-
Angieoverholt 12/05/2011 2:57:00 AM
So what if he's an Evangelical? I thought we weren't supposed to judge? Isn't it prejudice to support a company if it only aligns with your views?
-
11/23/2011 4:51:00 AM
The higher up someone gets on a todem pole, the more likely someone might want to pull your pants down. Blake is up high now, so some will be critical of him no matter what. Blakes movement is more that about shoes; its inspiring others to Start something that matters! Its making a huge impact, mainly positive in our typically criticized capitalist system. Yes, there are obvious flaws to the Toms system, but overall it is a significant symbol of good and what could be. If we boycotted every good idea or movement because we dont see eye to eye on every issue, what a shame it would be.
-
Egrace_23 10/10/2011 3:13:00 AM
of course he has to make some money from this venture for him to continue his quest, how else is he gonna pay for his staff? for overhead expenses? ...at least he's giving away one pair of shoe for every shoe sold ...
-
10/08/2011 3:26:00 PM
I am a Christian, but it is not important to me if Blake is a Christian or a Buddhist or gay or straight. These "anti-gay" meeting attendees to which Blake speaks are only a small fraction of his audience. He speaks to those on the "other side" too. Good grief, don't we have more important things to focus on? He is helping others. He is setting a good example without broadcasting his personal spiritual beliefs.
-
Rcbare79@aol.com 10/07/2011 5:56:00 PM
I've never bought TOM's, but I will now! Hurray for Blake. God Bless you ladies @ Ms. ---
-
Rcbare79@aol.com 10/07/2011 5:51:00 PM
Are you kidding me? Liberals are supposed to be open minded and accepting of others. This is another great example that shows some liberals to be accepting of others as long as they agree with their social agenda and aren't Christian!! You idealogical hypocrites! How dare you chastise someone for doing the right thing once you realize they are Christian. As for being a progressive company and giving - this is what Christians have been called to do and have always done so. What has Ms. Magazine given in comparison?
-
guest 09/22/2011 4:13:00 PM
This article is shameful. You thought he was great up until the time you discover he might be a Christian. You try to imply that he is giving away cheap product that only costs $5.00 to produce while charging buyers $50. You fail to recognize the costs involved with packaging, marketing, distributing etc. None of that woud have even been given a thought until the "controversy" and "shock" was discovered. So called progressives preach tolerance until it comes to someones own personal faith in Christ. Mr Mycoskie is helping people in need and thus showing the love of Christ. Ask yourself, what are you doing?
-
Irvin 09/14/2011 10:25:00 AM
Toms....evangelicals make up a far greater buying block than gays. If you're goal is to help the poor, and if sales generates that assistance, then you chose the wrong doghouse.
-
08/27/2011 1:44:00 AM
Blake is the real deal, with a sincere & gusty heart to help the poor of this world.
I have no doubt that he is doing more to genuinely help people in deep,extreme poverty than any of his critics are doing. I've served in many of those same villages around the globe and have seen first hand his contribution.
-
Glennteal 08/26/2011 6:53:00 PM
Love the not-so-subtle bigotry of this article. Blake has shaggy hair - must be OK. He lives on a boat - must be great. He has a strong social conscience - must be terrific. And we all know that no one with a personal faith in Jesus (the dreaded evangelicals) could behave this way right? Oh the guy is a Christ-follower - really? Let's trash everything he stands for...
What a joke. Helping the impoverished is in everyone's best interest. Your hate is showing...
-
08/26/2011 4:08:00 PM
Interesting, so if a guy seems progressive and gives shoes to the poor he's alright up until the moment you find out he may or may not share all your beliefs, then we must destroy all the good.
-
08/26/2011 12:37:00 AM
Never heard of the guy.
George Vreeland Hill
-
08/23/2011 7:38:00 AM
Just because the writer rushes to conclusions and seems to be as much of a bigot as he accuses others of being doesn't mean that ALL of us "hip alternative-lifestyle" folks are that way!
-
Latonya "Keed" Bunn 08/23/2011 7:23:00 AM
I hope this story is permanently archived in bronze so that people a few-hundred years from now can see the bigotry underlying the hip, alternative-lifestyle community at the beginning of the 21st Century. Maybe they'll take a harder look at their own beliefs.
-
cavetha 08/16/2011 12:21:00 AM
WOW! He spoke at a "Focus on the Family" event?! What is the world coming to?!!! How dare he? Is this article for real, or a joke?
-
Jeloel 08/15/2011 1:16:00 PM
This article speaks much less about the heart and soul of Mycoskie, but days scream quite loudly about the heart and soul of Patrick Range McDonald. Sorry "Pat", I'm not moved to see things your way.
-
Jade Ed 08/14/2011 6:33:00 PM
I never heard of toms until one of my interns told me about their shoe giveaway to the poor. i told her to google toms/scandal or toms/fraud because en general, these things are not as they seem. oh well. goodwill never lies!
-
Jessie 08/12/2011 9:11:00 PM
The crew at Ms. need to get over themselves. Not sure why think it's justified to take this issues out on children in third world countries because they disagree with someone's views. So in order to support helping others with shoes and eyesight, Blake must also support everything I believe in? Please. Even feminists have views that differentiate on important topics! Maybe I stop supporting equal pay because Jessica Stites doesn't know how to pick her battles. When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter what his beliefs are, you can support this particular cause of his or don't.
-
Thomas 08/10/2011 4:31:00 PM
"the entire tone of his comment was sexiest"
As flattered as I am by the fact that you think my comment was "sexiest," I was not intending that, nor was I intending it to be SEXIST, which I assume was what you meant to say. In fact, there was nothing in my comment that was sexist. In fact, I did not even know McDonald was a woman until you mentioned it.
This was really entertaining, thank you Rhdlosangeles!
-
Rhdlosangeles 08/08/2011 3:02:00 PM
Wow - you are officially stalking me - as I told you in my first response to you - and it bears repeating - I don't really care what you think - you imagine you are so much more than you are. I have looked at your responses -- you have contributed nothing to the discussion - you have brought nothing to the game - it is time for you to leave the field instead of simply yelling at the other players is a desperate pathetic attempt to be noticed.
I stand by my comment - the entire tone of his comment was sexiest - focusing not on why they women would be outraged - and based on Mycoskie's two reponses - they are not the only ones - but taking from their response that somehow this is a reaction to evangelical Christianity - Focus on Family is not evangelical Christianity -- and Blake's religion was never a secret - everyone was well aware of his religion - what people were not aware of was his indifference - if not contempt for true equality.
And if anything - my description of the Focus on Family membership was kind.
-
08/08/2011 6:51:00 AM
Way to go Rhdlosangeles! Another thoughtful, factual, unbiased comment! Let's look at a collection of some of your descriptions: stupid, slow, idiot, ugly, ignorant, increasingly stupid, bitter, unaccomplished, angry, ugly, unloved, unwashed, unwanted Americans.... Etc.
Nothing like a hate filled screed to bring the weekend to a close.
Your response to the comment by "Thomas" is overkill. And then going on to paint him as sexist is just ridiculous.
