cycle, preferably more than one cycle, preferable with at least three to five years of demonstrated mastery of a particular job. But in my case, I can never have more than one year of mastery at anything because there is a hard cap on how long they let me work on any one thing. I have no leverage to translate.

    Bruce Lee said something about fearing not the man who has practiced fifty kicks ten times each, but being challenged by the man who has practiced one kick five-hundred times (paraphrasing here.) I cannot build that same kind of mastery due to structure. I try to leverage myself into contract positions of increasing responsibility to build up my qualifications, but that is difficult because they want contractors who can hit the ground running with no additional training, because why should they spend money, effort, and time training you when you are going to be gone in a year anyway?

    The end result is that I am stagnant as a software engineer. The schooling I was in over the last two years was an attempt to pull myself up out of that tarpit. Still not sure if it will work or not, still looking for a job (even contracts again.)

  • banancat

    Actually, that Microsoft case is exactly like the situation I am in now. The company I work for was terrified of having a suit brought against them. But instead of treating us better as employees, they started a rule that we can only work for 2 consecutive years in the same role, so we can’t sue later for ever thinking we might be the same as the permanents who do literally exactly the same thing as us, but for longer. We can’t ever demand seniority-based benefits because we can never attain that seniority per the company’s new rule. And we literally have to leave by two years, whether we want to or not. Of course most of us try to find something, anything within those two years that doesn’t have such a stipulation (and I actually just got a job offer at a different company, yay) but then the higher-ups have the nerve to whine about the high turnover rate.

  • http://flickr.com/photos/sedary_raymaker/ Naked Bunny with a Whip

    I worked enough to go over the full-time threshold, and my managers shifted some hours to the following week so that wouldn’t be the case

    But but but I thought businesses only started doing that because of “Obamacare”!

  • cyllan

    Pizza places. At least, the one that I worked for would make the occasional free pie for their workers, and you got to eat the mistakes and the ones that didn’t cook right in the oven. They tasted perfectly fine, but they were ugly and customers would send them back if we tried to deliver them.

  • Baby_Raptor

    The Subway I worked at allowed us one 6 inch a shift free, if we ate it there.

    Everywhere else I’ve worked fast food (Whataburger, Wendy’s, Arbys, KFC) it was half-off no matter when you ate it.

  • Albanaeon

    That was my experience, too.

    A fair few of few of the managers would go ahead and use their full discount for their workers because they realized that deliberately making their employees unhappy was a losing strategy, but official policy was half off.

    The worst was that we were required to often waste food. End of shift, or end of breakfast, or just been sitting in the bin too long, all that had to be thrown away. I understand the desire to avoid deliberately letting employees make food to be ‘disposed’ of for themselves, but the typical amount that was wasted while I was there would have dwarf ANY attempts to do that.

    Just the pettiness of it was stunning to me. We’d rather throw away food than give our workers a break.

  • Jenny Islander

    My old boss got fired for sending McFood out the back door to hungry people from the shelter up the street instead of to the Dumpster with some bleach on top.

    In before the “WULL THEY SHUD JIST GIT A JAWB” trolls might wander by: The residents of this particular shelter are nearly all too old or chronically ill or crippled up to work. They are generally there because the waiting list for actual government housing is so damn long and they are not up to camping anymore.

  • smrnda

    Actual evidence is that chronic hunger prevents people from being able to think, focus or make good choices, but Republicans have never been known to care about reality.

  • Alix

    Republicans are never able to think, focus, or make good choices, so they don’t see how that’s any different from normal.

    …okay, yes, that was mean. Still, I am fed up with this bullshit.

  • Ygorbla

    I also like the fact that they feel that only the poor need hunger as a motivator.

    If hunger is an essential motivator, shouldn’t we raise the estate tax to 100%? After all, it follows by their logic that anyone who inherits a large amount of money will become a useless layabout on account of never needing to fear hunger.

    Similarly, we should raise the upper tax brackets to ensure that nobody ever becomes so rich that they are completely immune to the fear of hunger, otherwise all those wealthy industrialists will stop working once they’ve earned enough to always be able to eat — right?

