I will never understand the thinking of people like Pastor Charles Worley of North Carolina, who thinks all homosexuals should be imprisoned inside an electrified fence. Although I don't lend credence to the claims of the Bible, I certainly have read it several times, and I remember the Jesus character within hanging out with those people considered sinner. I think it's ridiculous to consider behavior that comes naturally a "sin", but setting that aside: even if Christians think homosexuality is a choice, and a sinful one at that, what example of Jesus are they following by suggesting such a thing?
Setting the Bible aside (as I did finally at age 21, with doubts entering my mind much earlier), we live in a nation of laws. We have a Constitution that is supposed to provide equal protection under the law for all American citizens. What right does anyone have to take those rights away from any class of citizens? Thinking like Pastor Worley's is un-American.
I know people think comparing people to Hitler is extreme, but this sort of thinking is EXACTLY like Hitler's! Locking up people who you think are undesirable in order to get rid of them (as if no homosexuals will ever be born to heterosexual couples again) is exactly the sort of thing that results in the genocide that occurred under Hitler's regime.
It's amazing to me how much vitriol people like Worley have toward people who they think are "sinners". I'm sure he'd be on board with throwing atheists inside an electrified fence as well.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Monday, May 14, 2012
I bought a car from Enterprise
I work out of my home, so I haven't had much need for a vehicle--until recently. Moving involved so many errands, it made my standard practice of renting a car when I needed one impractical and expensive. I drove so infrequently, it wasn't worth the insurance to buy a new car. Also, there has been call recently for me to have a car on short notice, and that's not always easy. I plan on moving again in the near future, as well, and not having a car at will makes it difficult.
Nearly every vehicle I have rented in the past several years has been from Enterprise. Every experience I've had with them has involved excellent customer service. They got to know me by name relatively quickly, and they have always treated me like a VIP when I rented from them. Plus, they pick me up, which for me was incredibly important until recently, given that I had no transportation to their locations. When I decided I needed a vehicle of my own again, I mentioned it to them, and they referred me to Enterprise Car Sales.
At first, I had some apprehension regarding buying a vehicle from a place that rents cars. The thought crossed my mind that people don't take care of the cars when they rent them, but the evidence gathered from actually driving the cars Enterprise offers told me that my misgivings were unfounded. I never had problems with an Enterprise car. They were always in good shape. I've never had a dirty car, one with engine noise, a slipping transmission, or any other issue. The sales representative who called me, Robby Batayeh, called to follow up on the lead the people at the rental location give him, so I decided to call him back and go look at a vehicle.
Robby was friendly, courteous, and low-pressure. He and I talked about what I wanted in a vehicle, and he came up with a list of them that fit what I asked for--rather than what he wanted to sell me, which has been my past experience with several car dealerships. Robby ended up delivering my car to me. At the time, I had a van I rented from Enterprise. I had forgotten some of the stuff I was moving in the back of the van. Robby not only took the items out of the van, but he carried them downstairs for me, knowing I had a back problem. He did not have to do that for me, but the fact that he did makes him stand out in my mind as a person committed not only to outstanding customer service, but to a genuine empathy and friendly rapport with his customers.
If you are in the market for a car, I highly recommend Enterprise Car Sales. Let them know Greg Reich sent you. If you are in the metro Detroit area, look up the location on Grand River Avenue and ask for Robby. The rest of the people there were friendly, as well.
On a final note, I will miss renting cars as frequently as I did from the Enterprise office on 8 Mile near Lahser Road, because the people there were also wonderful, and really went out of their way for me on several occasions. If you need to rent a car, I recommend them as well. I wish I could remember all of their names, because they all deserve praise, but Dan and Blair took care of me several times.
Nearly every vehicle I have rented in the past several years has been from Enterprise. Every experience I've had with them has involved excellent customer service. They got to know me by name relatively quickly, and they have always treated me like a VIP when I rented from them. Plus, they pick me up, which for me was incredibly important until recently, given that I had no transportation to their locations. When I decided I needed a vehicle of my own again, I mentioned it to them, and they referred me to Enterprise Car Sales.
At first, I had some apprehension regarding buying a vehicle from a place that rents cars. The thought crossed my mind that people don't take care of the cars when they rent them, but the evidence gathered from actually driving the cars Enterprise offers told me that my misgivings were unfounded. I never had problems with an Enterprise car. They were always in good shape. I've never had a dirty car, one with engine noise, a slipping transmission, or any other issue. The sales representative who called me, Robby Batayeh, called to follow up on the lead the people at the rental location give him, so I decided to call him back and go look at a vehicle.
Robby was friendly, courteous, and low-pressure. He and I talked about what I wanted in a vehicle, and he came up with a list of them that fit what I asked for--rather than what he wanted to sell me, which has been my past experience with several car dealerships. Robby ended up delivering my car to me. At the time, I had a van I rented from Enterprise. I had forgotten some of the stuff I was moving in the back of the van. Robby not only took the items out of the van, but he carried them downstairs for me, knowing I had a back problem. He did not have to do that for me, but the fact that he did makes him stand out in my mind as a person committed not only to outstanding customer service, but to a genuine empathy and friendly rapport with his customers.
