Look, I don't like most airlines. The industry sucks, but with train fares being obscene, and a bus ride resembling the immigrant quarters on Titanic, it's pretty much the best of bad options. The flying itself...I like. I have no fear of flying and I still have that utter childlike wonderment whenever I fly. My god we have the ability to do, casually, what men only dreamed of since the dawn of mankind when we first looked upon the birds with bitter envy.
But the industry is ridiculous, because they have us over a barrel. They could tell us they're making coach class standing only, and we'd have to take it. Or pay through the nose for upgrades.
I'm putting my foot firmly down at bigotry though.
Look, I don't have an issue with a company, because the company ended up having a bigot as an employee. You just can't reasonably screen for that 100% of the time. Any company with over a certain number of employees is bound to have a nasty bigot in their ranks.
I don't even have a problem with them hiring a bigot, provided it doesn't affect their work. Look, I don't like bigots any more than the next person, but if a person can do their job and not allow their personal ...wrongness...to affect their ability to do that job or serve their customers, then fine. If you want to wear your Klan robes on the weekend and go drunkenly burn a cross on your land with a few dozen of your inbred friends, well that's a mentality I can't even begin to grasp. But if on Monday you can serve ALL of your customers and co-workers in your job regardless of those personal beliefs, then you deserve that job.
It's human nature to be judgmental, bigots just take it much further. I've known Christians that had very strong opinions about certain folk, that crossed the line in my opinion, into bigotry. I've known atheists who've also had strong opinions about religious folks that also crossed that line. Most people have some level of ugliness within themselves where they judge others, even if it's just a little bit. I've heard people who'd never ever in a million years consider judging someone on the color of their skin, make comments that would make a piker blush about fat people. Or smokers. Or single women with multiple kids. Or muslims.
I get that not everyone is going to like or agree with everyone else. I really do. I may not always understand it. I certainly don't like it. But I live in the real world, and I get it.
But when an employee acts on those opinions, well...then that company has a problem. And decisions to make.
As I've said, I've flown many times. I've flown alone, and I've flown with someone I was romantic with. I'm not personally big on public displays of affection, but I cannot recall a single flight in which I didn't see some public display of affection between couples. Or where I've not engaged in it. When you're sitting practically on someone's lap, it's not uncommon to curl against them. It's not strange to hold their hand. It's not even out of place to kiss them. And on more than one flight I've seen people go, in my opinion, a little overboard on the public displays.
And for most people, that's uncomfortable. It doesn't matter if they're heterosexual or homosexual. If someone is going a little overboard it's uncomfortable because we recognize that it's something that should be private. We feel like we're intruding on a moment that we shouldn't be. Except we're not. We're not intruding on them, and yet it's awkward. Uncomfortable.
Imagine your parents making out. With tongue. Hands wandering. No one wants to see that. And you love your parents probably. But you don't want to see it. You know they engage in affection, or did at one time. But you REALLY don't want to ever see it.
It's sort of like that.
This wasn't over that line. If it had been a man and a woman, nothing would have been said. The only reason something was said was because it was two men. And it made that person uncomfortable. And rather than own up to her own feelings, she lied to the customers. She misrepresented who had the issue, and misrepresented airline policy. Then when the issue was addressed appropriately by the customers, the airline personnel circled the wagons against the customer. Because they knew it was wrong.
We've all had, or are aware of, a similar experience in this sue-happy world. A company fucks up, but there could be a potential lawsuit. So rather than simply admitting it, and apologizing, which would resolve it...they get into liability concerns. Circle the wagons, and that tends to piss people off. Most of us don't want money, or freebies. We just want acknowledgment of error and a mending of ways. A pizza place gave me nasty food poisoning. It was so severe I had to seek medical treatment. I contacted them to warn them. I had no intentions of suing, but there was no question that it was food poisoning due to improper chicken handling, and that I had gotten it from their product. They smelled a potential lawsuit and became offensive. How did I know, how could I be sure? Were all the tests done? Well I could have eaten something somewhere else and not be admitting it. And here I was only warning them because it was severe enough that it could have killed a child. Or an elderly person. Or a person with a compromised immune system.
And it made me very, very angry. I was not only wronged (though in my case it was accidental, I'm sure) but their response was unbelievably offensive. The second wrong when they not only failed to acknowledge their responsibility but engaged in offensively covering their asses was what lost them my business.
And that's what American Airlines has done. What their employees did, was wrong. Their employees failed at every level. And then American Airlines failed again, when they covered their asses, instead of taking accountability.
Yes, unfortunately some people are far more uncomfortable with public displays of affection when the two people are homosexual. If you're even having minor doubts on whether or not American Airlines and their employees were wrong, because it can make people more uncomfortable, then picture this:
Instead of two
men, it's a black man and a white woman. Think that might make some
people uncomfortable? Oh much rarer today, but now imagine it's 1950.
Frightening how similar the arguments are, isn't it?
Wrong, is wrong, is wrong, is wrong. Then, like now, it's a matter of civil rights. People, all people, have a right to be treated fairly and equally by companies, regardless of the personal feelings of some people. Or some employees.
American Airlines deserves the blame here. They should have apologized for the behavior of their employees, because it was wrong. I'm not even saying they should have fired the woman who initially started this. Though, I personally believe they should have. Not because of her actions, I think that training...depending on the employee, might be a reasonable option. But because not just what she did, but the fact that she lied about it. She claimed another employee had issued the order, which was lying to the customer. That indicates to me that she either was aware it was wrong for her to do, wasn't her right or responsibility to do, or that she was afraid to take ownership and responsibility for her decision. Any one of which, or combination of which combined with what she did, being in my opinion, something which should cost her her job.
However, that's not even what's at issue here. After that employee acted wrongly a chain of events were set into motion which amounts to CYA (cover your ass). At every single level, American Airline employees failed their customers.
