Time travelers and moon bases

Well, it’s time to debunk some more bullshit, folks.

I’ve seen a lot of stuff floating around online that revolves around two premises: 1) we have photographic proof of time travelers! and 2) there are secret alien bases on the moon.

Like all good conspiracy theories, they appear to have some validity visually. There’s always a hook, right? Some tantalizing morsel just within reach of reason. In this case, it’s strange things in photographs that seem anachronistic and weird shapes on the moon. To avoid confusion, let’s address these topics one at a time.

Time Travel

We captured a time traveler on film! Aha! Surely some of you have seen such claims on the internet recently. Stuff like this:maxresdefault (1).jpg

This guy is apparently a time traveler because he’s dressed in “modern” garb that doesn’t fit the period: a graphic t-shirt, cool sunglasses, and some kind of device in his hands. He’s basically a time traveling hipster. And then there’s this lady:

1421860910857.jpg

This is from a bit of film taken during the premier of a Charlie Chaplin movie. In the video, the woman walks across the screen, and it appears like she’s talking on a cell phone. And for something a little more recent, there’s this:

3423515800000578-3589539-The_video_was_first_published_on_YouTube_in_September_2015_by_ha-m-26_1463167113151.jpg

Look! That guy has a smart phone and he’s taking video with it…but it’s 1995! Obviously he’s a time traveler. Duh.

Except that all of these pictures have perfectly simple explanations. As far as the hipster goes, sun glasses have been around a lot longer than most young people think, and his clothing actually is typical of the era–he simply sewed a patch onto the front of his shirt. And how about the cell phone lady? Well, it’s probably not a cell phone, but rather an old timey hearing piece. One of these thingies:

ear-horn-trumpet-thing.jpg
Can you hear me now?

And what about the smart phone at the Mike Tyson event some 20 years ago, before your Nokia had that snake game on it and Minesweeper was the most advanced computer game known to man? It’s actually just a really early model digital camera. Turns out that Eastman Kodak built the first electronic camera all the way back in 1975. By the time the 80’s had rolled around, Sony invented a camera that stored pictures on floppy disks. The “real” first digital camera went on sale in 1990. Here’s a pretty interesting timeline of the development of the technology. You’ll notice that a lot of those cameras look super weird and futuristic, even though they’re 20-30 years old.

So no, nobody is time traveling. Sorry to burst any bubbles out there, but it just ain’t happening. Or if it is, it hasn’t been caught on film. And if you think about it, the whole “caught on film” thing is where this entire theory starts to come apart.

Let’s grant for a moment that in the future someone does invent time travel, and that eventually it’s marketed for tourism. Well, surely there would be rules, right? Like, you’d have to go back wearing clothing appropriate to whatever period you’re going to. So you don’t end up wearing a Banana Republic ensemble in the middle of the Battle of Gettysburg, sticking out like a sore thumb and drawing unneeded attention to yourself. So, there goes the time traveling hipster: it would be really stupid and dangerous to let people go back to the distant past in future clothing for obvious reasons.

One would also think that there would be a rule against bringing technology from the future into the past, precisely so that that shit wouldn’t be caught on camera. Or, more practically, what if you died during your trip, and the people of the past found all of your crap from the future? Can you imagine if the old woman from the Chaplin premier was a time traveler and keeled over from a heart attack right outside the theater? The police and coroner of the time would find her magic future cell phone and then everything would go to shit. So no, you probably wouldn’t be allowed to take technology back with you.

It’s fun to imagine time travel, sure. But all of these pictures and videos prove nothing other than the fact that people are totally gullible.