  • Ima Pseudonym

    Cynthia Davis has never worked at McDonald’s, and I don’t believe she’s ever spoken with or interacted with anyone who has, because last time I checked, they didn’t feed their peons for free. I don’t think most other fast food restaurants do, either. People like her live in a completely different reality from the rest of us.

  • FearlessSon

    “My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals … You know why? Because they breed. You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that. And so what you’ve got to do is you’ve got to curtail that type of behavior. They don’t know any better.” — South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer, 2010

    As appallingly classist as Bauer’s sentiment is, that sounds like an argument for easy access to family planning resources.

    Maybe my bias is showing, but somehow I doubt he supports free access to family planning.

  • mattmcirvin

    Charles Murray has laid down his view of this quite explicitly: if children aren’t in real danger of starving to death, it makes their fathers’ labor to feed them meaningless, which causes their fathers to turn to vice and crime.

    It seems to have made even David Frum feel ill, and Frum was saying things that were really not too different from this back in the 1990s.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Bill O’Reilly: I made wrong claim about March on Washington anniversary

    Oh, what a shock. Bill O’Reilly caught lying, blames it on a “mistake”.

    He’s a partisan hack whose sole job is to push a divisive, tribalistic agenda. He should be ashamed of himself.

  • GuestPoster

    I have heard, time and again, conservatives (modern ones, anyways) say that ‘those lazy people should JUST go get a job’. Upon being informed that there ARE no jobs, they point happily to the help-wanted sign at McDonalds. The only building in a 30 mile radius that needs such help. With hundreds of people applying. And they use this as proof that there are more than enough jobs out there for everyone who wants to work.

    Amusingly, they’ll three arguments later explain that unemployment numbers aren’t accurate, and are actually much higher than reported (a necessary point to make if one wishes to prove that everything awful about life is a direct result of Obama), and that this shows that many people want work, but have given up looking.

    Regardless, I remind them that they claimed finding work was simple, and available to anyone who wanted it. I then explain that most of those out of work don’t see it that way, and that if they (the conservative in question) would merely spend the 2 or 3 days it would take to fill out job applications for every unemployed person in the country, and get jobs for each and every last one of them, why… not only would they have proven their point, but they’d almost certainly be elected president for life.

    …not a one has yet taken me up on this sure-fire way to obtain the most powerful position on earth. And does anyone really doubt that if you personally solved America’s unemployment problem in the time conservatives think it takes to find a job, that you wouldn’t be president in very short order?

  • Carstonio

    Some folks who condemn the unemployed that way seem to believe in a just world. Some are speaking in racist euphemisms. Others fall into both categories.

  • Figs

    The other thing that I never understand is the people who on the one hand claim that people don’t need assistance because there are jobs (minimum wage ones) out there, and on the other how unemployment would be solved if we eliminated the minimum wage. I’ll never understand that. Sure, we might get up to full employment, but the people at the lower end are going to be making a bare fraction of subsistence wages. How should this be considered “employment”?

  • Vermic

    It’s “employment” in the sense that These People are doing something useful for me, i.e. flipping my hamburgers, instead of begging on the street where I might be inconvenienced.

    If the terms of employment render them just barely capable of scraping by, why, that just means they’ll be spending more time on the job, serving me! And my burgers are cheaper too! As you can see, it’s a win-win for me.

    Oh, you’re saying employment should also — perhaps even primarily — provide a beneficial outcome to the WORKER? I’m sorry, I have no idea what you’re talking about, Mr. or Ms. Faceless Other Person. By the way, no onions please.

  • Baby_Raptor

    Mr. Hagee misses the entire point of church/state separation. The point is that the state doesn’t give a flying wank what god thinks of it.

    As to what the bible actually says…Well, there are those verses that order Christians to respect the government god put over them. But Fundies always ignore that.