If you are in the market for a car, I highly recommend Enterprise Car Sales. Let them know Greg Reich sent you. If you are in the metro Detroit area, look up the location on Grand River Avenue and ask for Robby. The rest of the people there were friendly, as well.
On a final note, I will miss renting cars as frequently as I did from the Enterprise office on 8 Mile near Lahser Road, because the people there were also wonderful, and really went out of their way for me on several occasions. If you need to rent a car, I recommend them as well. I wish I could remember all of their names, because they all deserve praise, but Dan and Blair took care of me several times.
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Tired of politicians fighting against gay marriage
Politicians waste taxpayer time and money on so many things, but one of the more despicable things involves the legislation of discrimination. It seems like every year, on both the federal and state levels, Republicans sponsor legislation that bans gay marriage. Americans need jobs and adequate health care, but these politicians decide that keeping homosexuals from marrying each other takes priority over legislation that would actually benefit the people. They instead waste time on these bills that help no one, but do hurt millions of American citizens.
The latest iteration of this discriminatory legislation is the Defense of Marriage Act. "Defense"? The purpose of this act is not to preserve marriage between one man and one woman; it is to keep homosexuals from marrying each other, pure and simple. How does defining marriage as the legal bond between one man and one woman defend marriage? Does it prevent divorce? Does it increase the number of marriages between heterosexual couples? An act that prevented people with a lack of financial means, high debt, or low credit scores from getting married would do more to "defend" marriage than this act. Actually, let me rephrase that: legislation that took financial means into consideration would actually do something to preserve marriage, where an act to define marriage as a legal union between one man and woman does absolutely nothing to defend marriage.
Now, I am not advocating for a financial means test for marriage; all I'm saying is that if the goal is to defend marriage, preventing homosexuals from marrying each other doesn't do a damned thing to preserve the institution; it doesn't strengthen marriage or improve any couple's relationship in any way; it does nothing to address issues that cause marriages to fail. In other words, calling such a piece of legislation a "defense" of marriage is disingenuous at best, a bald-faced lie, at worst.
Americans need jobs right now. We need adequate and affordable health care. We have a crumbling infrastructure that needs more attention. We have out-of-control debt to other countries. We're still at war. While I do think it's possible to address several issues at once, I don't know what makes those advocating this Defense of Marriage Act think that it has any positive impact on this country whatsoever. And, since Republicans in Congress normally only support bills that benefit the wealthy, I can only figure that they want to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman so companies will not have to even consider providing benefits to same-sex couples.
There is, of course, one other reason certain politicians support a ban of gay marriage, and that reason comes from their religion. They believe homosexuality is not naturally-occurring--anyone who knows anything about the animal kingdom or studies of human sexuality knows better--but rather, they believe it's sinful behavior, and homosexuals are giving in to temptation. They believe it because an ancient book of myths tells them so. Of course, they cherry-pick what parts of this book of myths to believe; I can't remember the public stoning of a drunk in the public square lately, or the execution of adulterers, or any of the other punishments Leviticus lays out for things we would not even consider to be crimes today.
Whether it's the religious lobbyists or the corporate lobbyists influencing the actions of these politicians, it needs to stop. My representatives are against this act, but if yours are not, please let them know that they are wasting valuable time while discriminating against American citizens--that you would rather see them work on legislation that benefits all of us instead of acting to hurt tens of millions of our people.
The latest iteration of this discriminatory legislation is the Defense of Marriage Act. "Defense"? The purpose of this act is not to preserve marriage between one man and one woman; it is to keep homosexuals from marrying each other, pure and simple. How does defining marriage as the legal bond between one man and one woman defend marriage? Does it prevent divorce? Does it increase the number of marriages between heterosexual couples? An act that prevented people with a lack of financial means, high debt, or low credit scores from getting married would do more to "defend" marriage than this act. Actually, let me rephrase that: legislation that took financial means into consideration would actually do something to preserve marriage, where an act to define marriage as a legal union between one man and woman does absolutely nothing to defend marriage.
Now, I am not advocating for a financial means test for marriage; all I'm saying is that if the goal is to defend marriage, preventing homosexuals from marrying each other doesn't do a damned thing to preserve the institution; it doesn't strengthen marriage or improve any couple's relationship in any way; it does nothing to address issues that cause marriages to fail. In other words, calling such a piece of legislation a "defense" of marriage is disingenuous at best, a bald-faced lie, at worst.
Americans need jobs right now. We need adequate and affordable health care. We have a crumbling infrastructure that needs more attention. We have out-of-control debt to other countries. We're still at war. While I do think it's possible to address several issues at once, I don't know what makes those advocating this Defense of Marriage Act think that it has any positive impact on this country whatsoever. And, since Republicans in Congress normally only support bills that benefit the wealthy, I can only figure that they want to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman so companies will not have to even consider providing benefits to same-sex couples.
There is, of course, one other reason certain politicians support a ban of gay marriage, and that reason comes from their religion. They believe homosexuality is not naturally-occurring--anyone who knows anything about the animal kingdom or studies of human sexuality knows better--but rather, they believe it's sinful behavior, and homosexuals are giving in to temptation. They believe it because an ancient book of myths tells them so. Of course, they cherry-pick what parts of this book of myths to believe; I can't remember the public stoning of a drunk in the public square lately, or the execution of adulterers, or any of the other punishments Leviticus lays out for things we would not even consider to be crimes today.