They didn't just fail those two men. They've failed all of their customers, past, present and future. They failed me as a customer when they did that. They failed you as a customer, when they did that. They've shown you how they will treat their customers, if you do something that could be deemed offensive to someone. If you are someone who might by your very existence, be offensive to someone.
Then, American Airlines issued the following statement:
Tim Wagner, a spokesman for American, said that the stewardess’s injunction to the men was reasonable, and would have been made whether the couple was gay or straight. “Our passengers need to recognize that they are in an environment with all ages, backgrounds, creeds, and races. We have an obligation to make as many of them feel as comfortable as possible,” he said. (He added, “Our understanding is that the level of affection was more than a quick peck on the cheek.”)But a customer-service representative named Terri, reached last week on the telephone, offered the opinion that kissing on airplanes is indeed permissible. “Oh, yeah! Sure. I’ve seen couples who are on honeymoons,”she said. “They just don’t want you to go into the bathroom together.”
My experiences say differently. My experiences on airlines, which is extensive, have been that such displays of affection between men and women, are indeed not only acceptable, but utterly ignored. Even displays which I felt were beyond the normal one would expect in a public confined space, were ignored. Frankly it's always seemed that anything short of a lap dance gets ignored.
Unless you're gay. And that's a double standard that is unconditionally unacceptable.
I'm flying this December to Philadelphia. I'm going back east to see my grandfather. And I'll be letting American Airlines know why they've lost my business.
I'll be flying United Airlines to Philadelphia instead.
The reason you should care about this case, is that the Bush administration filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of the church, stating the government ""has an interest in enforcement of First Amendment principles providing equal treatment of persons irrespective of their religious beliefs."
The jist of the case is that the local library has meeting rooms which are available to the public. These rooms can be used by a variety of groups, both religious and non-religious. (Narcotics Anonymous meetings are held there and that group traditionally closes meetings with a prayer, for example).
A religious group could use those rooms, but they can't use them to hold their religious worship services. Otherwise you and I are being taxed...to pay for a church.
Get it? And that would be *bad*. Our tax dollars shouldn't go to supporting any church, period. Yes, we give them a tax break, in that they're not taxed (churches that is) but that's also because traditionally most are not business for profits. You could argue some are today, mostly ones run by individuals, but that's another discussion.
Point being, if this religious group wanted to gather there for...bible study...there should be no issue. Provided it was open to anyone who wanted to attend, and their club or group was specifically just about bible study there. Yes, it's religious. Yes, the bible is used only by specific religions, but it's not support of a specific church or religious group. Non-religious people also study the bible.
See the difference?
It really seems like a no-brainer. It's not that difficult to understand why this would be a problematic issue, and why reasonable restrictions would need to be placed on 'free use' of such facilities.
The library couldn't allow a business to habitually run their business out of that room either. That would also be tax payers paying for someone's specific business. And why should we pay for that? (We shouldn't. No-brainer folks.)
As much as it seems that this group wants to make it out to be oppression of religion, oppression of Christianity...it's really not. It's not allowing one church special treatment that everyone else is paying for them to have. I don't have to tithe to them so they can have a meeting hall, yet that's exactly the position I'd be forced into if any church pulled this at my local library for the specific purpose of using it as a place of worship.
So back to my original issue, why is the Bush administration weighing in on this again? And do you really think they'd be filing an amicus brief if this was a Muslim group?
Yeah, I don't think so either.
After Terri Schaivo most people know what a PVS (persistive vegetative state) is. In the UK, researchers have found evidence which suggests that a woman who is in a PVS may have some awareness.
I'd have to urge caution though, without seeing the medical documentation, it doesn't necessarily mean that she herself is necessarily conscious. We can react to visual stimulation while unconscious, both from anesthesia and in dreaming. There are parts of the brain that process that information on a limited scale, while we have no conscious awareness of it.
The article, written by a layperson, strongly implies direct consciousness as the patient was directed to perform mental tasks, which were then shown on a brain scan as the patient using specific portions of her brain related to imagining such tasks. What it fails to address though is whether or not it's possible for those portions of the brain to respond not to the directions, but merely the key terms such as 'tennis' and 'home'. The difference is, as you can probably see, crucial. It's the difference between awareness, and perhaps just basic brain function without conscious awareness.
I also found something else deeply troubling.
"This is extremely important. It's the difference between life and death," said Steven Laureys, a neurologist at the University of Liege and co-author of the study, which appears in the journalScience.
"From cases in the UK and the US, we know that end-of- life decisions are extremely important and this will definitely change the way we deal with these patients," he said. "When you have signs of consciousness, you cannot decide to stop hydration and nutrition."
Bolding mine. As I said, I found this deeply troubling. In the case of patients who are in a 'true' PVS, which indicates there is no higher brain function and all that remains is enough brain to keep the body breathing (the body lives, the mind is dead) it's a waste of resources to keep the person alive. Unless you're maintaining life to harvest organs, you're merely maintaining meat. We wouldn't keep an amputated hand 'alive', if we could, separate from the human body and scream about sanctity of life. It's really no different.
But, if the person has no meaningful ability to communicate or interact with the world, and yet maintains some level of consciousness, I do not think we should say we cannot stop hydration and nutrition. I don't even think we should say that we 'should not'. I think at that point, it needs to fall back on two crucial pieces of information.
First, is there any meaningful chance of recovery? And what are the chances, and what is the recovery potential? If the patient has little to none, and will not have the ability to have any meaningful interaction, then I think the only question which should remain is what did that person want?
I would not wish to be kept alive under such circumstances. I cannot imagine an existence more horrific than to be trapped with no ability to communicate or interact with the world, and maintain some level of awareness. I am certain there are others who believe differently and would want to continue on. And I think their wishes should be respected. Just as I want my wishes to be upheld. (Use a pillow even. Seriously.)