Alien Moonbases

Again, at first glance, this idea sounds remotely plausible. After all, if aliens were going to secretly monitor us, the best place to do that would probably be the moon. But when you look at the evidence and really dig into the theory, it all really starts to unravel, just like the time travelers. The ultimate claim is that there is leftover technology from aliens up on the moon, and NASA and the government knows this and is altering or covering up the evidence to keep us in the dark. There’s a whole “documentary” about this on Netflix called Aliens on the Moon. It’s two hours, so I’ll summarize by telling you that it’s just a bunch of grainy pictures that have been retouched to highlight the parts that NASA supposedly altered. Like this crap:

moonbases02_03google-moon-basenasaScam

I mean, really, guys. Those are totally secret alien moon base things. And obviously NASA is hiding them and covering them up. That’s why we stopped going to the moon: the aliens kicked us off (I’m not kidding, that’s what these people think).

Alright, let’s start with the obvious. Those pictures are so grainy and blurry and enlarged that it’s impossible to tell what the hell you’re looking at. So to claim that you can tell that a smudge on an old piece of film is really an alien piece of technology on the moon is quite the claim. Most of those pictures look benign or like they’re photoshopped. And speaking of Photoshop, let’s talk about those allegations against NASA.

Let’s grant for a moment that NASA did indeed discover that there either are or were aliens on the moon. And let’s also grant that there is photographic evidence of this. The next obvious question is why the fuck NASA would release those images in the first place, even if they are doctored. It’s stupid on NASA’s part to release any of those images, even the doctored ones, if they want to keep it secret. Why wouldn’t NASA just point the cameras at some totally boring part of the moon devoid of alien technology and then release those, keeping the smoking gun photos a secret or destroying them? It makes no sense to go through a convoluted plot of doctoring evidence you want to suppress in order to release it for public scrutiny, when there’s no reason to do that in the first place.

Ultimately this conspiracy, just like the time travelers, is a load of crap. And you can smell it a mile away. I’ll never understand for the life of me why some people cling to this stuff as literal truth. What the hell is going on in the minds of people who jump into these obviously stupid conspiracies and hold on for dear life?

It’s not the government–it’s the people

The government certainly gets a bad wrap these days. It’s ineffective. It’s inefficient. It creates more problems than it solves and it sticks its burueacratic nose where it doesn’t belong. In the past, I’ve made the assertion that a government is only as effective as the people elected to it. In other words, if you elect incomeptent boobs to office, you’ll get an ineffective government. And to a certain extent, I still stand by that.

But as I was driving home today, I was reflecting more about that idea. And I came to a rather different conclusion. It isn’t the government at all. No, it’s the people. The people of this country are ungovernable.

Please keep in mind that I’m strictly talking about the American people and government here. I can’t and won’t speak to other cultures and their governments. But if anyone else has some experience aborad with the interaction of people and government, please feel free to share. Back to my theory.

It’s a common assertion that the biggest problem with American politics these days is the polarization of the two parties. As time has gone on, they’ve drifted farther and farther apart in terms of ideology and methodology. The hyperpartisanship in Washington is creating so much gridlock that nothing ever gets done.

That does indeed seem true. But if it is, what that really represents is a reflection of the people in America. If hyperpartisan politicians populate the halls of the Capitol these days, it’s because Americans put them there, presumably because those citizens saw something in the cadidate that they liked, a reflection of their own values and ideas.

In other words, it isn’t Washington that’s hyperpartisan–it’s the American people.

Think about it. This country is deeply divided among all areas. Religion: you have a growing number of atheists, agnostics, and those unaffiliated with a religion diametrically opposed to evangelical Christians. Scientifically: you have people who think climate change is a hoax and evolution is a scam and vaccines cause autism, and then you have people who lead an evidence based life and want to make changes accordingly. Economically: you have people who think that free markets are God’s gift to America and that socialism is the same thing as communism, and then you have people who oppose wealth and income inequality and want to radically alter the system.

Pro-life/Pro-choice. Anti-trans bathroom laws/boycotts. Occupy Wallstreet/The Tea Party. Lower all the taxes/raise all the taxes. Raise the minimum wage/eliminte social programs. The constitution should always be strictly interpreted/the constitution is a living document. There are so many diametrically opposed viewpoints in this country, it’s simply impossible to govern.