Whether it's the religious lobbyists or the corporate lobbyists influencing the actions of these politicians, it needs to stop. My representatives are against this act, but if yours are not, please let them know that they are wasting valuable time while discriminating against American citizens--that you would rather see them work on legislation that benefits all of us instead of acting to hurt tens of millions of our people.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Weighing in on Travon Martin
I'm coming into this discussion late, but it's been bothering me that Trayvon Martin's killer is not only walking free, but also gaining supporters, at the very least about the notion that his crime was not racially-motivated.
I listened to the 911 call, and would like to parse it out.
Zimmerman: "We've had some break-ins in my neighborhood and there's a real suspicious guy. It's Retreat View Circle. The best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle."
It's relevant to the case whether or not this claim is true. Had Retreat View Circle seen a recent series of break-ins? According to CLRSearch, the area has over twice the national average risk of crimes such as larceny, burglary, motor vehicle theft, and assault. It's possible the claim of recent break-ins was true, but definitely should be verified.
Zimmerman: "This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around looking about."
I would become suspicious if the person I observed went around the back of a house, started trying to jimmy a car door, or actually took an action that merited suspicion. Walking in the rain and looking around isn't a crime and isn't suspicious. If, as has been suggested in the media, Trayvon Martin had his hood over his head, it seems a reasonable thing to do in the rain, and it seems like it would hide any indication that he was "on drugs". What, was he waving his hands in front of his face and laughing hysterically? At this point, I'm more suspiciouis of Zimmerman than anything else.
911: "Is he white, black, or Hispanic?"
Zimmerman: "He looks black."
911: "Did you see what he was wearing?"
Zimmerman: "Yeah, a dark hoodie, like a gray hoodie. He wore jeans or sweat pants and white tennis shoes. He's here now. He's just staring."
Ok, I'm sorry, but if "he's here now", how could Zimmerman not tell the difference between jeans and sweat pants? Seems Martin had to be at some distance for Zimmerman not to be able to tell.
911: "He's just walking around the area? The houses? Ok."
Zimmerman: "Now he's staring at me."
Is staring a crime? Maybe if he heard Zimmerman calling 911 on him, he was incredulous and was simply staring in amazement. It's doubtful, since it was raining and Zimmerman was in his vehicle--unless he leaves his windows down in the rain.
911: "Ok, you said that 1111 Retreat View or 111?"
Zimmerman: "That's the clubhouse."
911: "He's near the clubhouse now?"
Zimmerman: "Yeah, now he's coming toward me. He's got his hands in his waistband. And he's a black male."
So...Zimmerman was at the clubhouse? Maybe. Seems suspicious to me that if he thought this kid was on drugs and had something in his waistband, that he wouldn't move on and find safety while he waiting for police.
911: "How old would you say he is?"
Zimmerman: "He's got something on his shirt. About like his late teens."
911: "Late teens?"
Zimmerman: "Uh huh. Something's wrong with him. Yep, he's coming to check me out. He's got something in his hands. I don't know what his deal is."
According to reports, Trayvon Martin had a bag of Skittles and a bottle of iced tea on him.
If I'm a teenager walking alone, I'd be a bit suspicious of some adult male sitting alone, parked, staring at me, talking into his phone. Just sayin'.
911: "Let me know if he does anything, ok?"
Zimmerman: "Ok."
911: "We've got him on the wire. Just let me know if this guy does anything else."
Zimmerman: "Ok. These assholes, they always get away. When you come to the clubhouse, you come straight in and you go left. Actually, you would go past the clubhouse."
It is relevant to point out here that so far, Trayvon Martin hadn't done anything but walk, look around, and allegedly approach Zimmerman to check him out. He hadn't said anything threatening to Zimmerman, he hadn't tried to break into a home or a car, he hadn't taken anything out to smoke, hadn't pulled a gun. He was having the police called on him for walking and staring, but somehow he has been lumped into a group called "these assholes" who "always get away."
911: "So it's on the left hand side of the clubhouse?"
Zimmerman: "Yeah. You go in straight through the entrance and then you would go left. You go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. He's running."
911: "He's running? Which way is he running?"
Zimmerman: "Down toward the other entrance of the neighborhood."
911: "Ok, which entrance is that he's headed towards?"
Zimmerman: "The back entrance."
Did Trayvon Martin get close enough to George Zimmerman to figure out that he was on the phone with the police? If so, running would be justified. I'd run too. It's pure speculation, though. Still, what is not speculation is that Martin hadn't done anything wrong at this point but somehow appeared suspicious to George Zimmerman.
According to some sources, including CNN (and amplified audio I myself have heard), Zimmerman says "fucking coons" at this point in the call. If true (and I believe my own ears), Zimmerman motives appear linked to his racism. That's not surprising, considering all Trayvon Martin appeared to be doing was walking (and allegedly staring) while black.
911: "Are you following him?"
Zimmerman: "Yeah."
911: "Ok. We don't need you to do that."
Zimmerman: "Ok."