-
Rhdlosangeles 08/08/2011 6:19:00 AM
Focus on Family is not Evangelical Christianity - anyone who suggests as much is an idiot - again, for the stupid and the slow - Focus on Family is not Evangelical Christianity - not today, not tomorrow, not ever - one man - James Dobson - is not a religion - a religious movement - or a religious leader - he is an ugly, ignorant, bully who, surprise, surprise - had no trouble finding a audience in America - that, however, does not mean that he - or his increasingly stupid followers are anything other than a small group of bitter, unaccomplished, angry, ugly, unloved, unwashed, unwanted Americans - who turn to hate when the liberties, freedoms, and principles of this great nation make a mockery of everything they are and everything they come from.
As for McDonald and Stites need to "get over themselves" - and why do these two consumers have no right to have strong feelings about a brand they thought was led by one man - and it turned out to be led by someone else entirely - why do these two consumer have no rights in the marketplace? Blake apologized for his actions - kind of - but yet - it is not Blake - but these two women you blame - why?
Is it because they are women Thomas - are you telling these two women what they should think - and how they should spend their money - and how they should feel - or, as evidenced by their jobs - is it even worse then that - is it because they are educated women? Is that it Thomas - you feel you have the right to tell these women - these educated women - these accomplished women - how to act and what to think based on - well, what exactly?
You need to get over yourself - you may crawl after Blake and Focus and Family all you want - see what I did there - I said may - when we both know it is will -- but don't you dare try to tell the rest of us what to think about a for-profit companies involvement with an ugly, ignorant hate group started by an petty bully 35 years ago.
-
thomas 08/08/2011 2:11:00 AM
"When controversy broke on July 8 about TOMS shoes founder Blake Mycoskie’s links to evangelical Christians, Jessica Stites and her colleagues at the Beverly Hills offices of the feminist quarterly Ms. were stunned."
Wow. What a hit-job. They talk about Mycoskie's ties to evangelical Christianity as if he were discovered to be a card-carrying Nazi. I'm sorry to hear that Ms. Stites and her colleagues are so discriminatory and judgmental as to come to such strong conclusions about a person based upon that relatively unremarkable bit of news.
People disagree on things. Evangelicals think that homosexuality is wrong, others don't. It doesn't mean the others can't buy shoes from people with "ties to evangelical Christians."
McDonald and Stites need to get over themselves.
-
08/06/2011 6:44:00 PM
Proof that paragraphs are a good thing.
-
Fiona 08/06/2011 6:14:00 PM
Although everything is always already said, written or done by somebody else, still the need to express your own opinion keeps you alive. So to my mind, the allegation that every person has different skills, different potential, different advantages and flaws, is a widely-accepted fact. So if somebody knows for himself that his abilities are such that he can run a huge company, he can organize a collective action, and if he starts dealing with business, it is almost certain that the business sooner or later will grow much bigger, because he is just capable of that. and because he is capable of dealing with the difficulties that such a project may also include, which we people being external observers of a situation we tend to overlook, focusing only on the "glamour" and the success of the results.. Isnt it better when he realizes what he is capable of doing, to decide to use it towards the direction of "good" instead of the "bad". What I am trying to say is that it is equally unfair to ask from somebody who can achieve more in a way, for example directing 100 instead of 10 people, not to reach his potential because in this way he is going to insult the personal dignity or what he can do will be considered as exaggeration or even excessive "success"? I cannot undersand why we people feel sorry , show our understanding and forgiving self and try to help only when somebody is inferior to us, just because in this case we dont feel threatened. Our position is secured and from a superior status we know how to show our mercy. But for me this is not humanism. Humanism is towards everybody, indeferrent to "classes". When you want to help, you do it because you respect the merit of the person as a human being and you realize that the world is unfair, has so much suffering that if you are aware of it and you have the power to do something for that, you feel compelled to do it. But I think everybody knows that all of us are trying to do the same, to reach our potential..so if the potential of somebody shows "bigger" than the average to our eyes, and of course by saying bigger in this particular case I mean builiding a bigger company with more profits, I cannot understand why we want to rebel..And at the same time, what is bigger to your eyes may be smaller to somebody else's eyes because for example when you run a big company you may not have the leisure time you want, which you value as a higher priority.It is the way you use your power that makes you bad or good. not the fact that you have power in the first place. because anyways nobody knows why we humans are so different with so different and unique qualities each of us but this is a fact. Even if we wanted to be all the same, we cannot. And sometimes this lack of uniformity is beautiful in life and makes it more interesting while in many other cases when it includes a very low basic standard of living for some of us in the world it is really bad. To conclude, I would like to say that if somebody declares first businessman and then philanthropist, he has already answered to the question whether he runs a business or a charity..maybe in the beginning he was somebody without money or without enough money to live his life being self-contained..so when he found a way to satisfy himself, which also requires effort and luck, and he was personally at a position of not being "in need"..if we can say this term for all of us who live in the western part of the world and we have usually satisfied most of the basic natural needs, then he was able to show to more people instead of just his friends, his family and his close environment his awareness for the problems of our world. Thank you very much in advance.
-
Rhdlosangeles 08/05/2011 12:53:00 AM
Toms shoes are estimated to cost $4 to make - the giving only shoes - likely $3 to make - the average price of Toms shoes are about $55.
Using $7 as the total cost of the shoes (counting both the purchased and giving shoe) at the average cost of $55 dollars - Toms shoes is marking up about 700% -- I am no expert - but according to the Internet the average mark-up on shoes is 100-500%. Is my math correct?
Maybe there would be more money to give to charity if consumers - and parents in particular since kids really buy into this message - were not gouged by for-profit companies pretending to be charities.
-
08/04/2011 4:28:00 PM
"To be Evangelical does not mean you hate gays, it means you hate NO ONE."
Please. Spend 5 minutes on the Focus On The Family website then come back and tell me "they hate no one." CAN religion, even Evangelical religion, be a positive force in the lives of individuals and communities? Yes. But what that has to do with FotF is a mystery to me because they are yet another group of paranoid fundamentalists who promote and exploit fear to extort money from their followers.
Their primary message is NOT one of "Christian love" but how all those awful gays, liberals, and feminists are out to get you, that Christians are in danger and if you'll just give them MONEY they'll make all sure those mean evolutionist commie-pinko homos and baby killers don't kick down your door and take the Bible right out of your poor hands. They sell victimization to Christians despite the fact there has never been a President in this country who wasn't at least nominally Christian, and the offer as proof of victimization that Christians are unable to codify their religious beliefs into law.
And Blake McCoskie KNEW this going in. There is a comments page at the TOMS website and several people pointed it out to him well in advance of this speaking engagement. How do I know he read it? Because he personally replied to SEVERAL other posts in the same massage thread, before AND after those posts, while ignoring the beforehand criticism of this appearance.
Does McCoskie have the right to appear with, at, and for FothF? Absolutely. Just as people who abhor FotF and their hateful brand of Christianity have the right to discuss, disseminate, and boycott his products in response. If he appeared at the Westboro Baptist Church, famous for picketing military funerals with signs like "God hates fags," would you still be saying how awful it is to hold it against him? Because FotF holds many of the same views, they're just slicker about it, more media savvy. Only the style is different, not the central message.
