Maybe I'm playing in shark-infested waters a bit here, but I've got a complaint about the company I work for, Target. I want to stress, though, that I am not displeased with the store that I work at or the people I work with. That stuff is fine. It's not fine, however, that the top executives of Target Corp. decided that it's okay to donate a bunch of money to a far-right and severely anti-gay-rights candidate for political office in Minnesota. Now, as big corporations go, Target has a reputation of being fairly benign and moderately progressive, certainly when compared to a company like Wal-Mart. This is a pretty significant misstep, though. I'm not suggesting that Target made this campaign contribution in an effort to anger the gay community and their supporters; I don't know whether or not that factored into the decision. I am sure that it was at least primarily a business decision, since Republican candidates like to do things like give huge tax breaks to billion-dollar corporations.
A lot of people are protesting Target, to the point that there is a boycott in effect against the company. I would suggest that this is misdirected anger. Whether I agree with the company's decision or not is not the point. This is nothing new, big companies have been donating money to political candidates for as long as there have been political candidates, and often those candidates have been much more controversial than this one. Target, and any other company that does so, is merely operating within the confines of the law, since the Supreme Court ruled that corporations can more or less pour as much money into a campaign as they want. That, my friends, is what we should be protesting. Political alignments aside, a corporation is not a person, and should not be allowed to act as one. This is further evidence that the United States is not a government by the people, for the people. Rather, it is by the money, for the money.
Everyone is all up-in-arms about Target's choice of candidates to support, and I think they should have opted for one who is not attempting to deny the rights of a huge group of Americans. What seems to be eluding everyone, however, is that this shouldn't even be an issue, because corporations shouldn't be allowed to act as individual people. We should be protesting the Supreme Court for their flawed decision.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Someone Else's Problem
Let me present you with a scenario, dear friends. Have you ever let a friend or family member borrow something of yours? Maybe it's something small, a book or a DVD or a t-shirt, or maybe it's something big, like your car. It's someone you like and trust with your stuff, obviously, or you wouldn't let them borrow it in the first place, but they manage to betray your trust anyway. Your book is returned with crayon drawings all over it, your DVD is scratched, your t-shirt has a big ketchup stain on it, or your car looks like it might have turned into a Transformer and been blown up several times. Did your friend or relative offer to fix or replace the item that became damaged while in their possession? Oh, they did? That's awesome, they have a sense of accountability!
Or how about this one: you're over at a friend's house, and the two of you are playing video games. You're getting your ass kicked, and your temper gets the best of you. You throw the controller at the TV, but your aim is terrible and it goes into the fish tank instead. The controller is all waterlogged and will never work properly again. What do you do? Do you just leave without saying a word, leaving your friend with one fewer working controller than they previously had? Wait, what? That's exactly what you would do? Holy shit, stop reading this blog right now and go drink some bleach!
If you're a friend of mine, though (and if you're reading this blog, you probably are), then you probably aren't that terrible. Good for you. Some people, however, have not learned that there are proper ways to act in society, and those are the sorts of people who will break something that belongs to you and then won't take responsibility for what they did. Surely someone or something else is to blame! And even if it is my fault, why should I have suffer the consequences? That's the kind of thinking that too damn many people seem to have now, and I'll tell you exactly why: nobody is willing to tell someone when they're behaving like a jackass, and being stupid doesn't hurt like it should, so these folks just plain don't know that actions are supposed to have consequences!
Apparently it's not okay for parents to punish their children anymore, because it's not politically correct or some bullshit, and now we are seeing the results of that course of non-action: children who have never been made to clean up their mess, because they see that once they make the mess, nothing will happen to them, and someone else will clean it up for them. And then we all wonder why so many people are turning out to be massive dickbags. If there was a direct correlation between acting like an idiot/asshole and being dead, well, there would be corpses lining the streets.
Or how about this one: you're over at a friend's house, and the two of you are playing video games. You're getting your ass kicked, and your temper gets the best of you. You throw the controller at the TV, but your aim is terrible and it goes into the fish tank instead. The controller is all waterlogged and will never work properly again. What do you do? Do you just leave without saying a word, leaving your friend with one fewer working controller than they previously had? Wait, what? That's exactly what you would do? Holy shit, stop reading this blog right now and go drink some bleach!
