I may write a lot, but one thing I definitely believe is that it is better to write 100 words of logical truth than to write 100,000 words of nonsense and lies. Case in point, some comments I got from a Baha’i on YouTube and Facebook regarding one of my videos:
Read this disturbing story:
During an interview with the Associated Press at the cemetery where Franklin was laid to rest following her 8-hour “Celebration of Life” funeral service on Friday, Ellis expressed regret for the way he touched the singer onstage and for saying he initially thought the 25-year-old singer was a new menu item at Taco Bell.
“I personally and sincerely apologize to Ariana and to her fans and to the whole Hispanic community,” Ellis said. “When you’re doing a program for nine hours you try to keep it lively, you try to insert some jokes here and there.”
He also apologized for touching Grande too close to her chest during their televised interaction.
Ariana Grande and Bishop Charles H. Ellis III
“It would never be my intention to touch any woman’s breast. … I don’t know I guess I put my arm around her,” Ellis continued. “Maybe I crossed the border, maybe I was too friendly or familiar but again, I apologize.”
Continuing, he added: “The last thing I want to do is to be a distraction to this day. This is all about Aretha Franklin.”
After watching Grande honor the late Queen of Soul at the service, the American Apostolic Pentecostal preacher said that, “When I saw Ariana Grande on the program, I thought that was a new something at Taco Bell.”
“My 28-year-old daughter tells me, ‘Dad! You are old at 60’ ” he joked.
In the moment, Grande appeared to take the joke in stride, as she proceeded to laugh and give Ellis a hug.
“Girl, let me give you all your respect,” Ellis then remarked. “Did you enjoy this icon? She is an icon herself. Come on, make her feel loved.”
There is absolutely no reason this incident should have happened. This was done at a FUNERAL (is nothing sacred anymore?) of one of the world’s greatest singers (who demanded respect in one of her songs, which clearly was not shown to Ariana Grande), long after so many Catholic priests have been condemned for sexual abuse of children and the “MeToo” movement has highlighted the problems with sexual abuse and sexual harassment of women by powerful men…….and yet it happened anyway.
An apology cannot be enough. This Bishop should be defrocked and banned from serving in a clerical position in any religious institution. If he did this idiotic act in public, what the hell could he be doing in private?
The title of this blog entry refers to this earlier one:
It’s time to revisit that issue. Look at this meme:
The whole premise of that meme is a lie. Capitalism and corporatism are one and the same and have been for at least 300 years. The attempt to make a distinction between them is profoundly dishonest, implying that “real” capitalism does not exist. If so, it never did and never will. The only real alternative to crony capitalism is Democratic Socialism, period.
Here’s what really happens:
A individual has an idea.
That individual forms a company and makes a product with that idea.
Consumers give the company money for the product.
The company becomes successful.
Someone else has a better idea and creates a better product.
The first company uses its money to buy out the new product from its inventor and sells it in addition to or even instead of the original product, increasing its profitability and leaving the actual inventor with almost nothing later.
As a result, the company makes money no matter what product it sells.
Always remember this: Those who already have a lot of money will always have an unfair advantage over those who don’t.
Government corruption does NOT produce corporatism. Tyranny and abuses can also come from economic forces too if government does nothing to stop them with policies such as “trust-busting” and progressive income taxation, among other tools at government’s disposal to redistribute wealth. That is why Libertarianism is worthless.
A friend of mine linked me to this blog entry and having known beautiful women who were great friends and I did not feel like I had to have sex with them to be with them at all, I am quite happy to have the word “friendzone” tossed out of the English language.
by Erin Riordan
The Friendzone isn’t real. The idea that every “Nice Guy” is owed sex or a romantic relationship by his female friends is ridiculous. And if you think that’s not what Friendzoning is about, it absolutely is.
The movie Just Friends perhaps explains friendzoning best with the line, “See when a girl decides that you’re her friend, you’re no longer a dating option. You become this complete non-sexual entity in her eyes, like her brother, or a lamp.”
Or Urban Dictionary with, “When you are expected to support a girl you really like while she searches for a smarter, richer, or more handsome boyfriend. There is little you can do to get out without feeling like a dick. All in all, one of the meanest things girls do, whether they mean it or not.”
To some degree, the assumption of every guy claiming to be “friendzoned” is that…
View original post 1,019 more words
This is a direct sequel to Treachery of Baha’is @ reddit
Baha’is in reddit have come up with a new tactic for attacking those who dare to leave and then criticize their former religion; they are claiming most ex-Baha’is are just Muslim enemies of the faith who never joined.
At one point, a Baha’i named t0lk asserts:
A word of caution about r/exbahai, it is mostly populated by Muslims and not by people who were formerly Baha’is.
This was noticed and commented on here:
In my younger days, I was often rejected by girls and young women even though I tried to be as loving towards them as possible. I assumed that it might have been because they thought I was ugly or weak. But the real issue seems to be something I often see in politics too.
Women naturally want men that are strong to protect them and their children, and our culture seems to depict men that have a strong sense of empathy and compassion for others to be “weak”, therefore such men are not considered as suitable for a domestic partnership as men that are highly aggressive towards others.
Likewise, people generally want a leader that is highly aggressive for the same reason. That explains why George McGovern lost so badly to Richard Nixon in 1972 despite having a much better character and this was repeated with Jimmy Carter losing to Ronald Reagan in 1980, and Donald Trump winning his election in 2016.
But what people often fail to consider is that the same aggressive attitude that makes a man look strong can be twisted to hurt or abandon the very ones the man is supposed to be protecting, including his love partner and their children. By contrast, a loving, empathic man can encourage a woman to stand up for herself rather than just let a man fight for her. And he would not leave her as long as she loved him just as deeply.
I have known several cases of women who used to see me as just a friend who after being abused and/or neglected by the men in their life, later took another look at me and decided I would have been the better partner for them after all. And I would consider it an honor to help care for them.
Likewise, I am hopeful that the American people will stop being seduced by the mere appearance of strength and seek in future Presidents the most powerful character trait anyone can have: LOVE! Its being seen as weakness is sheer ignorance. Have you ever seen a mother bear fight to protect her cubs?