Posts Tagged Bill maher
After a three month hiatus I am back and what better way to start off the quest for knowledge, wisdom and non bullshittery than to ask yourself this very simple question: How gullible are you?
Are you gullible enough to believe that a god would impregnate a poor peasant girl to give birth to himself so he can then grow up and die for a bunch of sins that he created in the first place so that one day he may come down and die for them to prove a point? (Are you officially lost amid this convoluted clusterfuck way of thinking here? Um, yeah, so am I)
Are you gullible enough to believe that Islam is a wonderfully peaceful religion that is merely misunderstood?
Are you gullible enough to believe that ideas, even bad ideas – and religion is full of bad ideas – do not influence the people we become? The decisions we make and the priorities we set?
Are you gullible enough to believe that corporations are people? That money does not influence political outcomes?
Are you gullible enough to believe that giving rich people tax exemptions so they can hide their wealth in offshore accounts creates jobs and helps some worker stuck in a minimum wage paying slow death improve their standard of living?
Are you gullible enough to believe that wealthy people are wealthy because they work for it instead of being the laziest, greediest, most opportunistic moochers that they are, who exploit the system, with proficiency and profligacy about which poor would-be swindlers can only dream?
Are you gullible enough to seriously think that beliefs and the ideas that inform them are beyond criticism and above reproach?
Are you gullible enough to believe that there is an actual marked difference between Democrats and Republicans?
Are you swayed by fluffy and hopeful State of the Union Addresses by our one percent fellating leaders? Are you so enamored by the belief in them that you forget that despite lofty speeches promising to help the middle class, they wanted to (and have in the past) appoint Wall Street executives in key goverment positions, such as President Obama’s nomination of Wall Street executive and banker Antonio Weiss for a top job at the Treasury Department?
Are you gullible enough to believe that one middle-class boosting policy enacted for every twenty pieces of legislation enacted furthering the “causes” of millionaires, bankers, corporations and oil companies, will bring us a step closer to the direly needed changes we need? That such half-assed steps will strengthen the middle class?
Are yo gullible enough to believe that giving more tax breaks to millionaires is good for all us?
Are yo gullible enough to think that most millionaires are even paying any taxes?
Are you gullible enough to believe that placing health care in the hands of private corporate entities that do not give two shits about your health but instead care a whole lot of about the bottom line, was better for people? Or constitutes health care reform?
Are you gullible enough to believe that the Republican party stands for anything else beside hate, greed and bigotry?
Are you gullible enough to seriously believe that the solution to the crisis we face today with respect to a diminishing middle class is corporatist Hilary Clinton?
Are you gullible enough to believe that a Senate that actually votes on whether climate change is real or not can be trusted with accomplishing anything meaningful for this country and its people?
So exactly how gullible are you?
Some of the most tired arguments by religious people against atheism and atheists is that atheists are “too harsh”, “not accommodating enough”, that we are “mean”, “disrespectful”, that we enjoy being smarter and more rational than everyone else” (like that was an insult), that we “ask too many questions”, are “haters”, that with our repeated questioning and inquiring we “kill the positive mood”, that we rather be “right than loved”, that we are “intolerant”, “trolls” and enjoying telling little girls and boys that Santa is not real.
Such accusations are usually thrown around by people who have either failed to or refuse to argue atheists based on merit, instead resorting to sophistry to derail the discussion and obfuscate in order to, ultimately, cover the fact that they really do not have a valid argument.
Using fallacious arguments result in the discussion no longer being about content, but about tone, and how something is said, and that what they what is said just doesn’t sound after-school special – that it makes religious people feel bad etc.
Another similar type of argument, if one can even call it a “argument” – or line of “arguing” are ad hominem attacks and other petty personal attacks.
In this case, the obfuscation and diversion is achieved by going for the low blow, by trying trying to “invalidate” the atheist by not commenting on the content of their message but their personality and mind-set, the point being that if you poke enough holes (imaginary or not) into an atheists person and character, you can show how invalid they as peoples are altogether.
Like being an atheist was some sort of a pathology – a flaw, a defect – that was only brought on by some kind of a dysfunction. “You sound bitter”, “you sound angry” , “you sound like an asshole”, “I feel sorry for you”, “you seem to have no love in your life” blah blah yawn are the common retorts of religious folks who harbor a special kind of loathing for atheists.