That his business practices involves sweat-shops and exploiting African poverty for financial gain is just the cherry on top.
-
Mlm 08/04/2011 2:41:00 PM
Thanks for working so hard to point out that Blake is making money. I'm not sure the profits are "dramatic" as you say, but, none the less, they are there. If you've ever heard Blake speak at one of the many corporate and leadership summits he attends, and I have, that is EXACTLY the message he wants people to hear. He is not bashful about admitting to profits.
The message he takes to these groups is that you can be successful as a business by incorporating giving into your business. His hope is to inspire others to do what he is doing, in some form. If the private sector will realize this, and start doing a better job of helping those less fortunate, many problems will be helped, if not solved. A little research will certainly turn up examples of others already following his lead.
Bill Gates wrote a TIME magazine article in 2008 saying essentially this same thing. He used TOMS as an example, encouraging capitalistic America to do a better job.
Times are tough for many. I don't know the statistics, but I suspect charitable giving is down. The world needs social responsible companies like TOMS. Let them make money and let others try to do the same, as long as they all continue to help in some way. What is wrong with that?
-
08/04/2011 1:19:00 AM
Really not too surprised about TOMS... was thinking was a bit a scam... figured the guy was making millions off the poor... (I thought he has figured out a way to give the reject shoes and the unpopular styles to them and instead of business loss... he called it a charitable deduction).. and he is making millions...
Also really not too surprised that this dude is part of Mosaic LA...
If you really want to see what Mosaic and Erwin McManus thinks about gays... listen to the POD cast called “Life's Toughest Questions - What About Sex?” by Erwin McManus posted on September 26, 2006...
Link: http://mosaic.org/podcast/ You can find the link near the bottom of the page.
About 3/4 of the way through the POD Cast... Erwin says... after he notes that some people are now saying that homosexuality if found in nature... he say (paraphrase)... "we should not use nature as our guide... because... pigs eat their young". It was sort of revolting to hear the first time... but he has built in deniability... the way Bush had built in deniability in the way on Iraq…
Mosiac is a Southern Baptist Church... When you want specifics about their doctrine... here is the link they send you to... on Frequently Ask Questions page… they send you here.
Link: http://www.baptiststart.com/print/1963_baptist_faith_message.html
Mosaic never once mention that they are a Southern Baptist Church… but they are… just Hollywood Style.
I have no problem with Christians... some of my best friends are Christians... But I do think it is odd that a Southern Baptist Church tries to hide the fact that it is a Southern Baptist Church. And honestly… I like my homophobs to be honest about it. I have a certain amount of respect for honest homophobs after coming across Erwin and his crew.
Also... I find it a little hard to beleive that this guy did not know who "Focus on the Family" is...
-
L Mc 08/03/2011 8:20:00 PM
You've got to be kidding LA Weekly.
-
Ragincajunmary 08/03/2011 5:26:00 PM
So you are basically saying Christians should live "in the closet"...interesting
-
Rhdlosangeles 08/03/2011 4:10:00 PM
Thank you for an excellent, well-researched article - exposing the ugly fraud that is Toms Shoes and Blake Mycoskie -- naturally - since you deal in facts - and truth - many here will never forgive you.
Had Blake spoken at an anti-Christian event - had he spoken to a group that had worked tirelessly against Christians for the past 35 years - wanting to deny them any protections in the work place - the right to marry - the right to adopt - the right to see their dying partner in the hospital - protection from relentless bullying for their children - protection from violence based on their faith - or a group that continues to call Christianity a mental disorder - even though it contradicts all medical, scientific, psychiatric, and psychological evidence -- your article exposing Blake would be celebrated throughout the land and here in the comments section. Oh my God what a hero you would be - there would be freaking parades for you then.
But then Blake would not dare ever speak at an anti-Christian group - and those moo-mooing here know it - it is just their natural inclination to lie and shy away from any truth - ever - that keeps them from admitting it.
As long as it is their religion we all fall to our knees for - they are - like none-too-bright children sitting in their own excrement - happy.
-
Erw05 08/03/2011 6:52:00 AM
Poorly informed biased article. Do your research Patrick.
-
Patrick Range McDonald 08/02/2011 11:49:00 PM
Thanks for all your feedback. There was no hate towards Christians or evangelicals when reporting and writing this piece. Because of the Focus on the Family controversy, we simply looked into Mycoskie's ties to evangelical Christians, which shocked many loyal customers with liberal leanings. It was therefore necessary to examine and explain the general belief system of evangelicals.
It was also relevant to examine TOMS charitable and business practices, particularly since people of all political and religious beliefs buy the shoes based on certain beliefs about the company. In the end, we were shining a light on issues that hadn't received much attention in the press.
Take care,
Patrick Range McDonald,
LA Weekly
-
The real meaning of no hate 08/02/2011 7:51:00 PM
I 100% agree with you Ashton. I am appalled at the intolerance of personal belief in this article. I'm so tired of the Homosexual agenda. Stop backing people into corners and saying if you do this it means this. That's assuming (makes an ass of u and me). AND, so what if he doesn't believe in same sex marriage. Ever heard of a disagreement?
To be Evangelical does not mean you hate gays, it means you hate NO ONE. If you did your research you'd know that you can't put all people into a stereotype. And why stalk and hunt down Blake and his Pastor. I know them and I just think it's pretty gross that people are "Christian Hunting" him. He's trying to market a product that helps kids see and have shoes. I think that's pretty awesome. The internet is gross, it shows too much of our personal lives to people.
Lastly, guess what???
People have their own minds and don't have to believe what you believe.
-
jessimika3 08/02/2011 7:07:00 AM
I think the purpose of TOMS, being a one for one company is amazing. I could care less what this guy believes. If I know for a fact that I am buying a pair of shoes or sun glasses and it gives someone something to look forward to in life, thank goodness. These people who are being helped do NOT care about who you, Blake, or I hang out with. As for feeling bad for seeing images of people in need. I definitely believe that one's reaction to the magazines, photos, are too personal to label as guilty images. I see these images and light up with joy because of the fact that I can possibly help out by something as small as buying shoes or glasses, I am not as powerful as I wish I was to help out these people in need. But we are blessed enough to somehow help support these people in need. Blake came up with an amazing organization, and people need to get over themselves by knit picking what he does with his life. The way he breathes does not change the fact that we are helping GIVE.
-
08/02/2011 4:59:00 AM
Lisa Needs braces
-
08/02/2011 1:09:00 AM
Patrick Range McDonald this is a HATE artical...
You clearly hate Christians and think anything not liberal is evil. First off just because your a Christian doesn't mean you hate gays. Hate is wrong and its coming from you this time.
Come on back to the center of reality please. I challang you to start a company that does more then what Tom's does or just makes money... Both are great things and Tom's has created amazing jobs at the vary least.
-
Rhdlosangeles 08/01/2011 11:55:00 PM
Your response deserves a longer answer than I have the time or desire to give - so let me be brief - Focus on Family is not a religion - nor do the represent all Christians or all evangelicals - there are many that take issue with their rabidly anti-gay, anti-lesbian, anti-evolution, anti-women agenda in the Christian communities - they are a fringe group - that unfortunately due to money - have far more political influence than their numbers would suggest.