Of course then that falls back once more to a colder discussion. Such as who will pay? I found it disturbing that while people fought bitterly for the life of a woman who was for all intents and purposes basically brain dead, that a woman in Texas was removed while conscious from a respirator due to lack of ability to pay. And there are those who argue that such decisions must be made. Though they're ignoring the fact that while they take comfort under the blanket of insurance, they could well be denied. All the insurance company has to do is delay longer than you will live. I just think it's a crazy fucking world where we see so many, from religious groups, to politicians fight for a dead woman, while a poor black immigrant's fight to live a little bit longer is virtually ignored.
I fear anyone who wants to legislate limitations upon me by the measuring stick of their own morality. They're not upholding a right to live, they're denying a right to die.
And then of course there's always some yahoo in the back who'll scream, "Yeah, but what if you got better? Wouldn't you be GLAD we did it then?!"
No. Because may whatever god you believe in help you if I got better. I'd rise up out of that bed like a zombie looking for brains. YOUR BRAINS. Of course, then you'd probably shoot me, hide behind a law that says you can kill someone if you felt threatened and had no obligation to flee. Ah, what irony that would be.
Crazy world.
I had an interesting chemistry lab today. I'll spare you my regaling tales of heat transfer formulas, and my styrofoam calorimeter. No, this is about the problems in a chemistry lab. In other words, other people.
The instructions exist for a reason. People smarter than you wrote them. You should follow them. In fact, that's expressly stated in the contract you signed in order to be able to use the lab. If you have an idea to make the procedure 'better', then you need to talk to the professor (who has advanced degrees in this area) and see what he thinks of the idea. Then if approved, you can use your 'better' procedure. 99 times out of 100, instead he'll explain why that's not a good idea. One reason we do these experiments is to demonstrate (or prove) why these formulas work. They're not innovative experiments, we're replicating experiments done many many many times. We're also learning how to work in a lab, how to use various equipment properly and safely, and how to follow specific instructions.
So when you're told to estimate 15-20 grams of ice, there is a reason* for this. In fact, it was stated in the procedure review before the experiments started that if you are for some reason unable to make a visual estimation, that you could measure it in mL, and convert that to grams. He even did the work for you telling you how many mL of ice you'd want.
But nooo someone decided that wasn't good enough and took ice into the balance room multiple times. Perhaps you thought it was a suggestion only when you were told to treat these highly calibrated balances which cost an obscene amount of money like a human infant. You slammed the doors, and plopped in ice. You even defended it when I decided to comment on why it was unnecessary and a bad idea. I was too busy to follow up on it, and dislike tattling. Perhaps I should have though, since you ultimately screwed up the equipment for others. Perhaps you missed the days where you were told to never ever ever ever ever take any substance, even water, into the balance room if it was not sealed in a container, unless specifically directed otherwise. Instead you measured out your exact ice...while fubaring multiple balances in the process. Did you think he was talking about someone else when he came in and screamed about water on the balances THREE TIMES?
I shudder in anticipation of working with any substance more dangerous than heated water, since people fast walk their chemicals from their lab to the balance room, barrelling around corners. Fortunately people were only splashed with water. Let's not break the record of not having to use the emergency shower, eh?
And it's a bad idea to modify your equipment. It's an especially bad idea to modify equipment that you're heating with a high flame bunsen burner with a paper towel. The ice woman did this, then left it unattended. I believe the term "fire trap" applies. You are not MacGyver.
The sound of profanity followed by the sound of shattering glass indicates the results of another lab observation. Amazingly, hot glass has the same appearance as cool glass! When you fail to have a barrier between yourself and heated glass, then an automatic response occurs prior to you consciously feeling the heat, you drop (or in some cases fling) the glass. Which produces the shattering effect, along with a stream of profanity.
The woman in the lab station across from me (we work facing each other over a barrier) got her lab paperwork soaked when she spilled a sample (again, fortunately we were working primarily with water today, and one mystery solid which was a metal) all over it. As she dried out the paperwork she remarked in frustration that this was a bad lab day.
As I popped off my goggles for a second (to allow them to unsteam, the most annoying part of my labs is that my safety goggles fog up because we have to use sealed OSHA goggles), I pointed at the emergency shower, and told her, "A bad day in the lab, is when you're in there".
It's all about perspective.
*The reasons for the estimation are two-fold. First, you'll recover the exact amount when you weigh the final sample. You simply take the original amount (Water + container) and subtract that from the final amount (water + ice added + container) and ...TAH DAH...you have the amount of ice used. It didn't have to be exact just roughly in that range so you had enough of a sample to measure the heat transfer sufficiently without overflow. Second, adding too much or too little didn't matter as long as it was close. If it wasn't then when you weighed the final, you saw how much you were off...and could then make a new and better visual estimate. So you were able to learn how to estimate, because you won't always have the ability to measure beforehand. Redoing that portion was time figured in for the lab. Questioning it, that's good. You'd learn. Not being able to follow even those basic instructions on a safe experiment only demonstrates that you're dangerous in the lab. There's a time for innovation, and it's not on these experiments.
My first day of physics lecture, the professor keyed up a video for us to watch. About half the class knew instantly what it was. It was Mythbusters. (The penny off the Empire State building myth). He showed it to us to illustrate multiple points. One being the scientific method, which many textbooks "list" as a series of specific steps ranging from 4-8 depending on the text. It's a little bit looser than that, but also very specific. In that one must come up with a question that's testable, then come up with ways that it's testable which answers the question. And the tests may not directly answer the primary question first, there may be smaller questions you need to know the answer to (such as 'what is the terminal velocity of a penny') before you can tackle the main question ('will a penny tossed off the Empire State Building actually kill someone, or even harm them'*).
