Twitter isn't all bad

https://twitter.com/ianharber/status/1541787827721179136?s=27&t=5bMvE0pMj7AlSiilXILhmA

When I saw this Tweet, I was drawn in.  I honestly don't know where this guys stands, and I don't even know if I agree with everything in this thread.

What I do agree with is the fact that American Christians tend to believe that we are the center of Christianity in the world, and that our takes on Christianity should prevail across the globe.   I've seen a fair number of instances where Christians in third world countries are ridiculed or belittled for their Christian beliefs.   I've though for quite a while that Christianity thrives in places of need or persecution.  I think that reliance on God becomes much more acute when people are in need.    Every time I see a christian influencer complaining on IG about how they desperately need wine at 3:00 in the afternoon after a brutal day of watching their kids in the backyard pool or at Disney, or whatever, I kind of want to puke.  

Anyway, it's a long thread, it might not all be awesome, but I think that his point is valid.  Maybe our first world problems don't define global Christianity.  

FYI, this is not the place to argue about whether or not Roman Catholics (or The Orthodox) are really Christians.  I know the arguments, I'm sympathetic to some of them, I acknowledge that the RC has issues, but so does every other sect/denomination.   I'm willing to bet that RC's in the third world, don't buy a lot of the BS that others do. 

Birth Givers?

Really, we've started referring to women as "birth givers".   Given all the uproar about not defining women by their body parts, the pro abortion folks have seemingly gone all in on defining women by their body parts/body functions.  Birth giver, front hole, menstruater,  a uterus is required to speak on abortion, and I'm sure there are more. 

Corporate PR

 Since the overturning of Roe, some corporations have chosen to exploit the PR aspects of the situation by proudly trumpeting the fact that they will pay for employees to travel for abortions.   Obviously corporations can do this sort of thing if they want.  However, as we've seen recently, corporate wokeness doesn't necessarily lead where they might have hoped.

I'm wondering about something else.  If it costs an employer tens of thousands of dollars (maybe more) for an employee to take maternity leave, then isn't throwing $4,000 at women to abort, just a way to increase profits?  Isn't this a way to look good in a P sense, while actually cutting expenses?  I suspect that it's not the same across the board, but I suspect that at some point they'll start to appreciate the extra profit.

Disclaimer,  I'm not against or criticizing corporations making decisions to maximize profits, that's what they should do.  What I am criticizing is portraying themselves as doing one thing, while really being motivated by profits.  

Rage

 I see a lot about rage from the APL.  I see groups like Jane's Revenge calling for a day of rage, I see examples of rage directed against conservatives, and the like.   What I rarely see is rage from conservatives.  Maybe J6 was rage, but compered to the rage on Lake St, it seems pretty tame.   I certainly hear about conservative rage, but I certainly have never felt rage, nor have I ever seen any of my conservative friends engage in rage.  Maybe there's some weird projection thing happening. 

Random Stuff

"The Supreme Court just ruled that public school teachers can pressure students to join in prayer at public school events but can also retaliate against those that don’t join in. Religious freedom is dead in America."

 

Ilhan Omar

 

I guess Truth is dead as well, because this is just one more instance of Omar lying through her teeth.

 

"If you go after the left and you're not a Trump person, people have no f*****g idea how to even approach arguing with you, so they just proceed  as though you are a Trump person and bring him up incessantly"

Noam Blum

 

"Supreme court upholds gun rights"

 Libs: But black people will have gun rights.

Cons:  OK

 

Supreme Court protects religious liberty

Libs: But Muslims will have religious liberty

Cons:  OK

 

Supreme Court reverses Roe v. Wade

Libs: But men will have to take care of kids.

Cons: U ok?"

 

Christine Pushaw

 

"Federal prosecutors say two male teachers in Hawaii and Philly distributed child pornography the creayed with their male high school students.  One had been outspokenly against the use of the word "groomer" @NewsweekOpinion." 

 

Pedro L. Gonzalez

 

"At it's root, the entire abortion debate is a debate over whether parents have a duty to care for their children, who came into the world solely as the result of their parent's actions."

 

Alexandra DeSanctis Marr 

"In France most abortions are illegal under any circumstances after the 14th week of pregnancy, medical abortions are hard to get, & doctors can refuse to provide abortioons on religious grounds or under a "conscience clause"

 Any Questions?"

stephensacks

"When courts allow politicians to control our personal medical decisions, people suffer."

Planned Parenthood

"Birth control pills are available over the counter in most other countries. The “morning-after pill,” better known as Plan B, is already available over the counter in America. 