You simply can’t arrive at a compromise with a lot of these issues. There is no middle ground on these issues for most Americans. There are people who absolutely will not supprt any sort of tax increase for any reason whatsoever–just look at Grover Norquist and his foundation that make politicians sign anti-tax pledges. Look at all the tea party rallies. If you’re pro-choice, there really isn’t any restriction on abortion that you’d accept, and many pro-life folks think that abortion should be banned in all cases, even rape and incest. There are millions of Americans who will absolutely not accept ANY form of gun control.

These issues–all of the issues in the American conversation–are simply non-negotiable to people. And so they elect politicians for whom these things are also non-negotiable. And that goes for both sides of the aisle, democrats and republicans. It’s why nothing ever gets done, and it’s why it’s probably never going to get better. The viewpoints in American society are too diverse to unify, to radically different to find a middle ground on. Too many people in this country profoundly and fundamentally disagree with the other side that’s impossible to arrive at any sort of meaningful solutions. And at this point, I really don’t see what the possible solutions are.

america-divided

Assault rifles and bathrooms

If you indulge me for a moment, the title of this post will make sense. I promise.

Apparently who uses what bathroom is now a hot-button issue in America, because nobody wants to tackle actual problems and this country is still full of bigoted, narrow-minded people. The issue, specifically, is which bathrooms transgender people use. Do they use the bathroom that corresponds to their sex, or do they use the bathroom of the gender which they identify with?

This is actually a completely stupid question for a variety of reasons, all of which we’ll cover here in a moment. However, the argument against letting people use the bathroom of the gender with which they identify is the children. It’s always about children, and as I’ve said before, if an argument uses children as a weapon it’s probably full of bullshit, using the “appeal to emotion” fallacy.

hqdefault

Because if we allow transgender men to use the women’s bathroom, it’ll just give perverts an excuse to go in there and perv on little girls. If we allow this, apparently pedophiles will all go, “Yeah, I’m trans so I’m going into the girl’s bathroom! Mwahaha!” Or there’s a bunch of latent perverts out there who have just been waiting for the okay to go into the women’s bathroom. Or something stupid like that. And so now we have bills proposed in states that actually try and legislate who uses what bathroom. At the very least, people claim, little girls may end up seeing a penis.

All of this makes me question if the people who write these laws have ever been inside a restroom. But let’s look at some of the reasons why this is really a non issue.

How many men here have accidentally gone into and used the ladies restroom? I know I have. I’m sure lots of men have. And I’m sure lots of women have accidentally gone into a men’s room. And nothing happened that caused an incident warranting federal investigation or the passing of legislation. Nobody took their dick out and waved it all around once they realized they walked into the wrong restroom. Nobody suddenly transformed into a pervert because they simply walked through the wrong door.

And now how about this. How many people out there have young children? How many of you have been out in public and had to take your child to the restroom? Well, which bathroom did you take them into? Dads, did you worry that taking your daughter into the men’s room was going to somehow corrupt her? That there’d be so many penises flailing about in the open that she’d grow up to be some horn dog slut? Moms, did you worry that taking your son into the ladies room would suddenly turn him into a creepy little perv? Probably not. Or maybe you dads took your little girl into the ladies room, in which case you were the trespasser. Again, no federal case here. Nothing unseemly.

Now, let’s examine the fact that transgender people have existed for awhile. Like, way longer than these stupid proposed laws. Well where the hell do all of these anti-LGBT people think that trans people were peeing before this? They obviously went into a bathroom, and they probably went into whichever one they felt like. And there was no problem. No issues. Nothing gross or unseemly. Just people doing a perfectly natural bodily function. There was no problem here to begin with that justifies the creation of these laws.

“But what about the sexual predators!?” I can hear people yelling this now. “It’s not little girls who go in with their daddy we’re worried about, it’s older children young enough to go into the restroom by themselves. And that’s why we need these strong laws, to protect the children!” Ted Cruz said shit like this all the time on the campaign trail. Ironically, Ted Cruz looks like someone who should never be allowed near women or children. Like someone who spends a lot of time hanging around the women’s restroom.

ted_cruz_sexy_eyes.jpg
Stay the hell out of whichever bathroom this man is in, boys and girls!