The rest of the call involves the dispatcher taking Zimmerman's name, phone number, and location. The only relevant part to the events is Zimmerman's statement that he didnt' know where the kid was because he ran. However, somehow, he was able to hunt Trayvon Martin down to confront him, which means he left the safety of his vechicle, ran after Martin, and created any possible threat to his person Martin may have presented. Florida's "no retreat" law should not apply to Zimmerman, since he made no reasonable attempt to remain safe, and made every attempt to put himself into the danger he himself perceived.
Let's look at this from a teenager's perspective--any teenager. What should a teen do if a larger man leaves his vehicle to follow him or her? Run like hell! Why would a teen not do that? For all Trayvon Martin knew, Zimmerman could have been a sexual predator or who knows what else.
Maybe Zimmerman's motives were pure paranoia and he had fanatasies of being a heroic vigilante, and his racial epithet was just a side story (although I have a hard time believing it). However, the reality is that he shot a 17-year-old after confronting him and getting into a fight he so clearly could have avoided. He had no business following Trayvon Martin, had no real reason to call 911 on him, and deserves to be arrested and charged with homocide. He was in his vehicle at the start of the call. The vehicle presumably has working locks and windows. There was no attempt on Martin's part to get into the vehicle to assualt Zimmerman. Trayvon Martin RAN from Zimmerman. How are Zimmerman's actions defensible by any stretch of the imagination?
It has sickened me in the past several days to hear people bring up the boy's suspension from school and all sorts of other things to try to justify Zimmerman's invocation of self-defense. I don't care if Trayvon Martin was a troubled teen, a poor student, a threatening football player, or any of the other things that people defending Zimmerman have made him out to be. I have been suspended from school myself. Kids screw up. Male judgment doesn't even truly develop until age 20, according to the findings of a Supreme Court case regarding the death penalty and teenagers. Nothing Trayvon Martin could have done in his young life justified Zimmerman leaving his vehicle to hunt him down and confront him, possibly assault him (I haven't heard who started the fight), then kill him. If the teenager didn't know who Zimmerman was, he would naturally have been justified in fighting for his life if the adult assaulted him--I would have.
All I know about Trayvon is that he was a son to a mother and a father who are deeply grieved to have to have losttheir son. The idea that George Zimmerman walks free after leaving his vehicle to hunt this boy down and kill him mystifies and infuriates me to no end.
Please, someone: arrest this man.
I listened to the 911 call, and would like to parse it out.
Zimmerman: "We've had some break-ins in my neighborhood and there's a real suspicious guy. It's Retreat View Circle. The best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle."
It's relevant to the case whether or not this claim is true. Had Retreat View Circle seen a recent series of break-ins? According to CLRSearch, the area has over twice the national average risk of crimes such as larceny, burglary, motor vehicle theft, and assault. It's possible the claim of recent break-ins was true, but definitely should be verified.
Zimmerman: "This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around looking about."
I would become suspicious if the person I observed went around the back of a house, started trying to jimmy a car door, or actually took an action that merited suspicion. Walking in the rain and looking around isn't a crime and isn't suspicious. If, as has been suggested in the media, Trayvon Martin had his hood over his head, it seems a reasonable thing to do in the rain, and it seems like it would hide any indication that he was "on drugs". What, was he waving his hands in front of his face and laughing hysterically? At this point, I'm more suspiciouis of Zimmerman than anything else.
911: "Is he white, black, or Hispanic?"
Zimmerman: "He looks black."
911: "Did you see what he was wearing?"
Zimmerman: "Yeah, a dark hoodie, like a gray hoodie. He wore jeans or sweat pants and white tennis shoes. He's here now. He's just staring."
Ok, I'm sorry, but if "he's here now", how could Zimmerman not tell the difference between jeans and sweat pants? Seems Martin had to be at some distance for Zimmerman not to be able to tell.
911: "He's just walking around the area? The houses? Ok."
Zimmerman: "Now he's staring at me."
Is staring a crime? Maybe if he heard Zimmerman calling 911 on him, he was incredulous and was simply staring in amazement. It's doubtful, since it was raining and Zimmerman was in his vehicle--unless he leaves his windows down in the rain.
911: "Ok, you said that 1111 Retreat View or 111?"
Zimmerman: "That's the clubhouse."
911: "He's near the clubhouse now?"
Zimmerman: "Yeah, now he's coming toward me. He's got his hands in his waistband. And he's a black male."
So...Zimmerman was at the clubhouse? Maybe. Seems suspicious to me that if he thought this kid was on drugs and had something in his waistband, that he wouldn't move on and find safety while he waiting for police.
911: "How old would you say he is?"
Zimmerman: "He's got something on his shirt. About like his late teens."
911: "Late teens?"
Zimmerman: "Uh huh. Something's wrong with him. Yep, he's coming to check me out. He's got something in his hands. I don't know what his deal is."
According to reports, Trayvon Martin had a bag of Skittles and a bottle of iced tea on him.
If I'm a teenager walking alone, I'd be a bit suspicious of some adult male sitting alone, parked, staring at me, talking into his phone. Just sayin'.
911: "Let me know if he does anything, ok?"
Zimmerman: "Ok."
911: "We've got him on the wire. Just let me know if this guy does anything else."