If you're a friend of mine, though (and if you're reading this blog, you probably are), then you probably aren't that terrible. Good for you. Some people, however, have not learned that there are proper ways to act in society, and those are the sorts of people who will break something that belongs to you and then won't take responsibility for what they did. Surely someone or something else is to blame! And even if it is my fault, why should I have suffer the consequences? That's the kind of thinking that too damn many people seem to have now, and I'll tell you exactly why: nobody is willing to tell someone when they're behaving like a jackass, and being stupid doesn't hurt like it should, so these folks just plain don't know that actions are supposed to have consequences!
Apparently it's not okay for parents to punish their children anymore, because it's not politically correct or some bullshit, and now we are seeing the results of that course of non-action: children who have never been made to clean up their mess, because they see that once they make the mess, nothing will happen to them, and someone else will clean it up for them. And then we all wonder why so many people are turning out to be massive dickbags. If there was a direct correlation between acting like an idiot/asshole and being dead, well, there would be corpses lining the streets.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
The Real Tragedy
We've been having an issue with our internet connectivity recently, so apologies for my absence of however long I've been gone from here. Lucky for you, I'm back now! And I'm here to talk about this Mosque at Ground Zero business, so I'm jumping right into that.
Basically, it's a lot of bullshit. Well, you know, just like every other goddamn thing. I'm not talking about building a mosque (it's actually an Islamic cultural center, which happens to include a mosque), and I'm not even talking about building a mosque at or near Ground Zero, or opening it on 11 September. None of those things alone is bullshit. However, combining all of them into one big fucking event, well, that is a considerable amount of bullshit. Frankly, I don't care if it pisses people off that they're doing it; the only reason it bothers me is because that's the WHOLE GODDAMN REASON THEY'RE DOING IT. I mean, you're just asking for a shitstorm if you're going to be either insensitive or unaware enough to open a mosque anywhere in the vicinity of Ground Zero on 11 September. I don't particularly direct attacks at Muslims more than anybody of any other faith, but this is just stupid. You don't go and plan something like that and not realize that people are going to get pissed, so you must be doing it intentionally. And it's so easy, because then you can just say, hey, this is America, freedom of religion and all that, and if you're opposed to this, you're a racist or a bigot or whatever and you're trying to take away our rights. By doing this, you are just looking to start a fight, and you fucking know it.
By the same token, there's nothing illegal or even particularly immoral about it, so we need to not be making an issue of that. Maybe it is legitimately insensitive to some people, almost certainly the decision to put that thing where you want to put it and open it on that particular day is in poor taste, so if you want to say that, then fine. I'll support that. As usual, my real complaint is just that people are acting like idiots on both sides of this issue. It would have been the smart and decent thing to at least open the damn thing a day later or whatever, but they didn't do that. The folks opposed to this thing could've just shrugged and figured, whatever, it ultimately doesn't affect me, I'll let it go, but they're not, because some people just have to make it a point to be offended by something or other on a regular basis. Are you people just bored or something? Go find something constructive to do, like poking a hornet's nest. I hope someone flies a plane into the side of your fucking head, and I'll have the good sense to not put up a library or a university or a museum at the site of the horrible wrong done against your stupidity.
Basically, it's a lot of bullshit. Well, you know, just like every other goddamn thing. I'm not talking about building a mosque (it's actually an Islamic cultural center, which happens to include a mosque), and I'm not even talking about building a mosque at or near Ground Zero, or opening it on 11 September. None of those things alone is bullshit. However, combining all of them into one big fucking event, well, that is a considerable amount of bullshit. Frankly, I don't care if it pisses people off that they're doing it; the only reason it bothers me is because that's the WHOLE GODDAMN REASON THEY'RE DOING IT. I mean, you're just asking for a shitstorm if you're going to be either insensitive or unaware enough to open a mosque anywhere in the vicinity of Ground Zero on 11 September. I don't particularly direct attacks at Muslims more than anybody of any other faith, but this is just stupid. You don't go and plan something like that and not realize that people are going to get pissed, so you must be doing it intentionally. And it's so easy, because then you can just say, hey, this is America, freedom of religion and all that, and if you're opposed to this, you're a racist or a bigot or whatever and you're trying to take away our rights. By doing this, you are just looking to start a fight, and you fucking know it.