One such especially loathed atheist under a constant barrage for being very outspoken about religion is Bill Maher.
People think he goes too far, that he displays “unmitigated bigotry”, that he is too disrespectful or not respectful enough of religion and religious people. That he is “mean”, a “hater”, “too harsh”.
In a recent interview with TheBlaze, actor Sean Astin, who is famous for starring in such classics as “The Goonies“, “Son in Law” and “The Lord of the Rings” Trilogy, remarked that Bill Maher is a “cripplingly intellectually abusive atheist” who does a disservice to thoughtful people with his “excessive need to promote atheism.” He went on to say that dismissing “a feeling that millions of people are having is not very generous of spirit.”
Now, I admit that Bill Maher’s particular brand of humor is not for everyone. If you watch his show and expect to find politically correct assertions, a “balanced view” on unmitigated and institutionalized Conservative racism, misogyny, hypocrisy and harmful policies or if you expect him to talk politely about religion, then you will be sorely disappointed. Maher says it like it is and he doesn’t hold back.
That said, the issue with Astin’s assertion is not really so much Maher’s brand of humor – which may or may not be palatable to some – but that behind Astin’s sentiment that Bill Maher is “intellectually abusive” because he dismisses the “feeling that millions of [religious] people are having” lies a fundamental failure to understand criticism of religion in the first place.
The fact that Astin frames Maher’s mocking and dismissive attitude towards religion and god as being problematic because it doesn’t take into account the boo boos of its followers tells me that Astin, just as a lot of people who criticize atheists, simply does not understand religion and its harms, because if he did, he would not try to give it credence or worse, defend it.
Because, the thing is, behind Maher’s tongue in cheek attitude towards religious people and religion in general, lies the understanding, which I share with him, that religion is harmful – a point which a lot of people miss.
If you have to ask me why I am contemptuous of religion, mock it, speak out against it, advocate against it, write about it and critique it as much as I do, then you simply have not understood why religion is a problem in the first place.
The problem with such an approach is that by turning perpetrators and transgressors into victims – which is essentially what Sean Astin and other religion-apologists do all the time, you disappear those that have been harmed by those perpetrators.
In other words, instead of asking about all the people who are hurt and killed, discriminated against, dehumanized, their Human Right’s trampled on and otherwise harmed by religious people and their “feelings” every day, the victim in this scenario suddenly becomes the very entity doing all the killing, discriminating, dehumanizing, harming and subjugating.
So Maher’s words offend a bunch of religious people – boo fucking hoo – but what about all the myriad actions, in the form of policies and laws, regulations and penalties by religious people that have been harming, and continue to harm, countless of other people? What about their rights to not be subjugated, oppressed and discriminated against? What about their feelings?
Frankly, dear Sean Astin, if you are more concerned about not ruffling the feathers of religious people than you are about the detrimental consequences of religion and religiously influenced policies, then clearly, you missed the point.
What Sean Astin is advocating is basically a watered down, neutered and wishy-washy type of atheism, as if atheism and religion were not mutually exclusive and fundamentally at odds with one another, as if religion wasn’t harmful and as if atheism could just embrace religion and go with it.
What Sean Astin and people like him who keep commenting on someone’s tone when it comes to the subject of religion ultimately want is silence; say it once and shut up. Only speak when asked. He wants atheists to stop speaking up, to stop “promoting” rational thought and fact-based knowledge, to stop pointing out and fighting against the dangers inherent in religion.
The thing is, silence empowers bullies. It empowers ignorance, oppression and wrongs. So does a false sense of decorum and phony PCness.
Let’s do a little mental exercise here and imagine Sean Astin criticizing anti-racists, for example, wondering why they “dismiss the feelings that millions of [white supremacists] have. ” Most people would be outraged and cry racism if that were the case. That is because it not only would be racism but because decent people know that racism is wrong and harmful and that there is no acceptable amount of racism. Such people would not think that we somehow owed it to racists to remain polite and respect their racism and their (harmful) feelings and assertions born out of racism.
Yet religion and its followers get all sorts of leeway and passes even though religion is just as harmful to people as something like racism.
This is religious supremacy and it happens all the time: religion and its followers, despite harmful actions, directives and messages, are not viewed as harmful and detrimental – instead, they are sympathized with as these unjustly judged people who have feelings they do not want to see bruised and questioned, even if those “feelings” cause real harm.