And this is where assault rifles come into play.

In case you live in a cave, children are killed by guns. Like, a lot. Mass shooting at schools aren’t an uncommon thing. Disgruntled kids or adults come into a school and shoot the whole place up. So, after these tragedies, there’s usually a call for legislation that proposes some kind of gun control. Banning assault weapons, banning extended clips, getting rid of the gun show loophole, extending background checks and waiting periods. You know, common sense stuff that the majority of Americans agree on. And these laws are designed to protect children against the very real threat of gun violence.

Well since we’re trying to protect children, you’d think these same anti-LGBT people would be all about gun control. If they’re so concerned about the safety of children. But they never are. Whenever gun control legislation is even talked about theoretically, you hear the same argument pop up over and over again: “Criminals don’t respect laws, you dumb liberals! That’s why they’re criminals!” You know, this kind of bullshit:

Gee, that’s funny. If criminals don’t follow laws, then WHY THE FUCK WOULD SEXUAL PREDATORS GIVE TWO SHITS ABOUT BATHROOM LAWS?! Oh that’s right, they wouldn’t, because according to your own stupid logic, passing laws doesn’t stop crime. And yes, I was trying to make a pun by using the phrase “give two shits” in a post about bathrooms.

Which begs the question of why even bother having any laws in the first place if you think that they don’t have any effect, but that’s a topic for another post.

So what, are there going to be genital inspectors at every public restroom in America? Are there going to be undercover gender police in America’s bathrooms, kind of like the air marshals on planes? No, of course not, get the fuck out of here. You’d essentially be counting on any would-be sexual predators screening themselves out on good faith alone simply because a law was passed. Which, by their own logic, doesn’t work. So why bother with trying to legislate which bathroom trans people can use the first place?

There are probably several reasons. For one thing, most Americans are still weirdly and grossly ashamed of the fact that they have genitals, especially religious folk, who think gentials should be hidden and remain hidden forever, because penises and vaginas = Satan. And of course there are still people who don’t “get” the whole transgender thing. They don’t understand it, so they’re afraid of it. Or they do understand it, but think it’s unnatural and against God’s will, so once again, the devil.

And maybe it’s also because conservatives don’t really have any platform to run on besides “lower my taxes” and “government = bad.” It’s the ultimate irony. The party that thinks there’s too much government in your life always wants to try to legislate who you marry, who you fuck, and now which bathroom you use.

Why Donald Trump might be the next president

We’re almost to the end of the primaries, and Donald Trump has a commanding lead on the republican side of the aisle, while it looks all but certain that Clinton will be the nominee on the democratic side. But surely, everyone is saying, Donald can’t become president. He either won’t get the nomination, or he isn’t electable in the general election. And even though I hate Donald Trump, I have to admit that he has a legitimate chance of ending up in the white house. There are lots of factors that could lead to us seeing Donald moving into the oval office, like…