    Added later: He also completely negates the rights of all of us who don’t adhere to his particular set of beliefs, but I guess that’s to be expected.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Those Evil Taxes Are Making Americans Renounce Citizenship

    Freeborn has an appointment to renounce coming up; she’s still
    “terrified” she’ll be dinged thousands in penalties for unfiled taxes –
    even though, as a stay-at-home mom with no income, the IRS actually owes
    her money.

    1. It’s obvious from this that a lot of Americans really don’t understand taxes at all and are “programmed” with a dread of the IRS, especially by right-wing politicians who stand to get votes from making an easy political target out of an agency nobody really likes.
    2. It’s also obvious that the IRS hasn’t attempted any PR at all. If they did, they’d have ads in every paper emphasizing, with testimonials, that they’re not out to try and impose undue financial hardship on people.

    It’s also kind of darkly amusing how these folks are happily shedding their citizenship and the Republicans who always go on a big chest-beating warpath when it comes to how patriotic and upstanding they are as American citizens, have not a WORD to say about these people who are, in their dogma and mythology, spitting on the American flag by daring to not be citizens of MURRICA THE GREATEST NATION ON EARTH.

  • Lori

    Why, exactly, is anyone supposed to care that someone who is a citizen of another country, has lived in that country for 3 decades and has no apparent intent to ever return to the US feels “forced” to renounce US citizenship? Especially when the “force” is entirely the imagination of said person, who is apparently dumber than a box of hair? It’s not like we have a shortage of boxes of hair with the right to vote in federal elections and need her to fill a quota or something.

  • Baby_Raptor

    People will care because she “proves” their narrative.

    And that’s probably the only reason we should consider caring. If we could wipe out stupid notions like this, everyone would be better off.

    Doing so would probably be next to impossible, though.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Also, that lady who is OMGSOFEARFUL? Does she even know there is a reciprocal tax treaty between Canada and the US where the taxes she pays in Canada are subtracted out on the US form so she doesn’t get dinged twice?

  • Lori

    There you go with those lie-beral facts again. I’m sure she sincerely believes the ebil US government is going to come for her money. That’s what really matters here.

  • smrnda

    I wanted to say this – I’m somewhat self-employed and am a part owner of a small software company. On a few occasions, thanks to some bad record-keeping on my part and a miscalculation on the value of my work related expenses, I ended up owing money.

    Of all entities I owed money to, the IRS was the best by far to deal with. As long as I admitted I owed the money and pledged to make some payments and get it paid off as quickly possible, they were totally okay, always polite and helpful, and never overly punitive. I’d rather owe a few thousand to the IRS than a cent to the cable company.

  • Lori

    Of all entities I owed money to, the IRS was the best by far to deal with. As long as I admitted I owed the money and pledged to make some payments and get it paid off as quickly possible, they were totally okay, always polite and helpful, and never overly punitive. I’d rather owe a few thousand to the IRS than a cent to the cable company.

    This.

    The IRS is also the only entity I’ve ever overpaid who figured it out and promptly sent the money back rather than keeping it in hopes I wouldn’t notice or making me chase them for it.

  • depizan

    Yeah, the IRS once sent a refund to my parents, who had apparently missed some thingy they qualified for that meant they owed less in taxes then they’d paid. I don’t know the specifics (not my taxes and all), but it was something along the lines of “you qualified for X and apparently forgot to take it, so here’s the money you didn’t need to pay back.”

    Also, I find it hard to think of the IRS as evil when they offer free tax help at the local office here, and do so bilingually.

  • Jenny Islander

    My brother ended up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to the IRS due to being a king crab fisherman, bad with follow-up, and chronically ill. They never said boo to him. They explained that the money was going to have to come their way, but they didn’t want to drive him into the poorhouse to get it, and they set up a payment plan he could live on.

    Meanwhile, the company that owns (among other clothing catalogs) Jessica London and Chadwicks of Boston sent me a customer credit they refused to honor, had their customer service rep lie on the phone about whether it would be honored, and when I immediately returned the items they had charged me for while telling me they weren’t going to, they sent me a “prepaid return label” that was a letter with a return address on the top and a blank peeled area where the prepaid label was supposed to be. And then they deducted the cost of the return postage, which I had paid for myself, from the credit they finally provided.