I spoke with the instructor after class because I had one question and one comment/question I wanted to talk with him about. (Not relevant to this, but it was about instantaneous speed, and if that's useful as a piece of data on it's own or only in relation to other known data, and the debate during Aristotle's time and after about if you toss rope off a mast of a ship, will it land next to the mast, or at the back of the boat**? It's similar to a question I bugged (pun intended) my father about as a kid...why don't flies in cars go splat against the back window when they fly inside a car).
He had mentioned during the lecture how much he liked the Mythbusters, etc. and the science they were doing. I mentioned that I had seen something where Adam Savage had said (in essence) how much he admired scientists and people teaching science, and how cool that was.
The professor said (this is paraphrased based on my recollection) that he was surprised they admired teachers, since so many in his profession kill any interest in science. Mythbusters makes science fun and exciting, which...science *is* fun and exciting. Unfortunately all too often that interest gets beaten out of people by either teachers who make science seem unattainable, too difficult/hard, or simply completely uninteresting or boring. And that was something he personally was striving not to do in his job.
I thought about it for a bit. And as I told him after the lab earlier in the week, I'll probably bug him a lot. Just as I'll pester the hell out of my other instructors, because I love to question, because I want to learn. But here's what I thought about.
There's some truth to that, that some educators make subjects (not just science, and not just math, but these subjects are 'harder' or seen as 'harder' for more people) more difficult than they have to be. A good teacher makes a world of difference.
Also though is the fact that most people are lazy. I'm no exception. The amount of work you must do to get to the 'fun stuff' is considerable. In the Mythbusters episode to 'test' terminal velocity in a fun way, Adam jumps out of a plane and lets go of pennies. The pennies float past him, demonstrating that he is falling faster than the pennies. So we know the terminal velocity of the pennies is less than that of a man (and we know the terminal velocity of a person).
Fun way to test it, and not entirely necessary, you can do it 'cheaper' and easier. But probably not as fun. Yet, to get to that "fun" part...there was work. They just don't always show all the work. For every explosion for every moment of "WOW! How COOL was that?!" there are hours and hours of work. And years of experience before that getting to that point.
So it can't all be tossed back on 'bad teaching'. For my chemistry lab this week, we're doing a density experiment. It's not too sexy and exciting, but it's needed to build upon other stuff. We'll learn from both the observations we make (and if it holds with what we'd have guessed) and by learning HOW to do experiments by doing one that's extremely safe. In order to get to that point of a few minutes of observation and 'WOW, I didn't expect that!' I'll be doing hours of work. I have to write up a pre-lab report, stating specifically what I'll be doing, what the goals of the experiment are, what tools I'll be using, the purpose of the experiment, etc. This is as necessary as writing out a recipe before you cook a new dish. Even if it's extremely similar to one you've made a thousand times, or one that doesn't seem to have difficult steps...if you get to a point where you need cheese, and you don't have cheese because you didn't read the recipe and prepare...you're a bit screwed.
Then during, I'll be taking notes, writing down measurements and observations. After I have to clean everything up, then take those notes and my pre-lab report and write a post-lab report.Lots of work just to see what's going to float.
That's not just science though, that's life. The majority of us work 40 hours a week or more, hopefully doing something we don't find too intolerable (and if we're lucky...something we mostly enjoy) to make money to fuel gratification. Oh sure and to eat, and keep a roof over our heads, but most of us have 'stuff' far and beyond the basic necessities of survival.
And most people in life do this, every day.
Learning the mathematics necessary to get to the "cool stuff", learning the steps you've got to walk up to get to the REALLY "cool stuff" isn't easy. It might be easier for some than for others, but it requires discipline and hard work. The language of science is mathematics and that alone is enough to make many people run for the hills screaming (unfortunately).
So it's not just bad teachers, though as I said before, a good teacher makes a world of difference. I've never seen a person who didn't have some disability who was unable to learn mathematics. And those who had no defect or disability who hated it...have always had a bad teacher. I've yet to meet a person who hated mathematics who never had a lousy teacher in it. They've all had a 'bad teacher', and got lost along the way. And since it builds like a pyramid, if you lack foundation on the previous chapter, or level...you end up with a nasty pile o' bricks.
But most of us want the fun without the hard work. That's why shows like Mythbusters are popular. It's not just because it makes science fun, it's because people get to participate on an audience level, without having to deal with all the "boring" shit. The tedious work that goes into every experiment.Me? I've never been afraid of hard work. Though I am lazy. What compels me to move beyond my natural state of sloth is a desire, a need to know. I want to know why. I want to know how. And some of the answers can't be dumbed down to my level. And some that can, you know there's so much more to that answer, but you have to learn about these 5 other things first. And then the mistakes, the wrong conclusions...where else can you learn so much just by being wrong?
Young children have that burning desire, that need to know. I don't think it's as easy as passing it off as laziness. Or passing it off onto bad teachers, though it shares accountability. Somewhere along the way, for various reasons, many people simply became content with bad answers, non-answers, or circular answers. "Why is the sky blue?" is a tough question, and an even more difficult to understand answer...for an adult, let alone a child. So much easier to give a lie (because of the oceans!), or a non-answer (Don't ask so many damn questions!), or a circular answer (because God made it blue!).
I personally think that science needs that desire intact, or at least partially functional. It is only through the various sciences that we can hope to understand the nature of our world, and our universe. Small wonder that the philosophers sat around debating such matters, whether or not the rope would fall at the mast, or at the back of the boat. It's so much easier to sit around and debate it logically, than to get off one's arse and get on a boat. Climb that mast, and drop the rope and see what happens.
Easier, but not cooler. Because nothing replaces the 'wow' factor when you see that rope fall where it does. And then maybe you'll ask why it fell where it did. The answers lead to better questions.And really, what could be cooler than that?
*in case you had to know, the penny will not only not kill someone, it won't even break skin.
** if you really want to know, test it out. You don't even need a boat. Do it with a car (have someone else drive!), just drop the item in the car, as they were dropping the rope onto the boat, not into the ocean. You can even bring wind into it if you use a convertable.