  1. The Cruz/Kasich alliance is bound to backfire. It looks great if you’re a strategy wonk to try have the other candidates acquiesce to each other in states where they hold an advantage to steal votes from Trump. But at the end of the day it simply won’t work. Trump is running as an outsider, and two establishment candidates coming together to try to hijack the election just plays right into Trump’s narrative that the whole system is rigged. It makes him look MORE like the outsider. And most Americans already agree with Donald that the system is rigged.
  2. The only person people hate more than Trump is Hillary. Both of these people have high unfavorability ratings. I mean, really bad. Almost two thirds of voters have an unfavorable view of Trump, and a little more than half feel the same way about Clinton. Such unfavorable candidates could mean low voter turn out, and low voter turnout almost always favors republican candidates. And speaking of voters…
  3. Trump could build a nice coalition of voters. If republican voters are anything, they’re loyal to the party. It’s very unlikely that republicans would vote for Hillary just because they don’t like Donald. So he’s probably got the conservative vote. But independents make or break an election, and I see this going one of two ways. The first way is that at least some of the independents who are angry at establishment politics and would have voted for Bernie will switch to Trump. The second is that the #bernieorbust people will simply not vote. And any vote that isn’t for a democratic candidate is one more advantage to the republican candidate. And like him or not, Donald has indeed done a good job of getting more republicans and independents to come out and vote.
  4. If the GOP tries to nominate Cruz or Kasich, all hell will break loose. And I mean that literally. Trump is only 249 delegates short of winning the nomination. He could very well hit that naturally all by himself. A new poll shows he has support of 50% of conservative voters. With 10 states left, it’s very possible for him to win before the convention. But even if he doesn’t, he’ll get very close. Close enough that if the party tried to nominate Cruz or Kasich over him, A LOT of people would be upset. It would solidify and cement Trump’s message that the system is rigged, that the party’s will is greater than the will of the people. The GOP would probably fracture into two parties. The establishment would be foolish to try and “play the game” at the convention.
  5. Trump is a stronger candidate than Hillary. I know that sounds absurd, but let me explain. Clinton has a record, Trump doesn’t. In a general election, she’s going to be constantly on the defensive, trying to defend her record, her choices, and her gaffes. You can bet that Trump will drag all of the Clinton’s skeletons out of the closet. She’s going to have to defend her email scandal. She’s going to have to relive Benghazi. She’s going to have to try and explain and validate every foreign policy choice she ever made.  And let me tell you, constantly having to defend your record on the campaign trail isn’t how you win; it’s how you end up looking like the weaker candidate.

And if that isn’t enough, the latest polls show Clinton with just a 3 point lead over Trump. Here, see for yourself. Donald and Hillary are essentially tied in the polls once you take the margin of error into account. Canada is looking nicer and nicer every day.

maxresdefault

Batman v Superman: A Review

SPOILERS AHEAD!!

Well, I saw Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice when it opened a few weeks ago, and I’m finally getting around to writing my review. Awhile back, I wrote a piece about why Marvel was going to do so much better than DC when it came to their cinematic universes. It appears that I was correct. So, here’s my review of the film and it’s implications for future DC movies.

I thought the movie opened strongly. The scenes of Bruce Wayne running through Metropolis while Superman and Zod fought during MoS was a nice touch, and a great way to tie the two heroes together and set up why the hell it is that Batman hates Superman so much. From there the movie devolved into a bunch of extraneous crap and pointless subplots. Eventually, after a lot of weird dreams and flashbacks by Batman (did they honestly have someone from the future come back to him? groan) and some less-than-stellar dialogue, Batman gets some of Lex Luthor’s (more on him later) kryptonite and fights with Superman. Eventually they become friends and team up with Wonder Woman to fight some big bad genetically engineered CGI creature for another half hour. Superman dies (yeah right) in the battle and the Justice League is set up. Ta da.

This movie was horrible. And that’s coming from someone who had low expectations to begin with. Let’s go for a point-by-point examination of where the movie stood out and where it faltered.

PROS

  1. Ben Affleck. I actually thought he was a really good Batman. He was angry and gritty and I thought that overall he did a fine job.
  2. Wonder Woman. She was under utilized, but was a welcome addition to the movie. I thought she kicked a lot of ass, and strong female superhero characters are sorely lacking in film.
  3. The fight between Batman and Superman. Synder can’t direct his way out of paper bag and the dialogue was horrible, but he can definitely do action scenes.