Zimmerman: "Ok. These assholes, they always get away. When you come to the clubhouse, you come straight in and you go left. Actually, you would go past the clubhouse."
It is relevant to point out here that so far, Trayvon Martin hadn't done anything but walk, look around, and allegedly approach Zimmerman to check him out. He hadn't said anything threatening to Zimmerman, he hadn't tried to break into a home or a car, he hadn't taken anything out to smoke, hadn't pulled a gun. He was having the police called on him for walking and staring, but somehow he has been lumped into a group called "these assholes" who "always get away."
911: "So it's on the left hand side of the clubhouse?"
Zimmerman: "Yeah. You go in straight through the entrance and then you would go left. You go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. He's running."
911: "He's running? Which way is he running?"
Zimmerman: "Down toward the other entrance of the neighborhood."
911: "Ok, which entrance is that he's headed towards?"
Zimmerman: "The back entrance."
Did Trayvon Martin get close enough to George Zimmerman to figure out that he was on the phone with the police? If so, running would be justified. I'd run too. It's pure speculation, though. Still, what is not speculation is that Martin hadn't done anything wrong at this point but somehow appeared suspicious to George Zimmerman.
According to some sources, including CNN (and amplified audio I myself have heard), Zimmerman says "fucking coons" at this point in the call. If true (and I believe my own ears), Zimmerman motives appear linked to his racism. That's not surprising, considering all Trayvon Martin appeared to be doing was walking (and allegedly staring) while black.
911: "Are you following him?"
Zimmerman: "Yeah."
911: "Ok. We don't need you to do that."
Zimmerman: "Ok."
The rest of the call involves the dispatcher taking Zimmerman's name, phone number, and location. The only relevant part to the events is Zimmerman's statement that he didnt' know where the kid was because he ran. However, somehow, he was able to hunt Trayvon Martin down to confront him, which means he left the safety of his vechicle, ran after Martin, and created any possible threat to his person Martin may have presented. Florida's "no retreat" law should not apply to Zimmerman, since he made no reasonable attempt to remain safe, and made every attempt to put himself into the danger he himself perceived.
Let's look at this from a teenager's perspective--any teenager. What should a teen do if a larger man leaves his vehicle to follow him or her? Run like hell! Why would a teen not do that? For all Trayvon Martin knew, Zimmerman could have been a sexual predator or who knows what else.
Maybe Zimmerman's motives were pure paranoia and he had fanatasies of being a heroic vigilante, and his racial epithet was just a side story (although I have a hard time believing it). However, the reality is that he shot a 17-year-old after confronting him and getting into a fight he so clearly could have avoided. He had no business following Trayvon Martin, had no real reason to call 911 on him, and deserves to be arrested and charged with homocide. He was in his vehicle at the start of the call. The vehicle presumably has working locks and windows. There was no attempt on Martin's part to get into the vehicle to assualt Zimmerman. Trayvon Martin RAN from Zimmerman. How are Zimmerman's actions defensible by any stretch of the imagination?
It has sickened me in the past several days to hear people bring up the boy's suspension from school and all sorts of other things to try to justify Zimmerman's invocation of self-defense. I don't care if Trayvon Martin was a troubled teen, a poor student, a threatening football player, or any of the other things that people defending Zimmerman have made him out to be. I have been suspended from school myself. Kids screw up. Male judgment doesn't even truly develop until age 20, according to the findings of a Supreme Court case regarding the death penalty and teenagers. Nothing Trayvon Martin could have done in his young life justified Zimmerman leaving his vehicle to hunt him down and confront him, possibly assault him (I haven't heard who started the fight), then kill him. If the teenager didn't know who Zimmerman was, he would naturally have been justified in fighting for his life if the adult assaulted him--I would have.
All I know about Trayvon is that he was a son to a mother and a father who are deeply grieved to have to have losttheir son. The idea that George Zimmerman walks free after leaving his vehicle to hunt this boy down and kill him mystifies and infuriates me to no end.
Please, someone: arrest this man.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Despicable People: Rush Limbaugh
I haven't written in awhile, but some things have happened recently that have motivated me to post.
Some time ago, I helped the campaign to get rid of Michael Savage's sponsors because of what he said about autism. I listened to his show to find out who they were, then I posted them here and wrote to them individually about the horrible comments he made about autistic children and their parents, while almost in the same breath accusing parents of asthma sufferers of encouraging their children to fake it to get government funding. That campaign was somewhat effective; many radio stations dropped Savage's show, and many advertisers--some of whom were unaware that their brands were being represented during such an intolerant blowhard's program--insisted that their ads be pulled.
Fast forward to Rush Limbaugh's recent comments regarding Sandra Fluke, whom he couldn't even bother to name correctly. This young woman testified before Congress about how birth control helps with women's health issues, such as preventing ovarian cysts, but Rush, in his willful, obnoxious ignorance, demonized Ms. Fluke by saying she was having so much sex that she couldn't afford the birth control. His diarrhea of the mouth continued by calling her a slut because "we are paying for her sex" (even though the birth control would be funded by private insurance, not tax money), that she was a slut, and that she should post videos of her sexual encounters on the Internet for all of us to see. What a disgusting individual.