There is more going on here than you are admitting - Blake's personal religion was never supposed to be what Toms was about - in fact - quite the opposite - this change - on Blake's part - is what prompted people to look more closely at the entire concept - Blake - as is the way with politicians and celebrities - was given far more credit than he ever deserved or than the financial truth of his for-profit company should have allowed.
Further damage was done when Blake apologized - with a lie - a lie so blatant that even now it is astonishing - he did not realize who they were - that is a shameless lie. When that ploy did not work - he followed-up with the explanation that he does not really think about other groups politics or agendas - when he goes to give his message - again - that too is a lie.
As is the case with any celebrity driven enterprise - they are particularly vulnerable to the actions of the celebrities - Blake through his actions - became a far different person than the consumer thought him to be - and if Blake was not who he presented himself as - then what about his company - and suddenly - people started crunching the numbers.
You can't fool all of the people all of the time.
-
Rhdlosangeles 08/01/2011 11:29:00 PM
You count 14 and younger as too young to identify as Christian - do you have to be 14 to get into church now - I didn't realize they had started carding? Children cannot get into Heaven - really? I did not know that.
What an idiot - the point remains - Blake is not in a minority in America - he is and always has been - in the majority - white, heterosexual, Christian.
-
phliKtid 08/01/2011 11:26:00 PM
thanks for your more sincere reply this time. i appreciate it.
my issue with the article is that much of its length is spent on accusing blake of being an "evangelical". which it obviously assumes is a horrid thing to be, going so far as to have quotes from others assuming the same thing.
re: your numbers... "evangelical christian" isn't the same thing as "christian" necessarily, of course, but the numbers (majority/minority) don't affect what i said: my analogy was to point out the tactic, which i feel it rather adequately does. the l.a. weekly has an audience, and i'd dare say it's not midwestern small-town evangelicals. :) this article was written for a specific audience. but that still doesn't matter - a muckraking character assassination is what it is whether it's by a majority, a minority, a fringe group, a fanatic, or whatever. beyond that, "history is written by the winners" (as they say), so it would be more difficult for me to find muckraking jobs by minorities and fringe groups that are well-known by the collective conscious of our culture. but if you like, feel free to replace my examples of such tactics with ones you are aware of in whatever minority/fringe culture you may know about. i'm sure they exist, because abuse of stereotypes towards other groups in communication exist in all cultures and groups.
i just reread the article, trying to see what you find in it. it's like you dug through a pile of crap to extract the one or two gems. and then won't admit the crap was there. the entire first page of the article is pretty much "progressives" whining that they thought the guy was a hip progressive dude, but then they heard he spoke at fotf and now he must one of those bastard evangelicals. the article even says blake issued an apology and said he believes in equal and civil rights. but the "forward-thinking" "open-minded" progressives won't be sated by such talk. no, they've tarred and feathered him and are taking him out to the hanging tree. all of the sudden, since they think he's not the cool hip progressive they imagined, now he must be all sorts of evil. did the business make any less profit before this "revelation"? no. did it suddenly help people less? no. did it suddenly change? no. they just don't like the smell of him now. and they don't even know any more about him. it's all speculation and hearsay. he was doing great things for people when they imagined he was a progressive, but now that he might be an evangelical, suddenly his business model is up for attack and he's harming children and profiting off their suffering. how quaint of the progressives to suddenly care when it might not be one of their own using the exact business model they merrily bought into before. and the most ludicrous bit is it's based on his short-term interaction with one or two groups who hold a myriad of views, some of which directly oppose some of the progressives views. G-d forbid people interact with people who believe some things differently. (now if one of us can compare this with interacting with nazis, we can invoke godwin's law and finish the conversation.:) that said, i don't know much of anything about blake, and don't really care - he could be a young-earth fundamentalist racist gay-basher for all i know. i doubt it though...but then i don't seem to have the same small-minded view of evangelicals that lots of people reading and responding to this article seem to.
what i will say is it's sort of sad that any group of people (minority or not) would find it hard to believe that a christian ("evangelical" or not) would want to help people. it's a sad statement about the difference between what is written in the bible and how enough people who claim to be christians in america live out their professed faith day-to-day. of course, media can amplify the failures, but i would agree that in general the church has been "americanized" in some poor ways (jesus wasn't a capitalist, and didn't preach a health-and-wealth theology). but there are *plenty* of xians who don't fall into these stereotypes, and i have no reason to believe that blake would be one who doesn't either. the best way to go about helping other cultures, or to hurt them the least, has many many views. should blake make money trying to help? maybe, maybe not. is he trying to help? why can't he be given that benefit of the doubt? even if it's maybe not the "best" way, is he doing more...something...compared to the progressives who merely consume goods and services? i think these are valid things to think about instead of what, in my opinion, this article attempts to do, which is to rile up the natives into picking up torches and pitchforks to go to blake's castle...er, i mean boat, without thought but via hysteria and fear. (i was thinking of _frankenstien's_monster_ but feel free to use _edward_scissorhands_.)
as i don't know all that much about focus on the family or their history, i can't really discuss that with you on a fair level. i wouldn't say i'm a fan of them, as i know of things from the past that i didn't like about them. but i haven't ever seen them as destroyers of humanity either. that could end as a difference in perspective between us, or i may just not know enough of the information that you do.
-
08/01/2011 11:07:00 PM
Interesting statistic you supply there: 270 million out of 300 million identify "or imagine themselves" Christian. (Not sure how you know what people are imagining!)
Addressing your hyperbole:
According to the most recent Census data, roughly 20% of the US population is aged 0 - 14. That is roughly 60 million people and we have not even moved on to adults of religions other than Christianity.
Unaffiliated, inc atheist or agnostic, are between 15 - 30 percent of the population, while Jews make up about 2%, Buddhist, Muslim and other religions make up about another 3%.
So conservatively, and very generally, there are most definitely NOT 270 million people identifying as Christian (or imaging themselves Christian as you so hilariously state). Somewhere between 120 million and 165 million are either too young to identify themselves in any case, or are other religions (or non religions) than Christianity.
-
Rhdlosangeles 08/01/2011 10:14:00 PM
Wow - you are really getting sad - I am guessing single and staying way with a cat that hates you.
-
Rhdlosangeles 08/01/2011 10:13:00 PM
I am not sure what your issue is with the article - Mycoskie is a self-identified evangelical Christian - in a country where 270 million out of 300 million identify as or imagine themselves Christian - in your examples - he would need to be in the minority - as a white, heterosexual, Christian - in America - how in the world do you imagine that this is the same as the examples you present.
Getting past the title of the article - and to the actual article itself - the issue is that prior to his Focus on Family appearance - Blake - as the spokesman and spokesmodel for his company - had done a great job of presenting as someone who is just trying to do some good in the world - but any cursory examination of the numbers shows that is not really the case at all - more importantly - he argues that he started a for-profit instead of a simple charity - since it would be sustainable - for whom? Not for the kids he gives shoes to - there is no follow-up - there is no concern at all that those million pairs are anything other than a temporary fix - though his profit is not temporary -- and that may - as suggested by the article - do more harm than good - since regardless - they will soon be barefoot again - his solution to the problem -- a solution that makes him a great deal of money - is to offer salt water to a thirsty child - it only appears to satisfy their thirst and actually makes them thirstier.