CONS

  1. Way too much. What the hell is going on in half this movie? Lois Lane serves no purpose. They go into Batman’s origin..AGAIN. The Daily Planet is pointless. Holly Hunter’s Senator Finch is also pointless. The dream sequences pulled me out of the story way too much. And so on and so on…
  2.  Lex Luthor. Jessie Eisenberg sucks. His manic, helium-voiced performance just did not fit with the tone of the whole movie and the character of Lex Luthor. More often than not it felt like Batman and Superman were fighting John Depp’s Willy Wonka than an arch-villain.
  3. The CGI. The animation for the entire fight with Doomsday looked and felt really bad. It didn’t seem very high quality.
  4. Too many endings. The movie SHOULD have just ended once Batman and Superman stopped fighting. Instead, there was another 40 minutes of cramming another villain in for everyone to fight. Why? What’s the point? At that point in the story, they were already on the same team. It would have made more sense to end the movie there, hinting at a big bad guy for the next film’s set up.
  5. The mothers. I saved this one for last because it’s the most ridiculous of them all. So Batman hates all that Superman stands for during the whole movie, and then because their moms are both named Martha they’re suddenly best friends. Gag me with a spoon.

11rnbs

Personally, I would give the movie 6.5/10.

Other critics haven’t been so kind. And the box office return reflects all of this. The movie will be lucky to make over $350 million in the US, which is less than what Deadpool made. It’ll probably come close or just barely hit $1 billion worldwide, which means it won’t turn much of a profit. Rumor even has it that it’s failure forced re-shoots on Suicide Squad to made it less bleak and depressing.

Suffice it to say, I don’t think that the DC movie universe is going anywhere anytime soon. The Wonder Woman movie is already filming, so we’ll at least get that, but I doubt it will be successful if it’s in the same vein as BvS. If people wouldn’t even turn out to see Batman fight Superman, they certainly aren’t going to come out to watch a solo Flash or Aquaman movie. And if they won’t do that, then there really is no DC extended universe.

“If you don’t like it, then get out.”

I’m sure we’ve all seen some form of this line uttered during a political argument of some kind. Inevitably, someone will say something like, “Well if you don’t like that America is a Christian country you can just get out of my country.” Or maybe something like, “Well if you think capitalism is so evil, there’s the door, now get out of my country.” You know, this kind of bullshit:

Is this supposed to be an insult? Are my feelings supposed to be hurt by this? Am I suposed to feel badly or demeaned? Because if so, then I’m afraid all of these people uttering these lines are going to be sorely disappointed.

Because the reality is that I would LOVE to leave America.

What? You mean I have to leave a dysfunctional republic where the government doesn’t work and the majority of the population is unhealthy and doesn’t understand basic science, where a majority of people think that the bible supersedes the constitution? Oh heavens, whatever will I do?

Except move to ANY one of these other countries:

  • Australia
  • UK
  • Canada
  • Sweden
  • Norway
  • Finland
  • Germany
  • Denmark
  • France
  • Italy
  • Belgium
  • Spain
  • Portugal
  • New Zealand
  • You all get the point by now

There are dozens of other countries where I could move to and lead a perfectly happy, healthy, and prosperous life. Where I could enjoy the same freedoms that I enjoy here. And I’m not the only one who feels that way. One third of Americans have no qualms about moving to another country. Buried within that number are a few nuggets: only 14% of Americans are ready to move abroad within the next 5 years, and 55% of Millennials are fine with leaving the country and re-establishing elsewhere. And a whopping 84% of respondents to the survey said that the US could be “made more appealing” as a place to live.

Of course, part of the problem is that it’s hard logistically, economically, and legally to just up and move to another country. It’s expensive and time consuming, so those of us inclined to “just leave” can’t pack up and head out the next day. But the entire “if you don’t like it, leave” mentality is so starkly and falsely superior.

It all rests on “American Exceptionalism.” Because America is the greatest place ever on the face of the planet, living somewhere else is supposed to suck in comparison. “Once they get a taste of how those dumb Europeans do it, they’ll be begging to come back to America!”

2fa51cb884a8dfc12f6a2045bc554719.jpg
Ooh, sick burn, bro. /eyeroll

The problem with the whole premise of “get out of my country” is that it isn’t true–America isn’t an exceptional place. At least not in any good ways. We’re certainly exceptional in that we’re fatter than everyone else and you’re more likely to be discriminated against here. But the rest? Please.