I'm pretty sure everyone has seen Mel Gibson's crazy DUI photos by now. And heard his apology for how he acted while drunk. What's more interesting is what he's apologizing for. According to TMZ.com the incident report stated:
"F-----g Jews. The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world," Mee's report quotes him as saying.
"Are you a Jew?" Gibson asked the deputy, according to the report.
The actor also berated the deputy, threatening, "You motherf----r. I'm going to f--- you," according to Mee's report.
The actor also told the cop he "owns Malibu" and would spend all his money "to get even with me," Mee said in his report.
TMZ quoted a law enforcement source as saying Gibson noticed a female sergeant on the scene and yelled at her, "What do you think you're looking at, sugar t--s?"
TMZ also alleges a coverup, stating that the incident report details were not included in the official report.
That information on an incident report would be included in the official report for everyone else. If they had a video camera going, you might even end up ultimately on one of a gazillion COPS knock-offs out there, where the entire world could laugh at your asshattery. Why should Mr. Gibson get "special treatment"?Sources say the sergeant on duty felt it was too "inflammatory." A lieutenant and captain then got involved and calls were made to Sheriff's headquarters. Sources say Mee was told Gibson's comments would incite a lot of "Jewish hatred," that the situation in Israel was "way too inflammatory." It was mentioned several times that Gibson, who wrote, directed, and produced 2004's "The Passion of the Christ," had incited "anti-Jewish sentiment" and "For a drunk driving arrest, is this really worth all that?"
Whether Mel Gibson secretly espouses these beliefs or not, well that's your call. While certainly people act more the fool when drunk, it doesn't magically create behavior. In other words if you call your best friend a whore while drunk, the magical whiskey fairies didn't fly out of the liquor bottle and whisper that thought into your ear. No, there's some basis for it, even if you'd never utter it sober. Which is why Plato noted what was probably an old proverb in his time, In vino veritas, or in wine is truth.
.
I have no great love for Mel Gibson personally. But if he does secretly hold these beliefs, and these opinions that's pretty horrible. But it's just as horrible for everyone else who does too. He just happens to be a more media centric bigot. It's not that I'm suggesting he deserves any leniency because of that, simply that there's level of such ugliness in an awful lot of people.
I'd be far more sympathetic to his apology if he had the courage to acknowledge that yes, he does harbor some bigotry, and it's wrong. And that he's doing his best to root that out. To acknowledge the behavior, recognize those beliefs are wrong, and to make efforts to rectify it. I doubt it will happen, but I'd actually have some respect if it did. And there are a few who do take that step.
Unfortunately it seems more commonplace when someone makes such a comment, whether this or a racial slur, their apology tends to seem like it's more "I'm sorry I was caught" and a belief that the 'wrong' was offending the politically correct. Not actual attrition for holding and acting upon bigoted beliefs, which are simply completely wrong.
PBS posted this letter informing parents that the host of "The Good Night Show" had been fired.
So what was this heinous "independent short film" she appeared in seven years ago which necessitated her termination? It was a parody on "Safe Sex" education PSAs, titled "Technical Virgin". It spoofs abstinence only ads by promoting anal intercourse as a way to maintain virginity. Oh, the horror!Late last week, Melanie Martinez, host of The Good Night Show, alerted us to the internet posting of an independent short film that she appeared in seven years ago. PBS KIDS Sprout has determined that the dialogue in this video is inappropriate for her role as a preschool program host and may undermine her character’s credibility with our audience. As a result, PBS KIDS Sprout has decided that she will no longer appear as host of The Good Night Show. Melanie has been an important part of our network and we are disappointed that we had to make this difficult decision.
The 30 second spot contains the following:
Opens to a young woman standing on the steps of what appears to be a college building. She has a backpack slung over one shoulder.
"I've got big plans for my future, a good college, a career, maybe even my own business someday. But one thing I'm not planning on, is getting pregnant. That's why I choose anal sex. I mean, sure, it hurts a little and I wind up walking funny for a day or two, but I think my future's worth it."
Young woman walks away and voice over and text appears on screen: ANAL SEX The Smart Choice For Your Future
And the URL: www.technicalvirgin.com appears at the bottom of the screen.
That's it. That's what this woman was fired over. First, the "Safe Sex" education PSAs should be spoofed. Telling teenagers to "just say no" to sex hasn't worked since the dawn of humanity. And given the risks of unprotected sex, not just pregnancy, but STDs, abstinence only campaigns aren't just useless, they're harmful. But that's another rant.
I did not find this video offensive at all. But let's pretend it's universally offensive. Not in a racist sort of way, where someone who says such things should be a social pariah. But in a foul language, profane, rated R sort of way. Perhaps even in a pornographic sort of way. Let's pretend the 'average person' would find it offensive in that type of way.
So what?
She made this video seven years ago. PBS feels that because she made this "inappropriate" video, she can't be a host to pre-school children in her show. But how would pre-school children ever know she made the video? If the video is inappropriate for pre-school children (and I think we can all agree that yes, it would be) how would they ever have access to it?
They wouldn't. So really PBS is terminating her to appease the potential backlash from parents.
And to those parents who are offended...do you own Disney's Aladdin, or any of the direct to video sequels? Robin Williams (one of the funniest men alive) has a central role in that film. I think we can safely say he made that film, because he's so good in it. Robin Williams was also a drug addict, and his comedy act is far more "offensive" (in the same line of 'offensiveness' that we're talking about here) than that parody PSA. Are you going to toss out your Aladdin video? Boycott Disney movies from now on? Though if you really want to get mad at Disney take issue with the abomination that was Pocahantas. (Speaking of which a central actor there, Mel Gibson, was just arrested for a DUI. Yep, there's another one!)