Limbaugh has been no stranger to disparaging women. Any women whose politics disagree with his are labeled "Feminazis". There's more, but quite frankly, I have avoided listening to his show since he was on television. Back then, I remember him calling Chelsea Clinton "the White House dog". The girl was twelve. Come on, man.
In any case, I thought about doing the same with Limbaugh as I did with Savage, but a great many people were on it before I decided to listen to his nonsense to find out who advertises on his show. I'm glad--I can't stand listening to the idiot. It's bad enough that I would go to sites as a consultant and be forced to hear his lies, bigotry, and misogyny as I worked, but to voluntarily do it... In any case, he has lost 104 advertisers, and most of his ad slots are filled with public service announcements for the time being. I truly hope this was his career-ender.
I need to take note of an objection people are making now, which was also made when I supported getting Michael Savage's advertisers to drop him: people made it about free speech, and accused me of being against freedom of speech for my condemnation and subsequent campaign on this blog. Bill Maher even went so far as to voice his objection to people "being made to disappear" when they say something offensive. I can understand why Bill would have this objection, and I agree with him on most points, but on this point, he's dead wrong. Sorry, but this issue isn't about freedom of speech. Nobody has the inherent right to be paid for speech. Everyone has the right to not have their speech inhibited by law. No one is advocating for a law getting rid of Rush Limbaugh or keeping him off the air. However, people are exercising their freedom of speech to condemn the man and persuade his corporate sponsors to drop him like a bad habit. What, are his sponsors to be forced to continue to associate their brands with his intolerance? What does it say about a company that supports this pig with their advertising dollars when they employ women who most likely use birth control themselves? Whose insurance plans include it, not to advocate their promiscuity, but to help them prevent problems like overly heavy menstruation, ovarian cysts, and other gynecological problems? And yes, birth control also prevents pregnancy; married couples ought to be able to be intimate without worrying about having more children than they want. Single women ought to be able to have sex without worrying about unintended pregnancy, as well. Without going into the sexual pressures and inequality women face in a world where men who are promiscuous are considered studs, rather than man-whores, the pregnancy and the other health issues birth control prevents actually save companies money while helping women.
To be completely fair to Bill Maher, the argument must be made that corporate sponsorship shouldn't mean that people should have to watch everything they say. So often, corporate sponsors will refuse to support a controversial or cutting edge program because they don't want their brands associated with the views expressed on them. However, television and radio entertainment are businesses, and as such, the money they receive is on the whim of those who pay. It's just reality, no matter how much it sucks in some cases. Many advertisers will support controversial shows because they get ratings--but as Maher himself said, let's not be so tolerant that we tolerate intolerance; advertisers especially shouldn't tolerate--and with their their financial influence, subsidize and perpetuate--intolerance. Limbaugh is a glaring example of it, and I, for one, am glad that many advertisers will no longer subsidize his hate speech.
Some time ago, I helped the campaign to get rid of Michael Savage's sponsors because of what he said about autism. I listened to his show to find out who they were, then I posted them here and wrote to them individually about the horrible comments he made about autistic children and their parents, while almost in the same breath accusing parents of asthma sufferers of encouraging their children to fake it to get government funding. That campaign was somewhat effective; many radio stations dropped Savage's show, and many advertisers--some of whom were unaware that their brands were being represented during such an intolerant blowhard's program--insisted that their ads be pulled.
Fast forward to Rush Limbaugh's recent comments regarding Sandra Fluke, whom he couldn't even bother to name correctly. This young woman testified before Congress about how birth control helps with women's health issues, such as preventing ovarian cysts, but Rush, in his willful, obnoxious ignorance, demonized Ms. Fluke by saying she was having so much sex that she couldn't afford the birth control. His diarrhea of the mouth continued by calling her a slut because "we are paying for her sex" (even though the birth control would be funded by private insurance, not tax money), that she was a slut, and that she should post videos of her sexual encounters on the Internet for all of us to see. What a disgusting individual.
Limbaugh has been no stranger to disparaging women. Any women whose politics disagree with his are labeled "Feminazis". There's more, but quite frankly, I have avoided listening to his show since he was on television. Back then, I remember him calling Chelsea Clinton "the White House dog". The girl was twelve. Come on, man.
In any case, I thought about doing the same with Limbaugh as I did with Savage, but a great many people were on it before I decided to listen to his nonsense to find out who advertises on his show. I'm glad--I can't stand listening to the idiot. It's bad enough that I would go to sites as a consultant and be forced to hear his lies, bigotry, and misogyny as I worked, but to voluntarily do it... In any case, he has lost 104 advertisers, and most of his ad slots are filled with public service announcements for the time being. I truly hope this was his career-ender.