By the same token, there's nothing illegal or even particularly immoral about it, so we need to not be making an issue of that. Maybe it is legitimately insensitive to some people, almost certainly the decision to put that thing where you want to put it and open it on that particular day is in poor taste, so if you want to say that, then fine. I'll support that. As usual, my real complaint is just that people are acting like idiots on both sides of this issue. It would have been the smart and decent thing to at least open the damn thing a day later or whatever, but they didn't do that. The folks opposed to this thing could've just shrugged and figured, whatever, it ultimately doesn't affect me, I'll let it go, but they're not, because some people just have to make it a point to be offended by something or other on a regular basis. Are you people just bored or something? Go find something constructive to do, like poking a hornet's nest. I hope someone flies a plane into the side of your fucking head, and I'll have the good sense to not put up a library or a university or a museum at the site of the horrible wrong done against your stupidity.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
You Got No Right
Just a brief rant here, because it's late-ish, but I want to get it out while I'm thinking about it. I know I occasionally talk about sports on here, and this pertains to sports, but it's kind of a common sense thing as well. One of the startling trends in the NFL recently is players holding out, refusing to report to training camp, preseason games and, occasionally, regular season games until their demands to have their contracts restructured are met. Their reasoning is that the team will have to pay them, because they are impact players, and the team will be substantially weaker without their services, and the pressure will mount on the team from the fans to just give the player whatever they want, so that the team will not suffer. The current big case of this involves New York Jets cornerback Darrelle Revis, a phenomenal player, perhaps the best in the league at his position. Revis' current contract is for three more years, and would pay him about a million dollars this season. He is believed to be asking for a contract in the neighborhood of ten years and $160 million.
Putting aside, for a moment, my personal belief that no athlete, professional or otherwise, should be paid $160 million or anything close to it, it can be easily argued that Revis ought to be among the most well-compensated players at his position. In an ideal world, each player would be paid in accordance with their contributions, and his are significant. In reality, though, a good player is paid essentially whatever he wants, because he will always be able to find a team that wants his services enough to give him what he wants. In this sort of system, the player has all of the leverage, because he plays to the fans, appeals to their desire to put the best possible team on the field, and it's easy for them to protest to the team to give him the money, because it's easy to spend money that's not yours. So if a player such as Darrelle Revis believes that he is not being adequately compensated, it is easy for him to say that he is going to hold out, that he will not play for the team until his demands are met. Of course, the team could always turn around and paint the player as greedy and ungrateful (they would be right), but that sours the relationship between the team and the player, and for whatever reason, the fans don't care, they just want that good player to be on their team!
You know what we call it at any other job if you decide you aren't being paid enough, so you're not going to show up until you get a raise? We call it, your ass is fired! We call it, breach of contract! That's not exactly right either, workers ought to be able to collectively bargain to improve their wages and/or working conditions, but your average worker is not complaining if he's making a million bucks a year (not that you ever see that). My real gripe here is not that players are demanding to be paid more money than you or I can even conceive of as a real number (though that is another disturbing trend itself). The real issue is that Darrelle Revis or whatever other player is holding out agreed to that original contract! If they are not happy with the contract, they should not have signed it in the first place. If they signed it anyway, they have no right to complain and should garner no sympathy from anybody. That player should damn well live with the contract he agreed to, be happy that he is still being paid so handsomely, and negotiate for more when that contract runs out.
You are not allowed to complain about a situation that you caused yourself to be in! That's the lesson for today, kids.
Putting aside, for a moment, my personal belief that no athlete, professional or otherwise, should be paid $160 million or anything close to it, it can be easily argued that Revis ought to be among the most well-compensated players at his position. In an ideal world, each player would be paid in accordance with their contributions, and his are significant. In reality, though, a good player is paid essentially whatever he wants, because he will always be able to find a team that wants his services enough to give him what he wants. In this sort of system, the player has all of the leverage, because he plays to the fans, appeals to their desire to put the best possible team on the field, and it's easy for them to protest to the team to give him the money, because it's easy to spend money that's not yours. So if a player such as Darrelle Revis believes that he is not being adequately compensated, it is easy for him to say that he is going to hold out, that he will not play for the team until his demands are met. Of course, the team could always turn around and paint the player as greedy and ungrateful (they would be right), but that sours the relationship between the team and the player, and for whatever reason, the fans don't care, they just want that good player to be on their team!
You know what we call it at any other job if you decide you aren't being paid enough, so you're not going to show up until you get a raise? We call it, your ass is fired! We call it, breach of contract! That's not exactly right either, workers ought to be able to collectively bargain to improve their wages and/or working conditions, but your average worker is not complaining if he's making a million bucks a year (not that you ever see that). My real gripe here is not that players are demanding to be paid more money than you or I can even conceive of as a real number (though that is another disturbing trend itself). The real issue is that Darrelle Revis or whatever other player is holding out agreed to that original contract! If they are not happy with the contract, they should not have signed it in the first place. If they signed it anyway, they have no right to complain and should garner no sympathy from anybody. That player should damn well live with the contract he agreed to, be happy that he is still being paid so handsomely, and negotiate for more when that contract runs out.