    Don’t do business with Jessica London, Chadwicks of Boston, or Metrostyle. Those are the various names that appeared in the messages and letters fired back and forth about this mess, although I only did business with one of them. Their standard business practice involves lying to you and stealing your money!

  • Jenny Islander

    I distinctly remember him saying “hundreds of thousands of dollars I haven’t paid,” but more realistically, he probably meant “hundreds of thousands of dollars of income I haven’t paid taxes on.” He was pretty ill at the time (in remission now, thank God) and the meds were scrambling his thinker.

  • Lori

    I’m glad that your brother is doing better now. Chemo really did a number on my dad’s thinker too. Decades later there are still things he just can’t remember. It was totally worth it because he got the decades later instead of dying, but chemo is hard on a person.

    And yeah, your brother’s experience with the IRS is pretty typical. There are definitely times when they can get really ugly with people and I don’t think they ought to have their own courts, but they treat the majority of folks who owe them money in a very reasonable way.

  • Morilore

    Conservatives do not understand what “consent” means or why it matters.

    In the second link with that title, how do we know that Judge Baugh’s political ideology is conservative?

    I mean, I agree that consent culture is a fundamentally progressive concept, and that therefore its opposite can be described as “conservative” in ideological color, but that doesn’t mean that powerful men who marinate in rape culture must be politically right-wing. I mean, check this out: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ranks-of-the-socialist-workers-party-are-split-over-handling-of-rape-allegation-8448429.html

  • Lori

    In the second link with that title, how do we know that Judge Baugh’s political ideology is conservative?

    The flippant answer is because he’s an elected judge in Montana. The longer, less flippant answer is that district judge is an elected position, Baugh has run unopposed for many years, but it’s my understanding that he runs as a Republican.

  • Baby_Raptor

    Generally, looking the person up would provide such information. Mr. Todd Baugh, however, does not appear to have a Wikipedia entry.

    Bet he’ll have one after this mess.

  • Lori

    I’m guessing that he’ll also have an opponent in the next election.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    That’s Billings, Montana, the same place that elected Dave Hagstrom, the guy who wrote a letter to his tenants advising them to take three jobs, die young and in pain, and get used to the idea.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Classy. (>_<)

  • Lori

    In fairness Billings is also the home of “Not In Our Town”. Not everyone who lives there is an asshat.

    http://www.niot.org/node/634

  • Space Marine Becka

    I’m sitiing here with my mouth open because I juat googled him and found the text of the letter.

    All I can say is

    For anyone who wants here’s a link to the article that linked to the letter http://www.examiner.com/article/montana-gop-reps-bizarre-letter-peddles-nothing-but-fear-and-despair

    It reminds me of this delightful piece of fearmongering advertising by Moneyweek http://moneyweek.com/endofbritain/

    It might just be a cynical piece of advertising but I suspect they at least partly believe it. It’s something an idée fixe on the right that Welfare will end up starving everyone.

    Fortunately it’s a bunch of rubbish and neatly debunked here
    http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/moneyweek-and-their-end-of-britain.html
    and here
    http://coppolacomment.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/the-end-of-britain-not-yet.html

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Speaking of Syria? A person I know on a web forum hasn’t been online in several months. I have no idea if he’s been caught in the crossfire of a battle somewhere, or has had to flee and is living as a refugee somewhere, or if the power’s just been knocked out and he can’t get online to tell us all he’s safe. :(

  • themunck

    I hope he’s safe :/
    *hugs*

  • Hexep

    There’s no link in number 3.