I need to take note of an objection people are making now, which was also made when I supported getting Michael Savage's advertisers to drop him: people made it about free speech, and accused me of being against freedom of speech for my condemnation and subsequent campaign on this blog. Bill Maher even went so far as to voice his objection to people "being made to disappear" when they say something offensive. I can understand why Bill would have this objection, and I agree with him on most points, but on this point, he's dead wrong. Sorry, but this issue isn't about freedom of speech. Nobody has the inherent right to be paid for speech. Everyone has the right to not have their speech inhibited by law. No one is advocating for a law getting rid of Rush Limbaugh or keeping him off the air. However, people are exercising their freedom of speech to condemn the man and persuade his corporate sponsors to drop him like a bad habit. What, are his sponsors to be forced to continue to associate their brands with his intolerance? What does it say about a company that supports this pig with their advertising dollars when they employ women who most likely use birth control themselves? Whose insurance plans include it, not to advocate their promiscuity, but to help them prevent problems like overly heavy menstruation, ovarian cysts, and other gynecological problems? And yes, birth control also prevents pregnancy; married couples ought to be able to be intimate without worrying about having more children than they want. Single women ought to be able to have sex without worrying about unintended pregnancy, as well. Without going into the sexual pressures and inequality women face in a world where men who are promiscuous are considered studs, rather than man-whores, the pregnancy and the other health issues birth control prevents actually save companies money while helping women.
To be completely fair to Bill Maher, the argument must be made that corporate sponsorship shouldn't mean that people should have to watch everything they say. So often, corporate sponsors will refuse to support a controversial or cutting edge program because they don't want their brands associated with the views expressed on them. However, television and radio entertainment are businesses, and as such, the money they receive is on the whim of those who pay. It's just reality, no matter how much it sucks in some cases. Many advertisers will support controversial shows because they get ratings--but as Maher himself said, let's not be so tolerant that we tolerate intolerance; advertisers especially shouldn't tolerate--and with their their financial influence, subsidize and perpetuate--intolerance. Limbaugh is a glaring example of it, and I, for one, am glad that many advertisers will no longer subsidize his hate speech.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Covering up child rape is NOT ok!
"I should have done more."
Those are the words Joe Paterno said regarding the rape of a child by assistant coach Sandusky. Those are the words of a man who absolutely knew what happened; they are the words of a man who admits he didn't do enough.
What bothers me are the people who came out in support of Joe Paterno and said he shouldn't be fired. Even one blogger who said he should have been fired also said that we shouldn't forget all of the good he's done. Why? Why should we care about how well he coached a game? Through inaction, he participated in the cover-up of child rape. This inaction in the face of such a heinous crime speaks of low moral character in general.
The people who have come out in support of Paterno remind me of the people who tried to soften what the Catholic church did in the face of its widespread child rape scandal: "It was only a handful of priests." "The actions a few priests shouldn't condemn the whole Church." Nonsense. Like the Joe Paterno scandal, there were people who were acquainted with and in authority over the child-raping priests, and they actively covered up the horrendous acts. Even the current pope knew about the widespread abuse and didn't do nearly enough to stop it. Like the Catholic Church, the Penn State athletic department institutionalized child rape by failing to do anything to stop it.
The more I read about the Jerry Sandusky case, the more angry I get at people who think Joe Paterno's job shouldn't have been on the line. He had 8 victims over 15 years, according to the indictment. He had a charity that gave him access to young boys constantly. He had an office on campus, and had access to facilities up until very recently. The act of child rape Paterno helped cover up through inaction occurred in 2002. Why did Sandusky still have access to the campus at all?
It's not like rumors of sexual abuse were spread on shaky evidence about Sandusky, either. There was an eyewitness to the 2002 rape. I realize that eyewitnesses aren't the best evidence in a court of law, but it wasn't like forensics had an opportunity to do a rape kit on the boy involved, because the eyewitness, Joe Paterno, and the athletic director Paterno reported the incident to all failed to report the rape to authorities.
I'm outraged to think that anyone would stack 61 years of successful coaching against the cover-up of child rape and think that the coaching outweighs Paterno's inaction. A person who would let something like that go is a person who would let just about anything slide. What else has gone unreported during his 61 year tenure?
Those are the words Joe Paterno said regarding the rape of a child by assistant coach Sandusky. Those are the words of a man who absolutely knew what happened; they are the words of a man who admits he didn't do enough.
What bothers me are the people who came out in support of Joe Paterno and said he shouldn't be fired. Even one blogger who said he should have been fired also said that we shouldn't forget all of the good he's done. Why? Why should we care about how well he coached a game? Through inaction, he participated in the cover-up of child rape. This inaction in the face of such a heinous crime speaks of low moral character in general.
The people who have come out in support of Paterno remind me of the people who tried to soften what the Catholic church did in the face of its widespread child rape scandal: "It was only a handful of priests." "The actions a few priests shouldn't condemn the whole Church." Nonsense. Like the Joe Paterno scandal, there were people who were acquainted with and in authority over the child-raping priests, and they actively covered up the horrendous acts. Even the current pope knew about the widespread abuse and didn't do nearly enough to stop it. Like the Catholic Church, the Penn State athletic department institutionalized child rape by failing to do anything to stop it.
The more I read about the Jerry Sandusky case, the more angry I get at people who think Joe Paterno's job shouldn't have been on the line. He had 8 victims over 15 years, according to the indictment. He had a charity that gave him access to young boys constantly. He had an office on campus, and had access to facilities up until very recently. The act of child rape Paterno helped cover up through inaction occurred in 2002. Why did Sandusky still have access to the campus at all?