As for my obsession regarding Focus on Family - I realize their current website is nice and friendly - but that is not who they are - that is not who they have been - they have worked for 35 years to deny equality, dignity, and decency to millions of Americans - that is a fact - nothing they do will ever change that history.
-
08/01/2011 8:54:00 PM
Both of your comments are great, and provide much needed context. Unfortunately you have responded to the wrong guy (Rhdlosangeles). I responded to a few of his prior posts and got...errr, interesting responses. He is pretty unhinged and incredibly mean....
-
phliKtid 08/01/2011 7:04:00 PM
aawww, your tactics are so cute. : ) calling me names, suggesting negative traits about me, questioning my intelligence...you even managed to pepper your missive with the words "logic", "truth", and "facts" a few times. good show!
unfortunately for you and your charitable (yet odd) interpretation of the article (even with your bizarre, almost creepy, obsession with focus on the family), the article itself and the many responses on here and twitter show the truth. the title itself: "is blake mycoskie of toms an evangelical?" - is a pretty dead giveaway too.
if the article was actually as you bill it, it would be much better. but it's not, and your response reads like it is about a different article entirely, certainly not the one everyone else seems to be reading. perhaps you should write that article - it sounds like it'd be much better. (though you might want to tone down the focus on the family bits, because to be honest it's kind of irrational...or maybe you just aren't stating it well.)
yes, one aspect of the story was about him making money off the poor. and that is a valid concern. (although anyone doing charitable work *and* making any level of profit gets into shaky territory - which includes pretty much all charities, religious or not.) perhaps if the article had focused on that - as you seem to *really* want it to have - instead of being relegated to a side-point, the article would have come across as more about investigative reporting and journalism (you know, stuff like "news" and "facts", like you stated). but it wasn't.
if the issue is that blake pitched his company as if it was a non-profit/charity and he sold shoes at/near cost and all the money/profit went to help poor people, then that's a valid concern. if the issue is that he pitched himself as a non-christian (or as a liberal, or as whatever that he really isn't), that could be a concern. if toms uses tasteless marketing, that could be a concern. but the article states the issue as if it's his being an "evangelical" that should be the ultimate concern.
which is pretty much what the people in the other time periods i used did - preaching hysteria to the hysterical to create a rabid non-thinking response. (i mean, maybe the person really was a communist, or a jew, or wiccan - but it's the hysteria, muckraking, stereotyping, and response that's the problem, not their true beliefs. the same problem this article shares.)
-
08/01/2011 5:10:00 PM
I'm not really buying what the article is selling. Blake is full of hate because he spoke to a group with many different political and social positions, only one of which is anti-gay marriage? If he had spoken to a Catholic audience would he have been tacitly approving the rhythm method and papal infallability?
My problem with Blake is his company's for-profit/charity model of business. If Blake is a Christian, and we all know that evangelicals love quoting their scripture, he should reread the gospel of Matthew:
“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets,[...] But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (Matthew 6:1-4)
In short, one's motivation matters. Is TOM's trying to make $ or help people? Are the people who buy his shoes trying to help the needy or look cool and progressive. If it's the former, than spend the $95 on a true charity and wear another pair of shoes in the closet.
-
Rhdlosangeles 08/01/2011 4:11:00 PM
The problem with your logic - if you want to call it that - and not sure I do - is that everything you suggest is not true - it is a lie - do you understand the difference between the truth and a lie - or are you a member of Focus on Family?
You do understand that this is a news story - and as such -- is reporting facts - do you know what a fact is? Hasn't Focus on Family told you repeatedly how dangerous facts are? Surely, if you try, you can remember one of those sermons.
This is a news story - Blake is a self-identified evangelical Christian - THIS IS HIS MARKETING TOOL - unlike those raggedy examples you provide. Blake proudly - in the tradition of Christian con artists - Jimmy Swaggert, Jim and Tammy Faye, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson - pimps out his so-called religious beliefs to make himself very personally wealthy.
The problem here - and that Blake now has - is that Focus on Family has nothing, I repeat nothing, and once more - nothing to do with religion. Had Blake continued to pretend he had religious principles - there would be no story - but then, and I am sure I do not have to tell you - pretending is hard.
Blake is now being called out - not on his religious principles - but his LACK of religious principles.
-
phliKtid 08/01/2011 3:51:00 PM
this fine piece of journalism follows an incredibly american journalistic tradition. let's put it in a time machine and see how this article would appear in other periods of u.s. history, shall we?
time machine set for: 1949
from _wings_of_democracy_: is blake mycoskie of toms a communist? by patrick mcdonald
excerpts:
dear lovers of freedom and democracy! is blake of toms a filthy communist? i've heard he's been seen associating with known communists! he tries to act like one of us, but that's how the pinko-commies infiltrate and destroy us! also, it seems a competing company thinks he may not be on the up-and-up with his business dealings like a good american! he's abusing the free market, making money from G-d-fearing americans to further his commie agenda!
time machine set for: 1921
from _the_true_northern_star_: is blake mycoskie of toms a jew? by patrick mcdonald
excerpts:
fellow believers - is blake of toms a dirty jew? you may think he looks and acts like us, but i have proof he has been seen with jews, and at places where known jews congregate! also, look at this proof that he makes a huge profit off of us...what kind of people horde money like this? we all know how jews are.
time machine set for: 1692
from _the_witch's_hammer_: is blake mycoskie of toms a witch? by patrick mcdonald
excerpts:
dear followers of G-d: is our neighbor and cobbler blake of toms a spawn of satan? i and my fellow devout believers have heard damning rumors of his associating with known and suspected witches. he acts like one of us, but in the dark of night he casts his spells on us to make us believe he is one of us. i also have quotes from a competing cobbler that if he's a warlock it would be a very sad case.
-
Rhdlosangeles 08/01/2011 2:59:00 AM
shouldn't you be sitting in front of a radio right now - staring at it blankly in the way the stupid always do - I think Fibber McGee and Molly is coming on - run little girl - run - the show is starting.
We are done.
-
08/01/2011 2:55:00 AM
Apparently you are too stupid to realize that I am not in any way interested or involved in Focus On The Family. I am actually an atheist (not that it matters). I was attempting to indicate that, but you must have missed it, while crafting your not very witty retort. Done with this conversation thread - You really have your head stuck pretty far up your ass, which apparently is fun for you.
-
Rhdlosangeles 08/01/2011 2:51:00 AM
So NPR is a 45 minute informerical - appreciate the intellectual dishonesty - or are you just that stupid -- and nice mouth - do you kiss your cabbage patch doll with that mouth?
-
Rhdlosangeles 08/01/2011 2:45:00 AM
Focus on Family has been in business for 35 years - and Toms for 5 years - yet they needed Blake to come tell them about charity for children? And isn't the real reason he did not partner with them not due to their rabid anti-gay/lesbian/women political positions - but due to the fact that they had NOTHING in place to distribute the shoes?