  • Space Marine Becka

    Full employment? But why does everyone have to work? http://www.latentexistence.me.uk/why-does-everyone-have-to-work/

    Leaving aside that bloggers reason for asking (which is excellent) I have an honest reason for asking as well:

    1. I’m asexual – I have no especial desire to have sex
    2. I would like children
    3. I cannot afford IVF (once I would have said I’m Catholic and the church says its wrong but I’ve matured since then)
    4, this being so I’d love to be able to foster or adopt
    5. I do not have time to be a good single parent and work
    6. I have to work to pay the bills
    7. 5 and 6 are a good argument against points 3-5 (and also against unprotected sex to make children)

    8. But surely having a parent for the kids is superior to being in care (and possibly cheaper)
    9. If I had a citizen’s income I could long term foster/adopt a kid and work on my writing

    So perhaps the question is not why do I have to work but why do I have to have a meaningless office job to feed myself?

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    Mostly because the stone-age notion that the labor output of the entire human race was absolutely necessary to even come close to meeting the needs of said race is so firmly embedded in our morality that even among the most progressive of progressives, hardly any have moved past the idea that it’s somehow immoral for a person not to live a life of toil*.

    (* Strangely, you get some conservatives who do manage to find an out, by believing that it’s immoral for a person not to live a life of toil unless they’re rich)

  • http://www.aeryllou.tumblr.com/ Aeryl

    I personally support parental stipends. If you are going to parent, you should get paid, because raising children is contributing to society, and you should get compensated for it.

    But I also support a Jobs Guarantee, universal daycare, single payer, and a minimum wage of $22/hr. So what do I know?

  • Alix

    I rather support the idea of everyone getting a stipend, because it’s not how much you contribute to society that matters – just the fact that you’re part of society.

    But that apparently makes me “crazy,” so. >.>

  • http://www.aeryllou.tumblr.com/ Aeryl

    I support that too, but I found parental stipends tend to be an easier pitch.

    Baby steps. :^D

  • Albanaeon

    There’s a number of arguments for reducing both hours people work and the raw number of people working. We’re way overworking and ‘productivity gains’ are nothing more than lining the pockets of executives while workers do more with less. And environmentally, it might be better if we had segments of the population not trying to drive endless growth. And quite frankly, just giving people a living wage may be the most efficient way to get money into the economy if SNAP numbers are any indication.

    There’s nothing holy or moral about work, particularly when we already have abundance by most measures. Increasing leisure and happiness however…

  • banancat

    I really resent point number 8, both implying that childcare is inherently a bad thing AND implying that you stop being an actual parent when you put your kids in daycare. You could make your point without bringing this into it.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    Agreed. My son’s confident, outgoing, social and active. There’s no flipping way he got that from us.

    (Seriously, though, it is really amazing how much he learns at school.)

  • Space Marine Becka

    Oh, I’m not refering to daycare I’m referring to kids being institutionalised in a children’s home (we call that ‘being in care” in the UK) because they can’t live with their birth parents for whatever reason.

    I was referring to my desire to foster/adopt and the fact that said child would then have a parent rather than living in an institustion.

  • banancat

    Oh I see. Thanks for the clarification. Sorry, this is a very sensitive topic for me because there are still plenty of people who think I’m somehow ruined because I went to daycare.

  • Space Marine Becka

    That’s okay. I should have been clearer.

  • Ethics Gradient

    Fred, I have a must-read story for you – women’s rugby and religious questions over whether the kit is ‘seemly’: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-23896754

  • Emcee, cubed

    Totally off-topic but I could really use everyone’s help. Well, at least those people with a Facebook account. I’m performing in a production of The Normal Heart, a play about the early years of the AIDS epidemic. We are donating $5 of every ticket sold to The Center of Southern Nevada (our local QUILTBAG community center) for their HIV prevention program.

    In conjunction with the show, we have also started the Your Heart On Campaign on Facebook. For every person who likes the Campaign page and posts a picture of a heart on the page by Sept 22, local businesses have agreed add $1 to the donation, up to an additional $5100. But that means we need a lot of posts so we can get the maximum amount of money for The Center. Here’s all you have to do:

    1. Go to https://www.facebook.com/yourhearton and click on the “Like” button.

    2. Post a picture of a heart to the page (any heart is a good heart)
    3. Share the page out to boost the signal.

    It only takes a couple of minutes, and would really help us out. Thanks in advance!

