Owning my SJW badge, nammit.

Tonight pissed me off.

First CBS with CSI… (this has nothing to do with social justice, just asinine corporate idiocy)

The end-of-PrimeTime slot on Sunday night is where shows go to die on CBS. That’s where they put CSI this year. EVERY DAMNED YEAR when CBS airs the late-afternoon football game, it runs very predictably late, shifting Prime Time, usually by around half an hour. They always just kill the last show of the night rather than switching off with one of the other ones. Both CSI: Miami and The Mentalist were killed this way. This is the second week in a row CSI has not been shown for the eastern half of the country. There are people highly pissed off at them for it and letting them know on social media.

THEN, I click a link tweeted by George Takei (for the second or third time, perhaps someone on his team isn’t paying attention), and run into rampant sexism in the comments. (I know, I know. I’m an idiot for reading the comments.) Worse, it was a guy who used a sexist comment as an example of non-sexism. “women these days need to be more modest” *blinkblink* REALLY? That’s not sexist? Oh, because the person who says that might possibly think men should be more modest, too. And the “sexist trash” actually says “but men can be whatever they want” out loud. Um, first, by singling out women as the ones who should be more modest and not saying “people these days need to be more modest” you’re implying that men don’t need to be more modest and are juuuuust fine. Second, by singling out women and using the word modest, you’re suggesting modes of dress rather than humility (which, being generous, could be what is meant), and thus attempting to judge women’s self-expression in a sexual manner. Every damned person on earth should dress how they damned well please as long as they aren’t violating any laws and should fight laws that are overly restrictive as long as they’re willing to accept the consequences (e.g. the American servicewomen who refused to wear burkas in Middle Eastern countries that required them, even when military policy required compliance with local law, then ended up court martialed or otherwise prosecuted/imprisoned for it).

THEN, I go to Facebook and run across a picture with the comment of “Whoa! Common sense? Wow!” and the text in the picture reads “Thank you, Florida, Kentucky, and Missouri, which are the first states that will require drug testing when applying for welfare. Some people are crying and calling this unconstitutional. How is this unconstitutional???? It’s OK to drug test people who work for their money, but not for those who don’t?… Re-post if you’d like to see this done in all 50 states. If you can afford to buy drugs and extra illegal things then you can afford your own groceries.”

In my comments on the post, I didn’t even ADDRESS the fact that groceries are food stamps, which is a separate program from welfare, but the kind of mind-set that posts or reposts that kind of picture just lumps them all together anyway. Not to mention “extra illegal things” being poor phrasing. Again, with the mindset of the type of person who posts these, it’s illegal things that are extra, not things that are somehow over and above being merely illegal (like extra special). I just pointed out that private companies can drug test all day long and fire you for failing, just like they can have a gay-friendly or gay-neutral policy and fire you for shooting off your homophobic mouth in a public forum because you make them look bad. Private companies are not the government and can do things the government can’t do.

Let me repeat that.

Private companies are not the government and can do things the government can’t do.

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches, and drug testing as a requirement for applying for welfare of any variety constitutes an unreasonable search, because just applying for welfare does not, I repeat not constitute reasonable probable cause to assume someone is consuming an illegal substance.

There’s also the logical fallacy of assuming that someone applying for welfare isn’t working for their money. Many junior enlisted… active duty junior enlisted are on food stamps because military pay isn’t enough to cover what they need to feed their families. That discounts the guard and reserve servicemen and -women who aren’t on active status and having problems of their own with companies wiggling around the law requiring them to keep jobs open for those returning from active status or even simply finding a civilian job in the first place.

Or a 38-year-old mother with breast cancer who lost her job for failing a drug test due to using medical marijuana and is refused aid for failing the drug test, even though she can no longer afford to feed her kids, much less the medical marijuana that makes it so she can actually keep anything down, not that that would be a problem much longer, because she’d no longer be able to afford the chemo that was giving her the nausea anyway, at least until she was able to get coverage through the Affordable Care Act which most of these people are against as well. She’d also have the unmitigated hell of trying to find a provider who took Medicaid.

It’s the mindset of “I don’t want my hard-earned money going to taxes that pay for cushy lifestyles for lazy, shiftless druggies.” that completely ignores the very real human beings at the bottom-most rungs of society’s ladder, that assumes the examples I provided are the exceptions proving the rule.

I think what pisses me off the most is that so many of the people with this Fox News-inspired mindset claim to be Christian. Where the everliving hell is their Christian charity and freaking compassion?

Tell me about it...