Based on Mycoskie’s track record, USC’s Richard Flory says, “He might call himself a ‘Christ follower’ rather than an evangelist, which is the new term these days. But he’s clearly a fellow traveler in this world.”
Now critics have begun to focus on Mycoskie’s business model of telling consumers they are each personally helping shoeless children around the world.
TOMS manufactures its shoes in China, where, says Shui-Yan Tang, a USC professor of East Asian environmental policy and politics, it’s difficult to monitor working conditions. The company says it requires “that the factories operate under sound labor conditions [and] sign a code of conduct.”
But Kelsey Timmerman, author of Where Am I Wearing?, which details his worldwide travels to factories where his personal wardrobe was made, says TOMS’ promotion of a code of conduct “doesn’t mean anything to me. I’ve seen that statement on a countless number of company websites, and I’ve seen quite the opposite” when visiting companies’ outsourced manufacturing sites.
The website Alibaba.com, which publishes data to help manufacturers and buyers find suppliers in foreign countries, shows that a pair of slip-on canvas shoes actually costs between $3.50 and $5 to make.
TOMS sells that kind of shoe in the U.S. at retail prices ranging from $29 to $98; the “classic” sells for $44-$68. Then, for each shoe sold, TOMS gives away a pair of shoes costing $3.50 to $5 to produce.
Timmerman says, “People probably think they’re spending $40 on a pair of TOMS, and the poor kids are also getting $40 shoes, but that’s not what’s happening.”
When Timmerman visited Ethiopia, where TOMS manufactures its “giving shoes” — shoes that are donated to poor kids but not sold to consumers — he said some people complained to him about Mycoskie. “They were really offended and critical of TOMS,” Timmerman says. “They feel TOMS exploits Ethiopian poverty, that that’s their marketing tool.”
In addition, Paez shoe founder Pando, who’s based in Buenos Aires and makes a point of manufacturing his own slip-on shoes in Argentina and not outsourcing that work to China, says the children’s shoes TOMS gives away are the least expensive to make. “There’s less material, and it takes less time to make them,” Pando tells the Weekly in a phone interview from Argentina. (On TOMS’ website, kids’ shoes retail for $29 for “Tiny TOMS” and $38 for youth sizes.)
Pando doesn’t believe in using a social cause to sell a product, which TOMS clearly does. Pando promotes the quality of his shoes while giving fair-wage jobs to his employees. Paez footwear is produced in a “no-sweatshops” factory on the outskirts of Buenos Aires, where the cost to manufacture Paez shoes is $8, Pando says; he sells them for $16 in his home country. “We support giving jobs and opportunities to the people of Argentina,” he says.
Pando’s approach makes more sense to Timmerman, who has seen desperate poverty firsthand.
“You see the impact of how a job can change lives,” says Timmerman, “of how it can give a person dignity.”
He adds, “TOMS is a feel-good story, but you pull back the veil a little bit and you just go, ‘Oh, man, I really wish that’s not the case.’ ”
Contact Patrick Range McDonald at pmcdonald@laweekly.com.
Would you ever run an article entitled "Is So-and-So A Muslim?" which details your hatred for Muslims and everything they believe? Or Jews? Baha'i? I'm only disheartened that Mycoskie felt compelled to apologize.
This is hate speech, and it's despicable.
I know I'm very late to this game, but:
1. Did anyone involved in contributing to this article consider the fact that Mr. Mykoskie wasn't taking an oath of membership at FotF? He was just there to talk about his work, which has nothing to do with marriage equality or any of the other contentious points the article brought up about FotF. If he had a willing audience, why should he refuse to speak to them? Some people have the capacity to transcend differences in order to reach goals. (They tend to get more done than the rest of us.)
2. Yes, there is significant markup on the shoes. BUT it costs a good deal of money to conduct the shoe distributions to the children in the developing countries. The shoes have to be shipped according to anticipated sizing needs, cleared through customs, transported to whatever warehouse is storing them... and a distribution has to be organized, communicated and carried out. That takes time, significant human resources and MONEY. Sure, maybe this expense could be decreased if the shoes were made locally (not easy or cheap to arrange either), but still the distributions would cost more money than you may think. So don't worry, he's not pocketing that whole profit for himself.