Again, if Sean Astin understood that religion was harmful (just as racism is harmful), he would not be defending the feelings of its followers In fact, I doubt he would even consider their feelings worth defending because there is no virtue in defending harm.
At any rate, the message atheists give, if you shave off the tone, is ultimately a positive one and I would say that it, in fact, is incredibly “generous in spirit” to assert to the religious that not only can they be good without god, but that their thinking minds are capable of more than believing in fairy tales. That they can conquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it.
That the concept of god and religion and the fairy tales, bigotry, hate, genocide, and ignorance entailed in them is a conception quite unworthy of self-respecting human beings who constantly debase themselves as miserable sinners.
Suggesting that we ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face; that we ought to make the best we can of the world without god(s) and if it is not so good as we wish, try to change things by employing knowledge, kindness and courage, instead of superstition and fairy tales; suggesting that we do not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men, that our intelligence and empathy can create a meaningful future, thus extending to the religious the same capacity for intellectual authenticity and rigor that atheists celebrate, is hardly offensive or abusive.
Can i just say about the royal baby,who gives a fuck? And how repugnant it is that people CHOOSE to call someone in the 21st c your highness
— Bill Maher (@billmaher) July 23, 2013
Do you think if I sent Obama an invitation to come over to my house for dinner he would? Like he did with Sarah Jessica Parker, George Clooney, Steven Spielberg and the countless other 1%ers?
Amidst all the discussions about what a terrible person Mitt Romney is (which he is) who is out of touch with how most human beings on this planet live their lives and the challenges they face and amidst all the talks about how Obama is not such a person – since he clearly is the “man of the people” – a self made man and community organizer who did not grow up with a silver spoon in his mouth – I noted that while that may have been true about Obama a long time ago, that person no longer is.
The tragedy is that Obama and co are claiming to fight the good fight: “For hard working Americans” while Mitt Romney is seen as that greedy asshole who could not care less about such hard working people. Yet, in essence, Obama is not all that different from Mitt Romney when it comes to the privileges they enjoy.
Having a spread in Vogue magazine depicting a lavish 1% er setting and stating how the Obamas inspire America – shortly after the sequester, no less, where millions of people – most of whom are poor and vulnerable – have seen the kind of cuts that make the difference between employed or not/roof over your head or not/food on your table or not/able to afford medication or not etc – also doesn’t help and make you a man of the people.
When Clooney threw a fundraising soiree for Obama last year, it cost $40,000 a plate to attend. In other words, these Hollywood high rollers at Clooney’s house were paying more for two hours with the president than they pay their nannies, housekeepers and gardeners in a year. Just like Romney. And they call themselves the good guys. The ones working for you and I instead of the lifestyle of the rich and famous.
Let us backtrack.
Scott Prouty, the man who shot the infamous 47% video of Mitt Romney where he is seen talking, in horrid yet very detached detail, about the slave labor conditions in Chinese factories and trashing everyone in this country who isn’t a member of the social register, sat down for an interview with MSNBC’s Ed Schultz a couple of weeks ago to not only reveal his identity but to mainly talk about the video and what inspired his decision to release the footage.
I highly recommend watching the video (a transcript to follow later) as it – more than anything else – is a shining example of how a man, a seemingly ordinary citizen who remained invisible to Romney even as he was serving him his $50,000 plate of food, made the courageous decision to record and release a video of a candidate running on the platform of patriotism and love for all of America, when in reality the only people he was going to represent were the kind of people he was having that $50,000 a plate dinner with.
Prouty explained that one should not pay $50,000 to hear what a candidate has to say – as if that kind of fundraising was confined to Romney and his kind only. The evidence above with respect to Obama and his late night soirees with Hollywood -listers shows that paying tens of thousands of dollars to hear a candidate speak is not something solely confined to Romney.
Income Gain Disparity 1966 to 2011
Syracuse University professor and Pulitzer Prize winner David Cay Johnston analyzed the disparity between the gains in incomes of the average taxpayers and those in the top 10 percent and the results are shocking but not surprising.
Incomes for the bottom 90 percent of Americans only grew by $59 on average between 1966 and 2011 (adjusted for inflation), according to Johnston’s analysis. During the same period, the average income for the top 10 percent of Americans rose by $116,071, Johnston found.