Focus on Family is not a Christian charity - anymore than the Nazi party was a political group or the KKK is a Southern gentleman's club.
Nice try though.
-
08/01/2011 2:44:00 AM
Indeed. Those 45 minute NPR infomercials. You asshole.
-
Rhdlosangeles 08/01/2011 2:37:00 AM
You still listen to radio - you listen to 45 minute infomercials like the one Blake did for Focus on Family on the radio - oh please - you have a long way to go before you have climbed up to the level of knuckle dragger - but keep reaching for that rainbow.
Save your raggedy lectures for someone else - radio -- really - I guess we should be grateful that at least vaudeville is dead. And I am not sure how to say this to someone with your ego - but I don't really care how I sound to you - you imagine you are much more than you really are.
-
08/01/2011 12:37:00 AM
Why yes, Rhdlosangeles, some of us actually STILL listen to the radio, you obnoxious goon. And some of us dreaded *radio listeners / knuckle draggers* are actually YOUNG LIBERALS! You really sound like an excrutiatingly irritating self-involved person who cannot be bothered to use your turn signals or wait your turn in line....
-
08/01/2011 12:26:00 AM
Amusing. How does one think these shoes are distributed?
A natural way to distribute free shoes is through the charitable efforts of Christian charities and missionaries who typically spend their own monies to travel to third-world nations.
Methinks those who complain are more interested in THEIR agenda than that of helping truly needy people.
Would you REALLY be willing to snatch free shoes away from poor children over a political disagreement? If so, you may have a successful future career in politics!
-
Hbjdm 07/31/2011 11:54:00 PM
I think that this is ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with being a christian! The writer of this article clearly has a chip on their shoulder. I googled some of Range's sources and he totally misrepresented a lot of what he claims. Here is the crux of the matter. TOM'S is a good company who at least tries to help out the poor. (LA WEEKLY does not even have a budget for non profit work by the way). He has never said anything about being "anti gay". Also when did becoming a christian equate to being anti gay. This is not helpful or even sound logic. Focus on the Family has done a ton to help our society. I do not agree with its stance on gay rights. However, its whole purpose is to strengthen families and that in and of itself is not bad. Its time to stop attacking people. We have to open communication with them. It goes both ways. Articles like this just put a great divide in our culture. Range is nothing more than a wanna be Parez Hilton and should be treated as such. This is a fanatical piece and should not even be considered journalism. He should be ashamed of himself. When was the last time he started a company? Its easy to sit on the sidelines and attack people but the only thing I see this man standing for is tearing people down and putting a huge divide between sides of issues. LA WEEKLY should be embarrassed.
-
Rhdlosangeles 07/31/2011 10:24:00 PM
He is such a con man - another religious huckster out to take the rubes for all they are worth - the tip-off should have been when he used shoeless children to sell shoes - and in doing so took a pair of shoes that should have never sold for more than $20 and sold them for $45 - $60 - $100 - and I believe they now go for as much as $150 -- for a pair of shoes based on what poor South American farmers wear. Simple cons with children are always the best.
His is an ugly message - find children in desperate need - photograph them - exploit them - throw a pair of shoes at them - and then laugh all the way to the bank. And the thing is - he was not even clever about it - it was there the whole time - a pair of shoes that cost $3 to make - another pair of "giving shoes" that probably cost $2 - AND THE REST IS PROFIT - even he must have marveled at how easy it all was.
But he got greedy - and could not resist the chance to pitch to Focus on Family's 2 million radio - radio - I know - is that not hysterical - there are people who still gather around their radio - it would by funny were it not so sad - radio listeners -- 2 million of the most gullible suckers on the planet - how long since that flock was fleeced?
So first he apologizes with a lazy blatant lie - he did not know who they were -- and then he follows that with how it may be naive - but he just wants to get his sales pitch - I mean message out -- the radio show will air eventually - Blake to too greedy for it to ever be otherwise.
There are far better charities for children - and far better shoes.
-
Shelby 07/31/2011 9:59:00 PM
Are people not allowed do have their own beliefs anymore? This is ridiculous
-
Danny 07/31/2011 9:22:00 PM
this reads like an ad for paez.
-
Emaildonbutler 07/31/2011 8:42:00 PM
The intellectually and educationally challenged at Ms. obviously don't know that "charity" as we know it in the modern world, is an invention of Western Civilization and it was started by...wait for it...Christians!
-
Nicholas 07/31/2011 8:08:00 PM
This article is completely ridiculous. Who cares what he believes, I wish more companies would have an ounce of conviction and integrity as TOMS... weather they were Muslim or atheist.
-
07/31/2011 4:44:00 PM
His personal beliefs surely led him to create a business plan that seeks to do more than only be profitable. It gives back. Let's look at what the company does. Do people who need shoes have shoes because of how TOMS operates? Yes.
-
07/31/2011 4:03:00 PM
@BK: Mycoskie does not appear to be "hateful and violent".
Also, how far out do we extrapolate on this stuff? If he is to be implicated for the (odious) FOTF beliefs, then (by extension) should all people guilty for the beliefs of their family or friends or acquaintances if those people hold any beliefs that are odious?
Is the good he does completely cancelled out by his personal beliefs. if so, it would be difficult to support ANY business. My guess is that my local grocery store - even Trader Joes - has something I don't agree with in their corporate structure somewhere....
-
07/31/2011 3:06:00 PM
So what did he have to say when he spoke to the FFA and ACU events? Could it have been something along the lines of "Quit making all evangelicals look like douchebags?"
I've never heard of TOMS shoes and couldn't care less what someone wants to believe, so it's not as though I've got a horse in this race, but it looks to me like this guy's being pilloried based on speculation. That's unjust and kinda tacky.
-
07/31/2011 2:57:00 PM
"...the true intentions behind his business?"???
His true intentions are likely the same as the intentions of most businesses, ie: to make money.
-
Topackcorgi 07/31/2011 2:31:00 PM
...did you not read the article? This criticism has very little to do with his personal faith, but more so about the true intentions behind his business. The man basically makes a fortune on the fashionable compassion (read: guilt) of white hipsters and in turn exploits the countries which he claims to be aiding. His personal beliefs aside, he's just another greedy global businessman.
Buy the damn shoes if you like them, but realize there are about a million other forms and venues of service/aid that don't involve some self-serving purchase--admit that more than a desire to be socially conscious, you just want to look cool.
-
Guest 07/31/2011 1:43:00 PM
So . . . his business model is just fine (and "progressive"), until it's discovered he might be a believer. Then it's scandalous. Makes plenty of sense.
-
07/31/2011 1:27:00 PM
How about we stop supporting them simply because its a business model based on pulling at our heart strings while at the same time creating a unsustainable culture of dependency in the places it wants to help? This seems like reason enough to not buy their product.
And to their involvement with Focus on the Family: Focus on the Family is a terrible organization but that doesn't mean everything they do is terrible. If you are serious about international aid you are going to have to work with Christians or evangelical Christians at some point because they are a big part of the support network.
-
Guest 07/31/2011 1:23:00 PM
Sorry, but it's not just evangelical christians. It's HATEFUL, BIGOTED evangelical christians: the kind who ENDORSE or stand silent when Planned Parenthood is BOMBED; the kind who hate LGBTIQ people and who say we cannot adopt children or marry.