The host, Melanie Martinez, should have never been fired for this. Her ability to be a good host for the show has nothing to do with a spoof PSA she did over seven years ago. I'm a huge fan of PBS, but they really blew it this time.
Shaking our heads and clucking our tongues over this isn't enough. If you're reading this, you may keep a blog. While we all expect to have accountability for the things we say and do, think about jokes you've told, stories you've shared, profanity you've used. Can you imagine an employer firing you seven years down the road because you participated in an offensive meme titled 'Which Thundercat would you bang?'
It's just as ridiculous. And it's wrong. If you happen to share my opinion on this, then let's do something about it. Take the time to write to PBS and let them know how you feel about this.
You can contact them by mail, phone or e-mail at:
PBS KIDS Sprout
PO Box 59269
Philadelphia, PA 19102-9997
215.320.5891
info@sproutletsgrow.com
And if you're not too good at composing letters, feel free to steal this one.
RE: The Good Night Show, firing of Melanie Martinez
To Whom It May Concern:
I am taking the time to write in protest of the firing of Melanie Martinez for a PSA spoof she participated in over seven years ago. Her participation in this spoof in no way compromises her ability as a television show host for pre-school aged children. Her termination was unfair, and uncalled for.
What kind of example is PBS setting for children when they unfairly terminate a woman for work that she did, and brought to her employers attention, seven years ago? How do you explain honesty to a preschool child when you explain that despite her honesty, and her good work, she was fired anyway. How do you explain the concept of forgiveness to a child when the host is honest, and does good work, and is punished by losing her job anyway? How do you explain to a child that it doesn't matter who you are today, and what you do today, you will be judged and punished on things in the distant past, even if it has no bearing on the issue at hand?
There are many lessons we teach our children. And some of the most important lessons are honesty, doing a good job, recognition, and loyalty. There was an extremely good opportunity there for parents to teach those lessons, without going into detail about the "Technical Virginity" content. It could have been simply said that she participated in a video in the past, which some people might find offensive, but as it was in the distant past, it had no bearing on her job today.
I have a great deal of respect for PBS, and it's commitment to education through television. I strongly urge PBS to reconsider its decision to unfairly terminate Melanie Martinez, and to reinstate her as host of "The Good Night Show". It would be much better to teach our children that sometimes people make mistakes, and we can make them right, than to have to explain to them that sometimes networks we trust and respect make really unfair and bad decisions. And because of that, they have to say good night forever to a woman they've grown to love.
Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
YOUR NAME HERE
And if you have kids, here's a good opportunity to teach them a valuable lesson: Life isn't fair. But when it's not fair, people can stand up and say something about it, and try to make a difference.
8/1/2006 Reponse from Sprout Network:
Please rest assured that we have read your email and appreciate you taking the time and effort to share your concerns with us. We understand that you are disappointed with the recent changes to The Good Night Show, and we too are saddened that we had to make this difficult decision. While we recognize that change is difficult for young children, we are committed to finding a new host for The Good Night Show who will build a strong and sustainable connection to our Sprout children and families.
You can read the entire issue here on Kevin Smith's site. Joel Siegel walked out of the screening of Clerks II. Which in and of itself wouldn't have been too much of a problem. But as he walked out he yelled, "Time to go!" and continued his diatribe down the aisle saying this was the first time in "thirty fucking years" he had walked out of a film.
He apparently left at the 40 minute mark during a line of dialogue (apparently not the only one) about sex between a woman and a donkey. I could better understand it if he had been offended at the mention of a Dirty Sanchez, given his tragic choice of facial hair.
Kevin Smith confronted him on the Opie and Anthony Show (listen here). Joel Siegel apologizes (well, sort of). He apologizes, then says he simply the next time he walks out on a movie he'll do it quietly. It's unclear ultimately what (if anything) he's apologizing for. Then he's apparently shocked he's been talking to Kevin Smith for about 7 minutes. Joel then disavows his puns, claiming he's never heard them before (and he's apparently unaware he has a website).
It shifts from funny to sad when you realize that perhaps it's not a joke, that maybe he's slipping...in a 'off to the home with you Grandpa' sort of way.
It ultimately comes down to this, critics are paid to review movies. You and I should be so fortunate, I mean seriously can you imagine a better job? Okay maybe restaurant reviewer because then you're getting paid to eat, but even that's a bit risky. You've got to deal with the bad food places for the next 12-24 hours. I'd make sure Imodium was covered in the contract. I'm just saying.
I've walked out of one movie (Cool World, if you're interested) but I did so in a non-disruptive manner, and I had also paid for the ride. The fact that I had paid for the movie would have more entitled me to a hissy fit outside the theater with the high school aged manager demanding compensation for the hour and a half of life I'd lost. I didn't even bother with that though. If you're getting paid to watch a movie for free, the least you can do is (your job!) sit and watch it. Or if it somehow is so offensive to you, grit your teeth and stick it out until the end, so you can write a fantastic piece on it. Snarky movie reviews are the best. I mean, it's nice to see good film reviews, but I really love it when they don't like the movie and snarkily trash it. Roger Ebert is a god at this.
And just a closing note, Joel Siegel had nothing but praise for Clerks, telling Kevin Smith on that audio clip it was "one of the most important movies of our time". That alone should buy the benefit of the doubt to sit in your damned seat quietly until the film ends. Then perhaps he might have seen why the audience at Cannes gave it an eight minute standing ovation. But even if he had still thought it had sucked, it would have been at least an honest opinion based upon the merit of the entire work.
If anyone wants to pay me to sit on my ass and watch movies and tell you what I think about them, you can call my agent*. I promise I can sit quietly through the entire film, and come up with wittier phrases than "Pirates 2...rated 'arggggh'".
*and by agent I mean me. And by paid I mean, I will work for food.
Blasphemy is often used to describe languages or acts against god(s). But it's also used in terms of things that are sacred. I find people to be pretty important, which is why I can only term this statement an utter blasphemy.