To put that into perspective: if you say the $59 boost is equivalent to one inch, then the incomes of the top 10 percent of Americans rose by 168 feet, Johnston explained to Alternet last week.
Incomes for the bottom fifth of Americans, for instance, grew about 20 percent between 1979 and 2007, according to a 2011 study from the Congressional Budget Office. During the same period, members of the top 1 percent saw their incomes grow by 275 percent.
Another way to illustrate the huge disparity: the six heirs to the Walmart fortune had a net worth equivalent to the bottom 41.5 percent of Americans combined in 2010, according to an analysis from Josh Bivens at the Economic Policy Institute.
While income inequality may be great for those reaping the big bucks at the top, it’s likely hurting Americans overall. Greater income equality is correlated with stronger economic growth, according to a 2011 IMF report and in fact one of the hallmarks of poor, developing nations is the income gap: the poorer and more economically unstable a nation is, the bigger the income gap – with a lot of poor people (one of the hallmarks of poor nations) and a few very wealthy people and no one in between.
The American Dream hard at work
We, sadly, live in a culture of get-rich-or-die-trying. Where average, middle class (I am not even talking about the poor) is considered a one way ticket to loser-town; a failure of some sort. As John Steinbeck once said “socialism never took root in America, because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
Everybody is being manipulated in one way or another to want be a millionaire. People watch the movies and TV shows, ads and magazine spreads depicting the high life and they want be part of it too. After all, why be a community organizer when you can take group pictures clenching money between your teeth.
Obama Just Another 1%er
Even our President is part of the one percent now. Make no mistake about it.
Hanging out at lavish dinner parties and soirees in the homes of celebs and fellow 1%ers, such as Sarah Jessica Parker, George Clooney and Will Smith. Going to fundraisers at $40,000 a plate with other Hollywood hot shots.
In fact, last year Clooney himself held such a lavish soiree for Obama, inviting 150 of Hollywood’s richest for $40,000 a head to raise a meager $15 million dollars (compared to SuperPac monies, $15 million is drop in the bucket). This party was held in Los Angeles, a city plagued by chronic lack of funding where school libraries are being shut down, teachers laid off firehouses shut down. And VIPs were paying $40,000 for a Wolfgang Puck hors d’oeuvre and a silly photo with a president who only now has come to think it might be OK for gay people to have the same rights as straight people.
Democracy hard at work. As Steve Lopez wrote in the L.A. Times “Yeah, sure, Obama’s got to raise all he can to fend off Mitt Romney and hold on to his seat. But is that a race to the top or a race to the bottom? If money buys victory and access, what about the masses who can’t afford a $40 fundraiser, let alone a $40,000 party? When do they get the president’s ear?”
Do you think if I sent Obama an invitation to come over to my house for dinner he would? Like he did with SJP and George Clooney? The tragedy is that Obama and Co are claiming to fight the good fight: “For hard working Americans” while Mitt Romney is seen is that greedy asshole who could not care less about such hard working people. Yet these high rollers at Clooney’s house were paying more for two hours with the president than they pay their nannies, housekeepers and gardeners in a year. Just like Romney.
As Scott Prouty said in his interview with Ed Schulz about the Romney speech and fundraiser and thus his motive for taking the video “You shouldn’t have to be able to afford $50,000 to hear what the candidate actually thinks“, as if that was something solely confined to Mitt Romney and rich, greedy Republicans while Democrats and the wealthy liberals who support them would clearly not ever do such a thing.
The above evidence begs to differ.
$40,000 a Plate Fundraiser for Obama = $50,000 a Plate Fundraiser for Romney
I am sure people like Clooney and co are acting in good faith, hoping to do something so the worst man in the world in the form of Mitt Romney does not get to run this country. But if they’re so desperate to celebrate their wonderful ways and important causes, why not a Hollywood fundraising party to save the libraries, schools, rec centers or parks? Why not start paying the people who clean your house and tend to the garden and take care of your privileged kids decent salary and health coverage?
I tell you why: because George Clooney, much like Obama, much like Steven Spielberg, much like Nancy Pelosi, much like Mitt Romney are part of the 1% and throwing soirees for the President is much more about the soirees and meeting the president than about giving a damn about the 99% and hard working Americans you claim to fight for.