It's not like rumors of sexual abuse were spread on shaky evidence about Sandusky, either. There was an eyewitness to the 2002 rape. I realize that eyewitnesses aren't the best evidence in a court of law, but it wasn't like forensics had an opportunity to do a rape kit on the boy involved, because the eyewitness, Joe Paterno, and the athletic director Paterno reported the incident to all failed to report the rape to authorities.
I'm outraged to think that anyone would stack 61 years of successful coaching against the cover-up of child rape and think that the coaching outweighs Paterno's inaction. A person who would let something like that go is a person who would let just about anything slide. What else has gone unreported during his 61 year tenure?
Friday, November 26, 2010
WoW Achievement: Pilgrim's Peril, After the World Changed
I decided to set up a raid on Thanksgiving night to do Pilgrim's Peril. Unfortunately, most of the people who said they were up for it weren't there, for whatever reason. I heard for most of the day from several people that it just couldn't be done on the Horde side.
A few people in my guild went scouting, one on her BE mage, the others on their alliance toons. Later on in the evening, five of us--four from Kindred Spirits/Khaz Modan, one from Ixkin/Khaz: Gortanadir, Hemophilia, Annwen, Arthur, and Ufgar, respectively--decided to try it. I thought it might be a suicide mission, given that the hit cap against level 85s had to be higher than most people had it. I thought they'd kill us before we got many hits in.
So a mage, priest, paladin, death knight, and hunter went first to Ironforge, where the tables are out front. We went up the road, so we inevitable encountered guards. As long as we had them one or two at a time, we found that we could kill them, making a For The Horde raid seem plausible at some date in the near future. In any case, we did aggro four guards at once, and four of us died. After the res, we did make it up to the tables. We had to kill another two guards when we got there, but it was all good.
Stormwind was much easier. The tables are right out front with no guards around them. We knew this city was going to be the easiest from the earlier scouting missions, but the next part...in retrospect, we might have been able to do it without dying, but there you have it--we died in Darnassus. We got there by running around the city to the coast, using path of frost to get across the water and up to the dock, then ran through the guards. They will not go onto the ship (it's always been that way), so we were safe. We ran through the portal to get into Darnassus, and then we made the mistake of taking a direct route. I got hit for 32k on the hit that broke my mana shield, then I was dead almost instantly after that. They have flying patrols, roaming mounted patrols, and foot patrols--all level 85. I guess this is to make up for all that time Darnassus spent being the easiest city in For The Horde raids.
In any case, the tables are in a spot where, if you skirt around the city, you can get to without drawing much--if any--guard aggro. When I got back to my corpse, I was near a bunch of npcs, but I went invisible and swam into the warrior district. The mobs there are only level 27, and there are no guards. On the other side of the wall, near the training dummies, are the unguarded tables.
Exodar was pretty simple after that. We just took the boat from Darnassus, then ran around the city to the other entrance, between a tree and the building, jumped from the ramp down to the patio where the tables are. We would not have had to kill the guards, but one of us (I won't mention names) jumped too far and drew one. We had to kill that one. I polymorphed the other, but that put me into combat. We had to put it down. But then, there we were--achievement accomplished.
A few people in my guild went scouting, one on her BE mage, the others on their alliance toons. Later on in the evening, five of us--four from Kindred Spirits/Khaz Modan, one from Ixkin/Khaz: Gortanadir, Hemophilia, Annwen, Arthur, and Ufgar, respectively--decided to try it. I thought it might be a suicide mission, given that the hit cap against level 85s had to be higher than most people had it. I thought they'd kill us before we got many hits in.
So a mage, priest, paladin, death knight, and hunter went first to Ironforge, where the tables are out front. We went up the road, so we inevitable encountered guards. As long as we had them one or two at a time, we found that we could kill them, making a For The Horde raid seem plausible at some date in the near future. In any case, we did aggro four guards at once, and four of us died. After the res, we did make it up to the tables. We had to kill another two guards when we got there, but it was all good.
Stormwind was much easier. The tables are right out front with no guards around them. We knew this city was going to be the easiest from the earlier scouting missions, but the next part...in retrospect, we might have been able to do it without dying, but there you have it--we died in Darnassus. We got there by running around the city to the coast, using path of frost to get across the water and up to the dock, then ran through the guards. They will not go onto the ship (it's always been that way), so we were safe. We ran through the portal to get into Darnassus, and then we made the mistake of taking a direct route. I got hit for 32k on the hit that broke my mana shield, then I was dead almost instantly after that. They have flying patrols, roaming mounted patrols, and foot patrols--all level 85. I guess this is to make up for all that time Darnassus spent being the easiest city in For The Horde raids.
In any case, the tables are in a spot where, if you skirt around the city, you can get to without drawing much--if any--guard aggro. When I got back to my corpse, I was near a bunch of npcs, but I went invisible and swam into the warrior district. The mobs there are only level 27, and there are no guards. On the other side of the wall, near the training dummies, are the unguarded tables.
Exodar was pretty simple after that. We just took the boat from Darnassus, then ran around the city to the other entrance, between a tree and the building, jumped from the ramp down to the patio where the tables are. We would not have had to kill the guards, but one of us (I won't mention names) jumped too far and drew one. We had to kill that one. I polymorphed the other, but that put me into combat. We had to put it down. But then, there we were--achievement accomplished.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)