3. Is this the best way to help these impoverished children? Does this business model do more harm that good? Does it exploit poor people? These are tough questions, but it's good that we are asking them. The shoe distributions DO help children by meeting immediate needs -- providing shoes that fit and don't cause blisters/infection, protecting them from soil-transmitted parasites, and assisting them in attending school (as most places require shoes for school attendance.) It's definitely not a sustainable model, but I think its heart seems to be in the right place at least. As far as exploitation goes, I think the "Breast Cancer Awareness" movement is just as exploitative -- if not more so -- than this, as usually only a TINY fraction of the proceeds of pink items actually benefit breast cancer patients or research.
Finally.... I would love if all these tough questions and passionate arguments can turn into a productive discussion about sustainable models for helping impoverished children/nations. If this isn't the best way to help kids, what is? Maybe we can come up with a good plan.
Or will it be too hard to get past our differences to make that kind of discussion happen?
I came across the artilce while doing research on the Toms brand. This article along with some of comments are unbelievable. I classify this article, along with the hatemongers as "squeaky wheels". You will get no oil from me!
Thank you Blake for standing on your beliefs and creating something bigger than yourself. Whether you make a profit or not, at least you're contributing to those less fortunate.
Even if his shoes cost $3.00 to make, that's like 30 plus dollars to those who receive them as their family's live on less than $1.00 a day. Anyway, paying more for the shoes is okay with me since I'm blessed to be able to afford a pair, not to mention it's nice to know I'm giving back to society. btw...no one says you have to purchase the most expensive pair......Keep up the good work Blake.... 2,000,000 strong:)
Feel free to respond, but keep in mind, squeaky wheels will not get any oil from me!
ok, so he marks up his shoe price?? Who else do we know that does this? Oh wait they whole shoe industry!!! But my question is what are they doing to help others outside of them selves? Oh, So The founder is probably Christian, so now your gonna boycott? Isn't the "liberals" who get so upset at "christians" who do the same thing even if whats being boycotted is doing a good thing? This is so stupid, that people feel that he is bring too much attention to the poor in Ethiopia, we all know they're poor, he is just trying to bring help. I think its fishy that the leaders are more concerned with how it is making them look then caring for their people who are sick and dying.
Exactly what I was thinking, Mallory. If the roles were reversed and some evangelical group was boycotting and organization for their beliefs, that'd have the left wing up in arms. Now Mycoskie is trashed - not for even stating his beliefs, but for who he recently associated himself with. Wow. As for his company, he's never hid the fact that TOMS is for profit, while also helping a cause ... so again, we'll trash a company that turns a profit while helping others, but have no issue with companies just in it for a buck, who exploit customers on a daily basis? Mycoskie is trying to make a difference and now he's being put under a microscope for doing what he always said he was doing since day one, while associating with someone the other side doesn't care for. Honestly, get a life, people.
So, all companies and their CEOs are supposed to be liberal atheists now? Vanilla, vanilla, vanilla.Who wants to live in a vanilla world?
I know, diversity is good.... if your diversity is the same as mine :)
this is suck. How can he continue his business for helping without profit? i dont stand in both sides. but i dont like the negative thoughts, the possitive thoughts can change the world...thanks
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?
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.
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 ...
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.
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?
I've never bought TOM's, but I will now! Hurray for Blake. God Bless you ladies @ Ms. ---
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?
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.
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.
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...
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.
I just paíd $20.87 for an íPad 2.64GB and my boyfriend loves his Panasoníc Lumíx GF 1 Cámera that we got for $38.79 there arriving tomorrow by UP S.I will never pay such expensive retail príces in stores again. Especially when I also sold a 40 inch LCD T V to my boss for $657 which only cost me $62.81 to buy.Here is the website we use to get it all from : http://BidsBit.com
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.
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!
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?
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.
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!
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.
"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.
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.
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.
"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!
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.
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.
"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.
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?
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.
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/pr...
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...
1 Like
So you are basically saying Christians should live "in the closet"...interesting
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
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.
1 Like
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.
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.
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.
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.
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: 1949from _wings_of_democracy_: is blake mycoskie of toms a communist? by patrick mcdonaldexcerpts: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: 1921from _the_true_northern_star_: is blake mycoskie of toms a jew? by patrick mcdonaldexcerpts: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: 1692from _the_witch's_hammer_: is blake mycoskie of toms a witch? by patrick mcdonaldexcerpts: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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
Wow - you are really getting sad - I am guessing single and staying way with a cat that hates you.
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....
Find everything you're looking for in your city
Find the best happy hour deals in your city
Get today's exclusive deals at savings of anywhere from 50-90%
Check out the hottest list of places and things to do around your city