Whether Obama earned it or not, he is up there now, living the good life. Sequester or not, he won’t have to worry about whether he can send his kids to college, if he will one day be without health care or lose his house and retirement and be destitute and all the other myriad of things 99% of the people in this country have to worry about. In fact, none of the policies coming from D.C. and our legislators will ever actually affect them personally. And that is a huge deal, namely that those making the laws are not affected by them. There is a reason half of Congress are millionaires.
And the thing with being part of the 1% ultimately is that more often than not it gives you amnesia. You forget. Obama had no problem letting the payroll tax-break expire, thus making almost everyone making $ 113,000 or less pay more each month, but he did increase the 3% tax increase income threshold from $250,000 to $400,000 because god knows people making 250k a year need consideration and a break. How so 99% of him.
No Soirees for the 99%
When was the last time any representative of the middle class had a candidate throw dinners and soirees for them? And not just a candidate but the President.
When was the last time the White House threw a dinner or a black and white ball for employees of NGOs, charities, volunteers and other public service jobs?
When was the last time the White House threw a dinner in honor of hard working folks, inviting them over for a night filled with Jimmy Kimmels and hanging out with the President and celebs? Sure, you can win a dinner with the President and first lady at Sarah Jessica Parker’s 10 million Borwnstone in Manhattan’s Upper East Side, if you donate money and are automatically entered into a pool, much like a lottery, with thousands of others. But when was the last time, or ever, anyone of these people have actually done something in that regard for us hard working middle or working class – heck even unemployed and poor – folks who aren’t members of the social register? Even the White House Correspondents’ Dinners that are supposed to be about journalists, have become just another 1%er event for celebrities transplanted from Hollywood to DC – but only A-listers mind you since most regular actors and SAG members are not part of the 1% – which seems to be the only requirement to attend the Dinner.
So when I heard Prouty say that one should not have to be able to pay $50,000 a plate to hear what a candidate has to say it made me wonder if Obama is any better. Of course, Obama hanging out at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner and mingling with other rich people is not the same thing as Romney’s 47% speech where he is exposed as an insincere hypocrite and the fact that he thought he could and should talk like this behind closed curtains.
But there is a broader canvas here to consider because Romney or Obama – the common theme here is that those with big bucks are being invited to the discussion table and getting parties thrown for them while most people – i.e. those who make up the majority of the voter base and also carry the economic burden of the nation – since rich people clearly aren’t – never see any of that.
The fact that those with money and the power that comes with it run the world is nothing new. However, if you are a country (or claim to be a country) that was founded on principles diametrically opposed to such a paradigm, then that is a problem. Yes, we could be just like any other third-country oppressive shithole with an income gap the size of Mount Everest, but this is not what this country is about or should be about. Back in the day, only landowners were allowed to vote and thus have their voice heard. How is that different from today where the wealthy asset holders get invited to the table and private meetings with the President and this are made part of the debate, while you and I are lucky if the White House ever returns any of our letters on a pre-written template designed for concerned citizens?
How Can You Inspire People, Barry
As to the Obamas: How can you inspire people? You inspire people by being one of them. Not by living the kind of lifestyle you just criticized your opponents for five minutes ago and which almost none of the people you are addressing can ever afford.
Yes they worked hard but what use is all that hard work and social upward mobility and thus power that comes with wealth if you are just going to behave like any other wealthy, 1%er? You have to be the change you want to see and when you say you stand for the causes of the 99% while living the life of a 1%er, that makes you not only a hypocrite but also a large part of the problem.
I understand that he is the POTUS ans as such he has a standard of living. But I am not talking about his salary. That isn’t, after all, the source of his wealth. It’s his privilege that detaches him and just makes him part of the problem.
The gross inequalities described above with respect to stagnant income growth for most Americans go far deeper than people like Boehner, Romney or the robber barons of Wall Street. Half of Congress, i.e. our lawmakers, are millionaires and in fact D.C. is the one city where one is more likely to run into a millionaire than anywhere else.
And these are law makers and legislators. The people that run this country but who are clearly beholden to the interests of the 1% – mainly because they themselves are one of them – while trying to appeal to the 99% on the surface to get their votes. And who knows, with all the voter suppression efforts by Republicans soon they may be able to even skip that and just directly work for the 1%.