Religion or belief in supernatural ideas DOES NOT give some a right to be hateful and violent.
YES: if you support hate then you are not worth my money!
If you are a crypto-liberal (hiding your true hateful allegiances to make money; using imagery and small-potatoes charity to make millions) then you don't deserve my money.
If a damn liberal was endorsing HATE and a denial of equal rights then I would boycott them too.
Hope you understand now.
But I doubt if you do...
Reasonableness, logic, reason, and fairness are NOT the usual approaches of evangelic christians.
-
Guest 07/31/2011 1:17:00 PM
Boycott him.
The damn shoes fell apart quickly anyway.
Hate is hate.
Focus on the family doesn't give a damn about my family.
To me they are almost as bad as the KKK (but not quite).
PS: I kinda like disqus...it's growin' on me!
-
Guest 07/31/2011 11:14:00 AM
What the hell? It comes out that the man actually has beliefs and you call it a controversy?
-
bE 07/31/2011 11:00:00 AM
I hope Blake never gives into the social media press and stands strong for what he believes in. If he loves God, who cares? He has made a differnce in millions of lives as a result of the giftings and talents God gave him. Don't stand down, Blake. And don't give in!
-
07/31/2011 8:42:00 AM
I'm not an Evangelical Christian and disagree with them on a number of theological and social issues, but this is obviously a witch hunt. Is there some reason we can't by shoes from Evangelical Christians? Are any of us really surprised that Evangelical Christians are involved in charity work? Do liberals really think they have a monopoly on kindness? For all their talk of acceptance and open mindedness, it astounds me just how myopic and ethnocentric some of these so-called liberals can be.
-
Jaycee01 07/31/2011 3:46:00 AM
Seriously this is SICKENING! In the world we live in today, a group of people try to make a difference and you rip them apart, you're SO TYPICAL. Pull back the veil and you'll find your foot in your mouth. Look closely, they don't market poverty at all, in the most humble way possible they educate, there is a difference you know. My 8 yr. old daughter talks poverty and what she can do because of toms. They've made more of a difference in all of our lives than you know. Look at all the other one for ones, all the people they inspire to make a difference, all company's are looking at what they can do, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT!! Their ability to make profit = the opportunity to do more, educate more... bridge gaps, build awareness, make a real difference. Look at their new eyewear, they give surgery and medical attention. What you'd rather do is buy from a company who just steals from you and never gives back in anyway. You know Pat it's not me against you, christians vs anyone! It's about bringing people together for the greater good - imagine if people who don't see eye to eye could put that aside and come together to help others, THESE PROBLEMS MIGHT NOT EXIST and yes it's everyone's fault!!!! You should be ashamed, I don't know what else to say. SO PATRICK rather than running your mouth about something you don't know or understand, why don't do something to help someone rather than fuel HATE!!!! YOU WANT TO HAVE A CONVERSATION LETS TALK BOBS SKETCHERS.
LA WEEKLY IS PATHETIC - HACKS - WHAT DO YOU DO TO CREATE CHANGE IN THIS WORLD- ALL YOU DO IS PUSH YOUR ADVERTISING, YOUR SHITTY COLUMNS SO YOU CAN GET MORE READERS MAKE MORE $$$$$ ON SELLING MORE ADVERTISING.
Jaycee
-
Laura 07/31/2011 3:46:00 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/opinion/sunday/kristof-evangelicals-without-blowhards.html?_r=1
Wise words about "Evangelicals" and reverse intolerance.
-
07/31/2011 3:34:00 AM
That dude is just like WAY too cool. Amazing.
www.privacy-tools.no.tc
-
MoMoneyMoProblems 07/30/2011 10:50:00 PM
living on a sailboat doesn't mean you support gay marriage. being Christian doesn't mean you won't exploit kids in China for the sake of playing savior to kids in Honduras. Mycoskie is a cunning marketer and marker-upper and this story is a timely lesson in differentiating between a genuine lifestyle and the products that supposedly define or complement it. it's business, baby!
-
07/30/2011 4:49:00 PM
Oh STFU. It's the particular branch of Christianity he has aligned himself with, the Evangelical Christian Right which has nearly the same cultural views as the Taliban.
-
07/29/2011 9:30:00 PM
OMG!!! RUN!! He's a F***ing Christian!!!
-
07/29/2011 6:02:00 PM
Ummm, Isn't that really the point of this commentary piece? Making a case for why people should not?
-
scholar and fool 07/29/2011 3:20:00 PM
hyperbole and exaggeration don't make a position any more solid. sorry. the article is strewn with stereotypes, uses the term "evangelical" as a pejorative throughout, states theories and guesses and then runs with them as if they were fact, and does about as good a job of being accurate as you just did.
i have no problem with corporate responsibility. at all. i'm rather for the idea, actually. but this absurd liberal knee-jerk reactionary b.s. is just ludicrous. just as absurd as the ultra-conservatives railing against someone because a friend heard that one time this person might have been associated with someone of a different political/moral position. liberals like this are just the other side of the coin that those kinds of conservatives are on. and both should be respected as the worthless plug coin they are.
since the author used "evangelical" as his pejorative, i'm going to assume i can breech the subject of christianity. (put down your torches and pitchforks, dear non-believers.) in the bible, jesus is described as spending most of his time with people less than desirable by religious society. the highly religious people of his time saw that and judged him as being just as undesirable as them. but, if you believe the bible - or even this aspect of the story - he wasn't like them. guilt by association is a bitch of a position to take - it makes you look rather foolish to anyone else who doesn't hold the same fervent beliefs that make you react so irrationally. religious, or anti-religious.
-
07/29/2011 3:35:00 AM
Between the author's problem with Mycoskie's religious beliefs, and his feigned horror at the concept of "markup" of a RETAIL ITEM, methinks the author has some agenda / chip-on-shoulder.
Personally I am not a fan of Christian hypocrisy (of which there are countless examples) but I am also not a fan of ANY hypocrisy, and a businessperson being raked over the coals because his or her beliefs are not in line with the author's beliefs is shameful. Hint: JUST DON'T BUY THE SHOES.
-
07/28/2011 11:58:00 PM
This guy repeatedly made presentations to anti-gay hate groups and you question a 'close-minded stereotype of evangelicals'---- what kind of logic is that?
No stereotype here at all! The guy purposefully associated with these groups, and it is documented in this article.
Your arguments are only intended to deflect from the responsibility of the company's ownership to act responsibly.
-
07/28/2011 11:54:00 PM
The point is clear: this company marketed to progressives betrayed the values of equal civil rights for American citizens. The ownership are hypocrites, and their product should no longer be associated with fairness.
If someone thinks this approach is Christian, then they have a bizarre definition of Christianity.
-
07/28/2011 10:13:00 PM
Oh. so you want the POINT, do you? Well here it is. People with ENTIRELY different views and priorities than Mycocskie feel they've been deceived by him. FotF is very high-profile anti-progressive organization so it took this to really bring his social/political views into widespread question.