You are not allowed to complain about a situation that you caused yourself to be in! That's the lesson for today, kids.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
In Retrospect
It isn't new that some people out there are shouting about President Obama being un-American or anti-American, but it has become even more prevalent recently in light of the President's decision to place himself on the unpopular side of several issues. These include his backing of the U.S. Justice Department's decision to fight the Arizona immigration law, the health care bill, the stimulus package, and his ban on deepwater oil drilling.
My personal feelings about these issues aside, there are clearly deep flaws in the thinking that Mr. Obama's positions make him anti-American in any way. Most significantly, it should be noted that what is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular. The President's positions might not be popular today, but that doesn't mean that he is making the wrong decisions. So often, the long-term implications of the actions of a President are not seen until much, much later, even far beyond his term. It looked like a fine idea back in the 1980s for President Reagan to authorize the sale of weapons to places like Iran and Afghanistan, and to give military training to people like Osama bin Laden. That worked out real well for us, didn't it? Conversely, it didn't look too good to some folks back in the 1930s when President Franklin Roosevelt spent lots of government dollars to fund some public work programs that would allow people to be employed and earn an honest wage. It was more than a decade before the country started to see the positive effects of this course of action.
My point is, why are we so averse to giving Mr. Obama the benefit of the doubt here? I mean, he's a pretty smart dude, and he's got a lot of other smart people working with him. Maybe, just maybe, he knows what he's doing here. Maybe he's a little more qualified to be making these decisions than your average person. Maybe we should consider that he's more well-informed on these issues than the guy standing in line at Wal-Mart, struggling with the complex tasks of paying for his microwave burritos while trying not to drool on himself. The President might be in the minority, but perhaps the minority has a better idea about what's good for the country than do the drooling masses. Again, I'm not saying positively that the President is right on all counts here. What I am saying is that we did elect this guy President of our country, maybe we should try to see what impact his decisions actually have before we do crazy things like calling him anti-American. I know that everyone and everything in our society today demands instant gratification, but the truth is, nothing gets fixed overnight. So often, we don't appreciate what our leaders accomplish until they are long gone, and then it's too late, our impatience has already bested us. So let us remember the lessons about what is popular and what is right, so that we do not make knee-jerks out of ourselves.
My personal feelings about these issues aside, there are clearly deep flaws in the thinking that Mr. Obama's positions make him anti-American in any way. Most significantly, it should be noted that what is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular. The President's positions might not be popular today, but that doesn't mean that he is making the wrong decisions. So often, the long-term implications of the actions of a President are not seen until much, much later, even far beyond his term. It looked like a fine idea back in the 1980s for President Reagan to authorize the sale of weapons to places like Iran and Afghanistan, and to give military training to people like Osama bin Laden. That worked out real well for us, didn't it? Conversely, it didn't look too good to some folks back in the 1930s when President Franklin Roosevelt spent lots of government dollars to fund some public work programs that would allow people to be employed and earn an honest wage. It was more than a decade before the country started to see the positive effects of this course of action.
My point is, why are we so averse to giving Mr. Obama the benefit of the doubt here? I mean, he's a pretty smart dude, and he's got a lot of other smart people working with him. Maybe, just maybe, he knows what he's doing here. Maybe he's a little more qualified to be making these decisions than your average person. Maybe we should consider that he's more well-informed on these issues than the guy standing in line at Wal-Mart, struggling with the complex tasks of paying for his microwave burritos while trying not to drool on himself. The President might be in the minority, but perhaps the minority has a better idea about what's good for the country than do the drooling masses. Again, I'm not saying positively that the President is right on all counts here. What I am saying is that we did elect this guy President of our country, maybe we should try to see what impact his decisions actually have before we do crazy things like calling him anti-American. I know that everyone and everything in our society today demands instant gratification, but the truth is, nothing gets fixed overnight. So often, we don't appreciate what our leaders accomplish until they are long gone, and then it's too late, our impatience has already bested us. So let us remember the lessons about what is popular and what is right, so that we do not make knee-jerks out of ourselves.