The Futility of Politely Asking the 1% To Come to the Aide of the 99%
It is quite ironic and futile that we are looking to them – the 1% – to please change things in favor of the 99%. What incentive do any of these people have to change the status quo in our favor? Congress just got a pay raise – signed by our man of the people, Obama. It was no coincident that there was no student loan bailouts. Students don’t have lobbyists stationed in DC 24/7 – unlike Wall Street and thus the members of the one percent.
Yes President Obama, I appreciate your tough upbringing and that you can somehow vaguely apparently remember what it is like to “have a rough time” as you once told a crowd of supporters. The only difference between you and everyone else, however, is that you are a millionaire who wines and dines with celebrities and goes to $40,000 a plate soirees – money than can be used right here and then to help out someone rather than falling into this bottomless pit of your campaign fund that just sucks up money and produces little results for the people you claim to stand for; your children don’t have to worry about racking up student loan debt at high interest rates to get an education, because you have the money to pay for it.
In fact, you are part of the 1% and as such you are not only part of the problem, you are just another out-of-touch wealthy rich puke condescending and making casual life and death decisions (and yes, these are life and death decisions you are making, believe it or not) because they won’t affect your family. Your multi million dollar retirement is secure, your pension is fat, much like you assets.
As far as I am concerned you, Mr. President, are about only “better” than Romney in so far as Romney is truly nothing but a wolf in sheep’s clothing with a horrifying track record and agenda for America. But don’t come here insulting mine and the intelligence of your supporters struggling every day at the hands of your bipartisan, failed policies – not the least of which is the gamble you took with the Sequester, purposely making it draconian, hoping that it would deter Republicans even though your gazillion years of experience working with them and common sense, if nothing at all, should have told you that these are not the kind of people who mind draconian cuts – by claiming that you are on our side and are fighting on our behalf. if you actually do come to my house for dinner one day, maybe I believe you. Until then, you are just another rich asshole fighting to make sure you and your kind remain where you at: at the top of the food chain.
That this is a world of the rich, by the rich and for the rich becomes evident to me everyday. The latest example to the point: Puff Daddy’s son who received a $ 54,000 scholarship to attend UCLA despite his father’s whopping half a billion dollar wealth.
Puff Daddy is considered the riches man in hip-hop and his wealth was estimated at nearly $550 million by Forbes magazine last year.
The rap mogul’s oldest boy will attend top athletic powerhouse UCLA on a full Division 1 scholarship to play football. The scholarship is only available to the most elite high school athletes, aged 19 and under.
At the same time, UCLA is a school where tuition and fees have tripled in the past ten years, rendering the once affordable UC an expensive school resulting in open protests and general dissatisfaction on the side of students who find it increasingly more un-affordable to attend UCLA.
Naturally, some have questioned the rationale of the school to give this much money to the son of a multimillionaire, especially in light of the astronomic budget crisis in California in general and the UC system in particular.
“UCLA’s athletic department needs to consider the fact that perhaps there is another athlete on the football team, who could perhaps really use this scholarship,” UCLA student Neshemah Keetin told CBS Los Angeles.
In its response to criticism over the award, UCLA stressed its “robust financial aid program,” 30 percent of which it said is funded by tuition and fee revenue:
“Unlike need-based scholarships, athletic scholarships are awarded to students strictly on the basis of their athletic and academic ability — not their financial need. Athletic scholarships, such as those awarded to football or basketball players, do not rely on state funds. Instead, these scholarships are entirely funded through UCLA Athletics ticket sales, corporate partnerships, media contracts and private donations from supporters,” the statement said.
Others have argued similarly, namely that his son earned the scholarship and has every right to it, regardless of his father’s wealth.
But it is really not as straightforward as the wanna-be millionaires who keep pandering to the cause of the wealthy in the hopes that one day they will be one of them, claim. And while no one is debating the fact that Justin Combs is a good student and capable athlete who earned this scholarship, the uproar is not about his scholastic abilities or questioning them or even depriving him of what he rightfully earned, this is about a teenager receiving funds to attend college he does not need. Sean “Diddy” Combs is said to have given him a $ 360,000 Maybach for his 16th birthday.
The statement bu UCLA is misleading in its assertion that this is a non-issue since the funding for Justin Comb’s scholarship does not come from the state but through ticket sales, corporate partnerships, media contracts and private donations from supporters.
While it is true that the money Combs receives does not come from tax payer dollars, that is beside the point because regardless of the source, the money has to come from somewhere no matter what you call it and every dollar that goes to some rich kid that really doesn’t need it, is taking away money from someone who does.