[Source: New York Times] Georgia Republican Representitive Phil Gingrey stated in regards to the House effort to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage (part of their "values" package that they hope will woo voters in upcoming elections) that support for traditional marriage*“is perhaps the best message we can give to the Middle East and all the trouble they’re having over there right now.”
To that there's a simple answer. Look at that picture and tell me what you think the 'best message' we can give to the Middle East right now might be. I'm betting it's not support for traditional marriage. And I bet those poor people who've lost their child don't give a damn about it either. And it's rephrensible that Dr. Gingrey could even make such an asinine statement.
But wait, there's more!
Representative Jack Kingston, Republican of Georgia, said the marriage issue was: “just as important and a top-tier issue as any of those [issues being specifically responded to: the war in Iraq, an expanding conflict in the Middle East, high gasoline prices and North Korean missile tests].”
Yes. This guy actually claimed that the issue of preventing homosexuals from legal marriages was as important an issue as the war in Iraq, an expanding conflict in the Middle East, high gasoline prices, and the North Korean missile tests. It beggars the imagination how such a thing could be uttered with a straight face, let alone by a House Representitive on the floor in defense of a Constitutional Amendment proposition, which has no hope of passing, but is purely a political ploy for upcoming elections.
The vote was 237 to 187. A two-thirds majority is needed. But the GOP insists it will press onward on this issue. After all, it's as important as the war in Iraq, expanding conflict in the Middle East, high gasoline prices, and the North Korean missile tests. Oh, and perhaps getting a few of these scumbags elected again.
Since this is a new blog for me, for anyone not familiar with me, or my writing, I'm a strong proponent of gay marriage. Which is probably obvious by now. I believe it to be a fundemental issue of human rights. I am a woman married to a man, and the so called sanctity of marriage is far more threatened by divorce rate than it would ever be by allowing people who want to be married, the ability to marry. I find it hypocritical that groups which claim to be about "family values" work so hard to prevent these families from legalization of their families. That they work so hard to prevent basic legal safeguards for the children of these families by preventing legalization of these unions. That they work so hard to prevent children who need a family, from getting that family if the parents are homosexual. No, apparently it's better to languish in foster care, than to have a stable home with loving parents, if those parents are gay.
I could go on, and on, but you get the general idea. However whether one is for or against gay marriage, this should seriously trouble you. First, this entire Amendment issue is nothing more than lights and mirrors. They're well aware it will not pass currently. What they're doing doesn't provide momentum to their issue either. They don't have the votes, plain and simple. So why the show? Because it's an election year folks, and gay marriage is a hot ticket at the voting booth. It's a way for the GOP to appeal to a specific segment of the population (one which normally votes Democrat, due to differences in fiscal policies). The GOP will never win over middle America with it's fiscal policies. And most people care most about issues which directly affect them. And money issues affect all of us tremendously.
If you can't win there, the smartest thing is to make it a non-issue.
There's no big issue on the changes to bankrupcy laws, even though these changes protect big business, and hurt the average citizen far more than they curtail abusers of bankrupcy. Changes to credit card monthly payments (the min. changed from 2% to 4% per month, so that consumers could ostensibly pay off large balances) doesn't help the consumer manage debt each month. If you're carrying credit card debt and your budget is tight having your payment double can be quite painful. But that's okay, we all have home equity, right? Well...some do. Home prices are sky high, and if you bought at the right time, you have a lot of equity. But many people took advantage of this windfall to do home improvement, send the kids off to college, or trade up for a bigger and better home. And if you didn't buy at the right time, odds are you're probably house poor. And rents have increased in many areas as a result of high home pricing. And of course most predict home prices won't stay high, but whether it will pop, or slowly deflate, or continue to rise no one knows for sure.
Stock investments? Gee, I'm sorry. You've probably taken a nasty beating there. Gas price increases? Not only is your daily commute if you drive costing about twice as much, but other prices have increased as well to offset their transportation costs. And airfare to some places is downright scary. A friend of mine was going to come visit me from Washington, until she saw the airfare would cost in excess of $400.
These are the issues facing middle America. And that doesn't even include the many families who have loved ones in the military service, or the reserves or the National Guard. And as far as claiming the troops support the Bush Administration and the war in Iraq, well the troops aren't exactly allowed to speak freely in public. It's a bit like being asked if you like your job, while your boss and higher management stands there watching. But the claim is, most support it. My claim is, every person I've talked to supports this country tremendously. Patriots all. And all of them have serious concerns about the war in Iraq, and the Bush Adminstration. That doesn't speak to support or non-support...nor should it. Simply that these are not brainless automations marching everforward. These are good men and women who have legitimate concerns about the job they're being asked to do. And we couldn't even equip them well enough to do it.
Gay marriage shouldn't even be on the radar for most of America. It simply doesn't affect most of America. Come up with one negative affect (beyond "well, I don't like it!" or lies) if gay marriage is permitted. Just one.
Yeah, I can't come up with one either. So why do these people care? The card that's played is religion. Specifically, Christianity (though various Jewish and Islamic sects are also against homosexuality). It's ironic that a religion based on a man who taught tolerance and not judging others, is doing just that. Not only that, but the New Testament doesn't say anything about it (unless you sneak over to Paul, who never even met Jesus Christ). What does Jesus have to say about homosexuality? Nothing. Nope, for biblical support you have to go to sections of the Old Testament that also cover strict dietary laws that Christians don't follow.
For the sake of discussion though, let's pretend none of that matters. Because I don't want to argue religious points since that's not my main point here. Let's pretend that Jesus actually did say that homosexuality was wrong, and that gay marriage should never ever be allowed under any circumstances (though in reality he didn't).
So?