Most American women favor making the birth control pill accessible over the counter. According to a 2017 Kaiser Family Foundation survey, three-quarters of women of reproductive age support over-the-counter access to birth control pills. 

So why hasn’t it happened? It must be that awful, religious-right-dominated GOP that’s standing in the way, right?

Actually, not so much.

Republicans, in fact, have repeatedly tried to make birth control pills available without a prescription, only to face opposition from . . . Democrats and Planned Parenthood. 

Why Planned Parenthood doesn't support it

Yes, you heard that right. Democrats — and Planned Parenthood — have fought against making it easier for women to get birth control pills. Why? Well, they have their reasons.

In Planned Parenthood’s case, it’s probably, according to Hadley Heath Manning writing in Forbes, because they’d make less money. “Planned Parenthood’s stance on expanding access to birth control may be illogical in light of their mission statement, but it is perfectly logical when you consider the group’s financial interests.” Planned Parenthood brings in 1.7 billion dollars in revenue annually according to it's latest financial report and contraception accounts for 27% of the services they provide. "

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/06/11/i-am-a-conservative-i-agree-with-aoc-on-over-the-counter-birth-control-column/1402941001/

"Imagine being mayor of a major city, spending money on a monument that depicts the accomplishments of black people, and deciding on a hair pick.  They would recall a white mayor for demeaning us.  Instead, we'll shout "Yaass Queen" and pretend nothing is wrong."

Jason Whitlock

 

 

Fear

 There are a lot of people on social media spreading a lot of lies, and fearmongering about the possible next dominoes to fall after Roe.   Mostly this is based, it seems, on a misreading of (Uncle) Clarence Thomas' opinion on the Dobbs case.   Without going into details, I think that the fearmongering raises some interesting questions.

Roe was decided in 1973.  Since 1973 we have had 4 DFL presidents and multiple instances where the DFL had majorities in congress.

The questions are as follows.

1.  Given the fact that conservatives have been actively engaged in trying to repeal Roe v. Wade since 1973, why are those on the APL so surprised and unprepared for this happening?

2.  Why has there been virtually zero effort to legislate the Roe standards into law in the past 49 years?

3.  As the fearmongering over other cases that will allegedly be overturned grows, why is no one asking why those protections haven't been legislated either?

I'll admit that I was as surprised at this decision as anyone, but it's not like the DFL hasn't been campaigning and fundraising on the fear of Roe being overturned for decades.  I think that maybe y'all shouldn't be mad at the folks who actually did what they said they'd do (overturn Roe), so much as you should be mad at the folks who spent the last 50 years raising money, and making promises they made little or no effort to keep.    It's almost like the having the fear of Roe being overturned as a motivation and a fundraising tool was more important to the DFL than actually protecting the Roe standards.   Maybe that's what y'all should be worried about with all the other instances of legislating through the courts. 

Greed

 I'm not an NBA fan at all.  I'm mildly interested in seeing the Wolves succeed, but have never watched an entire NBA game in my life.  However, watching that NBA off season drama can be very entertaining.   Most recently the drama revolves around Kyrie Irving and his seeking a new contract.   Somehow he's become convinced that after failing to play an entire season's worth of games over the last couple of years, and trying to bail during the bubble season. that he's due a huge long term contract.   Obviously he has trouble with the concept of self awareness.

I think that there are two types of people who play professional sports. To some degree this goes beyond sports.  We're all motivated by money to some degree, we need to make money to live.  Some people choose jobs where the make less money, because of the intangibles (been there, done that).  But with professional athletes, we're mostly talking about money far beyond one's needs.   The ones who are primarily motivated by competing with the best, and those who are primarily motivated by money.     I do think that if you put someone motivated by a desire to compete on a perennially bad team, that they might resign themselves to their fate and just focus on getting paid for something they can't control.

This isn't necessarily about one motivation being better than the other, it's more about being honest about what is motivating you.   As fans we'd like our players to be motivated by winning, but it's unrealistic to think they all are.  

Clearly Kyrie, isn't particularly invested in winning, you don't play 29 games out of an 80+ game season if you are.  Likewise, when Tyreek Hill signed with Miami, it wasn't because KC wasn't going to pay him a huge amount of money.  It was because Miami was willing to pay him just a little bit more.  The dude is set for life financially, the difference wasn't going to be noticeable for him.   He chose a team with a worse QB, and a recent history of mediocrity because they paid him more.   

Again, if that's his motivation, cool.  I'd just like to see these guys be honest about what they're motivated by.   If it's all about "Show me the money!!", that's cool, just be honest about it and don't pretend otherwise.  If you're Kyrie, please realize that your look pretty stupid about now.