The whole point of a scholarship is, or ought to be, to honor the work of excellent students and provide them with an opportunity to obtain higher education which they would not be able to do without the scholarship. Giving people who are wealthy and can afford it money to go to school sort of defeats the whole purpose.
If Justin Combs was independent and could take care of himself without his father’s money, yes, he should be able to keep it. But he is not. His father has been and continues to support him financially, therefore there is no need for him to also keep the money.
Pimp Daddy’s son doesn’t need a scholarship when his dad is sitting on half a billion dollars, just like wealthy people and millionaires don’t need tax breaks.
Taking something you don’t need is not earning it, it is being greedy.
And that is what it ultimately comes down to once again. And that is also why so many people cheer for it and don’t think he should return the $ 54,000.
Greed and with it the love for money are the cultures that have been fostered deep into the American mind. Any unscrupulous act in this country is excused, condoned and apologized for as long as it creates wealth. Whether the means by which one arrives at that wealth is unethical or hurting others is irrelevant. If it makes money, it goes and is erroneously called The American Way, The American Dream or “success”.
The sad reality is that UCLA is in a budgetary crisis. Tuition has gone up, the economy down and lots of students will have to either take out more student loans, thus remaining in debt for a long time after entering the workforce, to be able to attend college or they will not be able to attend at all. In fact, UCLA became a focal point in the Occupy Wall Street protests, with students rallying against a planned 16 percent tuition fee hike. In April, the school was forced to embarrassingly clawback $27 million in financial aid accidentally deposited into students’ accounts.
The Culture of Greed
Given the genuine crisis the UC system finds itself in, scraping for every dollar to be able to make education semi-affordable to people, is it unreasonable, jealousy or assholish even to ask that the son of a semi-billionaire not accept the $54,000 athletic scholarship? Don’t we have a responsibility toward one another as human beings to do the right? Is the “each person on his own” mentality the American Way? Are these the values we ought to instill upon future generations? The bottom line?
No wonder Mitt Romney thinks that being a business person is the one and only legitimate claim to the Presidency. In fact, the entire platform he is running on is based on this ridiculous assumption. He actually believes that every American can and should want to be a millionaire. As if jobs like teacher, firefighter, nurse, scientist or professor could ever produce millionaires. Jobs that, nonetheless, are vital to the functioning of society.
We are a nation of wanna-bes chasing the money or die trying. And of course we embrace and applaud anyone and anything that caters to that notion, thinking that maybe by supporting such notions we somehow “reserve” a place for ourselves in the millionaires hall of fame.
I think Bill Maher, as usual, summarized my sentiments quite brilliantly:
“Mitt Romney has to start understanding why people don’t like him: it is not because he is rich, it is how he got rich. Now here are some other rich guys. Here’s Henry Ford with his Model T. Walt Disney with an early cartoon idea. Jobs and Wozniak with their first desktop.
You see what the first three have that Mitt doesn’t? A product. Something they made besides money.
You know, venture capitalists are not creators. They’re businessmen who find weak companies, and prey on them. And Mitt can’t understand why anyone would ever question capitalism no matter how feral it gets. ‘What? We found a wounded animal and we ate it!’
At one of the debates, Mitt said, ‘I won’t try and define who’s rich and who’s not rich, I want everybody to be rich.’ Cue the morons in the audience clapping their hands like seals at a Sea World getting a bucket of chum.
Well, I can define who’s rich and who’s not. Who’s rich is Mitt Romney. And who’s not is someone making $26,000 a year. And the success or failure of his campaign will depend on his ability to convince someone making $26,000 a year that he, Mitt, a rich guy, knows how to make them rich too. And if you elect him, he’ll tell you the secret.
It’s not a political platform, so much as a wealth seminar. This is the same thing that makes guyslike Tony Robbins rich. They have a secret. But the secret turns out to be that they’re rich because they’re robbing you! And somehow Americans are good with this.
Yes, that’s how Mitt Romney rolls, straight outta Salt Lake. Get equity or die trying. Remember, Mitt knows the secret. Obama doesn’t know the secret. As Mitt always says, Obama never even ran a corner store. He was a community organizer helping poor people! Bleh! What would you rather do, help poor people, or have money in your mouth?”