And don't give me that "you libs want to take shoes away from poor children!" BS because there I don't think there's ANY question of Focus on the Family or TOMS having the distribution ability or breadth of the Red Cross, Unicef, or the aptly titled SHOES FOR AFRICA organization! FotF is a virulently anti-gay group, in fact their activities on that front are a very large part of their political (despite the fact they're a religious group) activity in the US. I don't claim to know, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear they've been active in such things as Uganda's "Kill the Gays" bill as part of their work in Africa, a bill which many think will be reintroduced soon. I'm not sure if FotF has yet made to the Southern Poverty Law Center's anti-gay Hate Group list (they may have) but they certainly have dealings and friendly relations with other groups who HAVE! And then there's their anti-feminist activities as well.
And if you read the article you'll also know that TOMS' charity seems to be anything but, using pictures of starving children to sell $5-$8 shoes made in sweatshops for $30-$60 while passing themselves off as a cross between Mother Theresa and Gandhi! Picking pockets is generally does not fall under the heading of "charity," so you can peddle that bit of misdirection elsewhere.
You don' t like groups calling for boycotts? Tell that to FotF, the American Family Association, and the many other Christian Right groups who use the word "family" with a VERY narrow definition, because they call for them all the time! Plus there's a little thing called Free Speech. Just as Mycoskie and TOMS have Free Speech, so do other people and there is NO protection from the consequences of what you say or where say it. You or he can say whatever you want about gays, women, or any other group but don't start whining about when those groups bring it to others' attention and turn around and tell YOU to take your product or service and shove it.
-
07/28/2011 9:34:00 PM
Great work, Patrick!
-
07/28/2011 8:48:00 PM
P.R. McDonald: nice piece of muckracking, buddy Journalize something civically interesting next time, please. TOMS is just another fashionable product that attempts to do more good than harm. Give them a break. No in fact, let's CELEBRATE them because they are a local industry that helps create a better sense of place for the Los Angeles area. No one is perfect. But some people are much less imperfect than they could easily be instead. LA Weekly likes to sit on eggs until they crack.
-
scholar and fool 07/28/2011 3:57:00 PM
it's difficult to discern the point of this article. part of it seems like questioning tom's true philanthropic nature - which should be a valid question/concern. unfortunately, the title and most of the rest of the article comes across as an attempted character assassination based on horribly close-minded stereotypes of "evangelicals". it's always disturbing to see people who appear to think of themselves as "progressive" and "open-minded" show their incredibly reactionary and narrow-minded views of others. it shows you are no different than those you are supposedly railing against. as timmerman was quoted "[...] you pull back the veil a little bit and you just go 'oh, man, i really wish that's not the case.'"
-
acloserlook 07/28/2011 3:23:00 PM
the focus on the family connection is the final straw, but I swore off tom's shoes after watching this short video "a day without dignity" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isxxQm2_ud0 addressing the ethical and economic problems associated with donating shoes and clothes to the third world.
-
Rhdlosangeles 07/28/2011 3:20:00 PM
This has always been ugly -- no one ever bothered to ask - since, in truth, no one really wants to think about the children - that is the fact of it - how much money does blake personally make for every pair of ugly poorly-designed shoes that Toms sells - it looks to be about $40 - and there are idiots who still think of this company as a charity?
Blake gives away 1 million shoes - made in a "giving shoe only" factory - and pockets about $40 million - is that about right.
This has always been ugly.
-
Fentermann 07/28/2011 3:13:00 PM
There is no hell. It's a fanciful place written about in a book of fiction.
-
07/28/2011 2:36:00 PM
A million children who would have been barefoot are wearing shoes because of TOMMS.
This inquiry into MyCoskie's social conscience (because of his temporary association with Focus on the Family) reminds me of when John the Baptist sent his disciples to ask Jesus if he was the real deal or should they expect someone else. Jesus did not answer the question. He just said the lame are now walking, the blind are now seeing, and blessed is the one who is not offended because of me. Focus on the Family is not just about right wing politics. They are also about making sure that children have shoes, so there is an overlap. They are also about Jesus Christ and the advancement of His Kingdom on earth as it is in heaven, as is MyCoskie, so there is an overlap. This is not evangelical - this is Christian!
-
reelzies 07/28/2011 2:08:00 PM
There's an alarming amount of bigotry and ignorance about Christianity littered throughout this hit piece on Mycoskie. Or is it a hit piece on Christianity with Mycoskie as the fall guy? The author and his editors might consider doing some post-publication research on what, for starters, an evangelical Christian actually is and if Mucoskie fits that definition. My take-away from this article is that Mycoskie helps those in need in his own way.
Comments poster "p1970", whose childhood story saddens me, has great wisdom on Mycoskie sorely missing from this article.
And "p1970," you said, "I was a sweet kid," which I am sure you were. What impresses me through your writing is that you are a sage and compassionate adult. I'll bet you're still a sweetie, too. Thanks for your post.
-
07/28/2011 1:57:00 PM
So, it's not cool to wear shoes if the maker has a different belief than you? Despite the good done by TOMS shoes in giving and helping over a million in need, a person would boycott and slander Mycoskie simply because of a place he spoke? He didn't become James Dobson's blood brother, and the altruism (I liked the way p1970 put it) is good regardless of personal conviction. If Mycoskie is a Christian, and I personally hope he is, I support his efforts of making the world a better place. I hate the thought of the poor being exploited, but I sure hope there are some happier, healthier people somewhere in the world because they have shoes on their feet. I'll continue to buy these shoes.
-
07/28/2011 12:19:00 PM
The Focus on the Family connection part is disappointing to me, not the shoe donation part:
My mother was an ardent follower of Dr. Dobson and Focus on the Family when I came out to her as transgender as a young person. She forced me to attend a reparative therapy program, and told me should I ever decide to start hormone treatment, I would not be welcome in her home. Except for one brief meeting in a public place three years ago, I haven't seen her or my father face to face in ten years. This is a shame. I was a sweet kid. If only Focus had spread love, not divisiveness.
My thoughts on the shoe part: Altruism is a good thing, whether the person is from the cultural left or the cultural right, and whether the person's motives are pure or mixed with selfishness. Most of us act with at least some mixed motives when we act altruistically. Customers not knowing about retail mark-ups is just naivete on their part, not deception on his. Businesses and nonprofits all seem to exploit the images of suffering people to promote themselves. And although TOMS doesn't give jobs to its shoe recipients, it does give jobs to people who may desperately need them as well, in China and the US. People don't always come in the packages we expect, and not being the person other people expect is not in itself bad. (No one knows that better than me.)
-
Rhdlosangeles 07/28/2011 6:33:00 AM
Sir - I know nothing of this donkey you have married - but you Sir are no Christian and neither is Blake - using shoeless children to sell shoes for an amazing personal profit has nothing, I repeat, nothing, and once more since you seem - well, stupid, nothing to do with Christianity. Buy my shoes or a child goes without - sounds ugly when you say it that way - because it is ugly.
You know - to be a Christian you have to do more than just show up - you do need to fill out the application.
-
liberals are hypocrites 07/28/2011 1:50:00 AM
dont you just love these liberals.. they will support you if you marry your donkey, but God forbid you are a Christian.. lol.. there must be a special place in hypocrite hell for you all