Monday, August 2, 2010
The Fuckin' Truth
I'd been scanning the headlines every day, looking for something that really ruffled my feathers, but it had been in vain until I ran across this story today, in regards to one Jennifer Keeton. Ms. Keeton is a student at Augusta State University in Georgia, and is seeking a graduate degree in counseling from the school. However, Ms. Keeton seems not to be interested in meeting the school's requirements to earn her degree. You see, both national standards and common sense hold that, to earn a degree in counseling, students have to recognize and accept differences among their future clients, including cultural diversity and points of view different from their own. Ms. Keeton, though, has the obvious roadblock of having a Bible-based bias, an allegation which she does not dispute. Among her beliefs are that homosexuals suffer from what she terms "identity confusion". Needless to say, this was a source of concern for the university, which required that she attend diversity training, among other things. She has thus far refused, choosing instead to enlist the help of the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal organization, to sue the university for, she claims, being forced to renounce her religion.
Legally, it's a tough one: freedom of religion versus the national standards we hold our counselors to. That's no little thing. We're talking about people who are supposed to do their best to help others who are struggling with any number of personal issues. Of course, not every person is the same, and as such, counseling sessions would be most effective when tailored to each person's particular needs. If you are a counselor and a patient or client is coming to you for help, they do not want or need to be preached at. If that was what they were looking for, they would go to a church or a synagogue or a mosque or whatever. Ms. Keeton isn't interested in any of that, though. She doesn't want to help people in the way that they need. She has said that she believes "the Bible's teaching is true for all people and it shows the right way to live." The program's associate director indicated that Ms. Keeton believes that she possesses a special knowledge about the way that other people should live their lives, and that others should conform their values to hers.
It appears to me that the issue at hand is not Ms. Keeton's beliefs, but her insistence that they are the only valid ones, which is in direct conflict with the standards of the American School Counselor Association. To be perfectly blunt about it, this woman is in the wrong place for what she wants to do. She wants the prestige of a graduate degree, but is clearly unwilling to meet the requirements. If she wants to offer Bible-based counseling, then she needs to attend a school which limits itself to such teachings, and find a job at a similar place, where everyone will know that she isn't an actual counselor, but just another person who wants to tell people how they are supposed to be living their lives. As an aside, I would frankly be appalled to learn that a counselor I was entrusting myself to had failed so thoroughly to address her own issues.
This is a persistent problem that we have in this country, the inability to call a spade a spade. Ms. Keeton doesn't want to be a real counselor, she wants to be a Christian counselor who calls herself a real counselor. We want to say that the idiots among us have learning disabilities. They can't just be stupid. We somehow pass off those people on Jersey Shore as TV stars, but they're not. They're just an obnoxious orange douche circus. I could go on, but you get the point. We're addicted to euphemisms, and for some reason, we've become okay with that. Let's not be okay with that. It's intellectually dishonest, and it makes you look like a real big piece of equine posterior, and that's the fuckin' truth.
Legally, it's a tough one: freedom of religion versus the national standards we hold our counselors to. That's no little thing. We're talking about people who are supposed to do their best to help others who are struggling with any number of personal issues. Of course, not every person is the same, and as such, counseling sessions would be most effective when tailored to each person's particular needs. If you are a counselor and a patient or client is coming to you for help, they do not want or need to be preached at. If that was what they were looking for, they would go to a church or a synagogue or a mosque or whatever. Ms. Keeton isn't interested in any of that, though. She doesn't want to help people in the way that they need. She has said that she believes "the Bible's teaching is true for all people and it shows the right way to live." The program's associate director indicated that Ms. Keeton believes that she possesses a special knowledge about the way that other people should live their lives, and that others should conform their values to hers.
It appears to me that the issue at hand is not Ms. Keeton's beliefs, but her insistence that they are the only valid ones, which is in direct conflict with the standards of the American School Counselor Association. To be perfectly blunt about it, this woman is in the wrong place for what she wants to do. She wants the prestige of a graduate degree, but is clearly unwilling to meet the requirements. If she wants to offer Bible-based counseling, then she needs to attend a school which limits itself to such teachings, and find a job at a similar place, where everyone will know that she isn't an actual counselor, but just another person who wants to tell people how they are supposed to be living their lives. As an aside, I would frankly be appalled to learn that a counselor I was entrusting myself to had failed so thoroughly to address her own issues.
This is a persistent problem that we have in this country, the inability to call a spade a spade. Ms. Keeton doesn't want to be a real counselor, she wants to be a Christian counselor who calls herself a real counselor. We want to say that the idiots among us have learning disabilities. They can't just be stupid. We somehow pass off those people on Jersey Shore as TV stars, but they're not. They're just an obnoxious orange douche circus. I could go on, but you get the point. We're addicted to euphemisms, and for some reason, we've become okay with that. Let's not be okay with that. It's intellectually dishonest, and it makes you look like a real big piece of equine posterior, and that's the fuckin' truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)