  • Lori

    I’m useless to you because I’m one of those weirdos who isn’t on Facebook, but good luck both with the play & the fund-raiser.

  • Emcee, cubed

    Thanks. I know a lot of people who aren’t on Facebook, and appreciate the good wishes.

  • zmayhem

    Done and done.

  • Emcee, cubed

    Thanks!

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    Done.

  • Emcee, cubed

    Thanks!

  • Baby_Raptor

    I posted a Rarity heart. ^_^

  • Emcee, cubed

    Thank you! (Okay, hadn’t seen that before. I tried to post the same comment I used to reply to ShifterCat above, and Disqus wouldn’t let me, saying I had already posted this comment. Which I had, but in response to someone else. Probably works well at keeping spam blasts to a minimum, and isn’t hard to vary up the comment enough not to trigger it. But still hadn’t seen that before…)

  • nomuse

    Feh.

    I hated the gun trick in “Temple of Doom,” and for pretty much the reason the “Raiders” scene happened. When Indy felt for his gun and found nothing, I had the sinking feeling that instead of something interesting, I was going to have to spend the next ten minutes watching a protracted and pointless fight scene.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    A person I know who doesn’t like the Indy films (even the good ones) pointed something out and ever since then, i’ve been unable to look past it.

    All four three of these movies basically consist of about ten minutes of interesting archaeology-adventure stuff, and like 70 minutes of Indy punching people while standing up in the back of a moving Jeep.

    (This is kinda a thing about 80s adventure movies that I realize now. Few weeks ago, I watched The Goonies for the first time in years, and noticed that, seriously, there is about an hour of movie before they actually get to the good bit with caves and pirate booty traps.)

  • http://algol.wordpress.com/ SororAyin

    There’s also the ‘Truffle Shuffle.’ You can’t forget that!

  • Jess Goodwin

    Sigh…

    My best friend (the same one who was raging against food stamp recipients last year) posted this on Facebook:

    http://www.tomtayloronline.org/2013/07/07/hobby-lobby-founder-may-close-all-stores/

    She totally agrees with this guy. What’s more, when I quoted Fred to her on the unwisdom of allowing employers to impose their religious beliefs on you — what if your boss is a Muslim or an atheist or a Witch or (horror!) a mainline Protestant? — she replied that that Hobby Lobby *is* a mainline Protestant company.

    Either she has a very strange definition of “mainline” or I do.

  • Lori

    My guess is that she is confusing “mainstream” with “mainline”. I assume this person has many other fine qualities that make her friend-worthy, because it can’t be her clue level.

  • Jess Goodwin

    Yeah… *shuffles feet, looks awkward* …she and her husband let me stay at their house after my mother kicked me out, and they’re foster parents to three kids. That’s the damned frustrating part. They really are the salt of the Earth, and I use that description with full Scriptural awareness. I just don’t understand how such tremendously kind and loving folks can turn on a dime and be so hostile towards the very people they would give the shirt off their backs to help.

  • Lori

    I’m glad that they were willing and able to do that for you. You have no reason to shuffle or look awkward over caring about someone who has the heart to do that. Some people just can’t extend themselves to anyone they don’t know personally. (Some other people love humankind, but can’t stand people.) It’s sad, but it doesn’t reflect poorly on you.

  • xulon

    While I was at Seminary, during a pre-class conversation one gentleman ended everything with “Fossils were created by God to give the fools something to waste their life on before going to hell”.

  • Lori

    Does he believe in predestination? Because if not, that’s a really interesting view of God he’s got there.

  • xulon

    I believe he does. Regardless of that, he always bellowed stuff that people four blocks away could not ignore.

  • Lori

    My thought is basically, what else would you expect from a person who worships a being he believes is a total asshole? Because seriously, there is no negative thing that any atheist or member of any of the non-Abrahamic religions could ever say about Yahweh that could possibly be worse than what Calvinists say about him.

  • xulon

    Ugh! Well, let this Calvinist say that this gentleman has some flesh mixed in with his faith, something which is not unique to Calvinists.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X