We don't make laws in the United States based on religious beliefs or teachings. The entire point in religion isn't to have public mandates that force you to live within a specific structure, but rather for you to take the teachings you believe in and attempt to live your life the best way you can. In accordance with whatever you believe. Our laws in this country are designed primarily for the smooth functioning of society. We don't want people running around killing each other. There's a law because it protects the group. We also believe in protecting the individual too though. Which is why people can say really offensive things (even on the House floor...) and it's protected by freedom of speech. Because the majority of the group doesn't like it, doesn't mean that the individual shouldn't have protections.
Oh, and there's this little thing called adultery. Perhaps you've heard of it. Specifically prohibited in the Ten Commandments. As in, "thou shalt not". Yet, adultery isn't illegal (unless you're in the military, or in a state like Pennsylvania with blue laws still on the books, though when used they're tossed out). Though many people might argue that paying spousal support and losing half your stuff is certainly a punishment.
Why do religious people care about gay marriage? Some (I think most) are being conned into believing it will affect them. I've heard people propose that churches will be "forced" to perform gay marriages. Not only a lie, but a stupid one. I can't walk into your church and demand that they marry me. I have no legal right which says that a church I don't belong to, who's beliefs I don't share must marry me. In fact, I can even belong, and even share the beliefs, and the church could still refuse me. It's completely up to them, and whatever rules or guidelines they want to set. Some churches will perform gay marriages, but it will be their choice.
And then there's really nothing else. Homosexual relationships will exist whether you like them or not (or don't care either way). And you're not required to like them. You can even believe that they're sinful and wrong. I know people who cheat on their spouses, and I believe that's wrong. But my dislike of it, and my belief that it's wrong doesn't make it not exist. Nor does it make it something criminal. Nor should it be criminal. Being a jerk isn't against the law either, or we'd really have a prison population problem. Tolerance isn't about liking something. It isn't about agreeing with something. It's about tolerating a thing you may not like, and may not agree with because it is the right of the person to make their own choices. Even choices you believe are wrong.
So if it doesn't really affect people, why is it such a big issue? Well as I said before making things a non-issue is even better. But creating a new issue for people to latch on to...that's the best. This entire "issue" has been a bandwagon jumped on by GOP, with full support from some religious groups (mostly the right wing and fundementalist groups). And it wins votes they couldn't get otherwise. If they convince you this is a problem, and this is also your problem, and it's going to effect you...and they can do something about it (so vote for them!) that's a clear win, isn't it? Ignore the man behind the curtain, ignore that paycheck, ignore your rising credit card bills, ignore that it's cheaper to drive a carriage and buggy today than a car...no gay marriage is what's threatening America today.
Don't agree? No? Why do you hate freedom?
That's right, the patriot card also gets played. This is about the very foundations of our country didn't you know! Because nothing has changed since our country was founded, it was perfect from the start. (If you ignore slavery, rich white male landowners being the only voters, women having few rights, horrific working conditions for most people, indentured servants, poorhouses, child labor, debtors prisons, what we did to the Native Americans...repeatedly, and so much more this could be a book). Don't get me wrong, I love this country. But we weren't perfect from the start, and we're not perfect now. But that's one of the things to love about this country...we can change.
And we can make changes for the better. And in our history we've shamefully lagged behind other nations at times in making these changes. Slavery was illegal in many other nations, before it was finally abolished in the United States. And even then, we have a shameful history of oppression against people of color following that. One which is still getting better, and continues to get better. Or so I believe.
Gay marriage is another issue in which we are falling behind. It's legal in the U.K., Canada, and Spain to name a few countries. And here the fight isn't just against legalization, but for enacting laws to prevent legalization. How many states have DOMA now? And I believe that one day the people who fought against gay marriage will have to look their grandchildren in the eye and explain what it was all about. Much the same way that children today cannot comphrend the racism that existed in the past, and why so much import was attached to the color of one's skin, rather than the content of their character to paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King.
In the end, it is about freedom, equality, and most of all about love. And that is why it should be an important issue today.
*traditional marriage as defined by Republicans as being a Christian marriage between a man and a woman...under God, indivisible (oh, wait no...divorce is okay) with liberty for
all...err some.
I just canceled an AOL account today. My older relatives are now no longer using the computer (one at all, the other very infrequently) so I was able to cancel it. They could never remember any e-mail address other than my AOL one, which was the sole reason I kept it.
I called. I had to provide the last 4 digits of the credit card used for billing. Fortunately I had it handy, but you can imagine where that would have been a pain in the ass if you didn't. I know from previous dealings with them, they really don't allow other methods of identification.
Then the woman asked why I was canceling. I told her I don't use the service anymore.
She asked if I was giving up computers. I said no.
She asked how I was going to connect to the internet then. I was going to say smoke signals, but she didn't strike me as bright enough to get it. Plus I was getting annoyed and it would have come out rudely not amusingly. I told her I have DSL.
She asked who our DSL carrier was. Now, during this process I told her I just wanted to cancel it, and that's it. But that started down another road of bullshit so this one ended up being ...well easier. So I resumed answering their crap.
I told her who my carrier was. She told me AOL could provide 'better' service (untrue), for less money (also untrue). She also made some claims about how 'good' AOL is, which I found laughable since their interface was designed by retarded monkeys on crack.
I explained I didn't wish to switch. She again begged I reconsider by regaling me with the Wonders of AOL, in the most bored monotone she could muster. I resisted this saavy sales pitch by saying no.
She then asked if she could read me some information while she canceled my account. I told her I would prefer if she did not. She appeared not to have heard me, because I had to tell her NO rather loudly.
Then my account was canceled in apparently 3 keystrokes and I was told I had to stay on the line to listen to a recording about canceling in order for the cancellation to be complete.
The recording then informed me that AOL really really really really really wanted to keep me as a captive...customer.
And that in case I regretted my foolish decision, they would keep my
screennames available for a month. And I could reactivate simply by
signing into AOL and pressing [OKAY] to their billing agreement.
I've had an easier time ending long term relationships.