For starters, many other places around the world are much happier than we are. You know where the US ranks in terms of happiness? 15th.

-1x-1 (1)

You want another metric? How about income distribution and economic equality? There’s the GINI index:

400px-2014_Gini_Index_World_Map,_income_inequality_distribution_by_country_per_World_Bank.svg

Wow! Look at where all the green countries are! And then look at which country isn’t green! Shocking.

And now for math and science!

STEM_pisa

We’re waaaaay down on the bottom of the list. Here’s a bit about healthcare spending…

TCFchart

And here’s a little bit about health in general, via Bloomberg:

Health_Ranking_in_Italy_clip_image001 (1)

America was #44! U-S-A! U-S-A!

So let’s recap. We’re not the happiest. We’re not the healthiest. We aren’t the smartest. Remind me again why it’s such a privilege to live here? Because sometimes I really have to wonder. We have states passing laws that allow them to openly discriminate against others. We have congressmen who bring snowballs onto the floor of Congress to “prove” that climate change isn’t real. Donald Trump is a legitimate political candidate. Our infrastructure is falling apart, poisoning people in some cases like Flint Michigan. We have a law that essentially allows people and corporations to buy our government and legislation.

A lot of us would definitely take a hard pass on all of that.

Money > God

I haven’t posted anything about religion in awhile, so here goes nothing.

A lot of “religious freedom” bills have been in the news lately. I’ve posted about these before, but the general theme of all of these pieces of legislation is something along the lines of, “My religion doesn’t like certain groups of people, therefore I should be legally allowed to discriminate against them.” This argument usually pops up when it comes to employing/providing goods and services to LGTBQ people or employers having to providing birth control to women.

The bible says gays are sinful and the church says birth control is bad, so people feel that they should be legally protected under the guise of the first amendment when they deny goods or services (or basic social and economics freedoms and rights) to these people. To do otherwise would create an “undue burden” on the religious person. Basically, by allowing women to have birth control or by baking wedding cakes for gay people, someone’s right to practice their religion is being impeded. Or so the argument goes.

990
I totally remember this from Sunday school

Several states have passed bills like this, to the dismay of logic, reason, compassion, and empathy enthusiasts everywhere. I guess when God said to “love thy neighbor” there was a little footnote at the bottom of the page that clarified this didn’t apply to people who weren’t Christians. But I digress.

If you follow the news, you may know that Georgia recently introduced its own Religious Freedom Bill. And you may also know that the governor there ended up vetoing it after it passed through the legislature. Why did he end up vetoing it?

Well, if you listen to the governor, you’d think it was because he’s a nice guy who thinks the bill is unnecessarily mean. Which it is. But in reality, he refused to sign it because of money.

You see, once word got out about this, the secular business world had a few problems with it. Coca-cola spoke out against it. Disney said it would never film another movie in the state. The NFL said there would never be another Superbowl in the state. In other words, if the bill passed, Georgia was set to lose a shit-ton of revenue.

2016-03-24-cbs-en-religiousfreedombills2
Say goodbye to our $$$, assholes.

Apparently, it never occurred to the people who wrote and passed this bill that just because it passed didn’t mean that everyone had to support it. If people have the right to refuse service to people who don’t conform to their ideology, that goes both ways: businesses don’t have to support communities that don’t conform to their ideology. The irony here is delicious.

But I think it also serves to highlight something important. Apparently, being a good Christian isn’t as important as maintaining lucrative revenue streams. Moral and religious conviction pales in comparison to the almighty dollar. “My faith is everything to me, and my convictions are so strong they need to be legally protected under the constitution! Wait, what? You’re taking away the money? Well, let’s not be hasty. My morals and convictions aren’t thaaaat strong. We can reach some kind of deal can’t we?”

Suddenly, once money enters the picture, moral absolutes and religious faith are a lot more malleable. Which, to me at least, says some pretty profound things about the religious people in this country. At the very least, it speaks to the notion that maybe, just maybe, it’s a good idea to treat EVERYONE in this country with kindness and fairness.