'Bully' Problems: The MPAA Gives A Scarlet 'R' To A Thoughtful Documentary : Monkey See : NPR

'Bully' Problems: The MPAA Gives A Scarlet 'R' To A Thoughtful Documentary : Monkey See : NPR

Unbelievable! The R rating is for language.

The rating is about swear words. If the swear words get bleeped, they'll change it. The MPAA is saying, whether they would put it in these terms or not, that it is more important that a parent or guardian be present to contextualize too many uses of the F-word — and be informed that their kid will be exposed to that — than it is that a parent or guardian be present to contextualize an 11-year-old committing suicide, and that the parent know that the kid is going to watch as the parents of a dead teenager tour the bedroom where he died.

Service Animals: Yes, You Do Have to Let Them in Whether You Like it or Not.

Full disclosure? I think that people who try to turn away people with service animals are assholes. Major assholes. Special place in Hell assholes. I am also not so stupid, rigid, or naïve as to think that there aren’t special circumstances, as in the rare unruly service animal causing a real problem, that should constitute an exception. I guess I chalk it up to basic common courtesy with no special exceptions for the disabled or otherwise disadvantaged. If you let your kid, your drunk spouse, or your service animal poop on the floor, scream a lot, or attack someone, you’re out of there!

Now that we got that out of the way… The McDonalds pit bull PR faux pas has spawned a flurry of stories about much more serious real life incidents of discrimination by McDonalds against people with disabilities and their service animals, sick children and their companions, and pit bulls in general. This isn’t new. There were stories before. Sometimes it is individuals who happen to work at McDonalds committing these crimes (including assault, not just discrimination), rather than company policy.

McDonalds aside, maybe some of you need to know the law on this. It’s actually very, very simple. Just like you can’t keep people out based on their race, ugliness, or bad haircut, you can’t bar service animals from your establishment. This is from the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, Commonly Asked Questions:

1. Q: What are the laws that apply to my business?

A: Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), privately owned businesses that serve the public, such as restaurants, hotels, retail stores, taxicabs, theaters, concert halls, and sports facilities, are prohibited from discriminating against individuals with disabilities. The ADA requires these businesses to allow people with disabilities to bring their service animals onto business premises in whatever areas customers are generally allowed.

2. Q: What is a service animal?

A: The ADA defines a service animal as any guide dog, signal dog, or other animal individually trained to provide assistance to an individual with a disability. If they meet this definition, animals are considered service animals under the ADA regardless of whether they have been licensed or certified by a state or local government.

5. Q: I have always had a clearly posted "no pets" policy at my establishment. Do I still have to allow service animals in?

A: Yes. A service animal is not a pet…

6. Q: My county health department has told me that only a guide dog has to be admitted. If I follow those regulations, am I violating the ADA?

A: Yes, if you refuse to admit any other type of service animal on the basis of local health department regulations or other state or local laws. The ADA provides greater protection for individuals with disabilities and so it takes priority over the local or state laws or regulations.

10. Q: What if a service animal barks or growls at other people, or otherwise acts out of control?

A: You may exclude any animal, including a service animal, from your facility when that animal's behavior poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others. For example, any service animal that displays vicious behavior towards other guests or customers may be excluded. You may not make assumptions, however, about how a particular animal is likely to behave based on your past experience with other animals. Each situation must be considered individually.

If you have personal experience with service animals you know that they display better behavior and hygiene than your average “hairless ape”. And their presence creates a more congenial atmosphere, and actually makes you look better as a business.

Slaughtering Wolves to Save Caribou in Canada from Starving?

No, they aren’t competing for food (obviously). And starving isn’t the only problem the caribou face. Their habitat is being destroyed. That includes problems with their food source, but also causes other problems leading to population decline.

You can read about the nasty details here.

So the caribou habitat is being destroyed by mining oil from tar sands. What is Canada’s solution? Eradicate the wolves! They have already done some of this, they say they have poisoned or shot about 500 over the past five year. Now they are talking about killing 6 thousand more over the next 5 years, by strychnine poisoning and aerial shooting.

It is worth mentioning that strychnine poisoning cannot be targeted to the wolves, affects many kinds of animals, and is an excruciating way to die. As horrible as that is, I’m trying to stay on topic here, so I’ll leave it at that.

I have two big points to get across in this post:

How do they justify killing off one kind of animal to save another kind of animal?

Is anyone stupid enough to believe that killing the predators is going to help when the problem is loss of habitat?

Rose, a writing colleague, had this to say about it (my bold):

Obviously, no one has come right out and asked them, I suppose, but even if someone did, I'm certain they wouldn't be able to come up with even one single valid explanation, because there is none. This is a totally irrational action. It cannot even be called a "response" to an issue because it is a non-response. What they're doing is as irrelevant as, say, a house being on fire and deciding that the way to put out the fire would be to go car shopping. One thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Rose has a miraculous way of putting the thought I only wish I could express into meaningful words.

The first thing that hit me when I read about this was the question of how it could possibly be OK to kill the wolves to save the caribou. What makes one more deserving of life than the other? I have seen no explanation for this. In fact, no mention of it.

In the U.S. wolf slaughters are being proposed to artificially boost elk populations. But, no one is pretending that it is for the elk's benefit or that they give a shit about the elk.

It is openly for the benefit of hunters, which really boils down to those who profit from the hunting tourism industry (not people who hunt locally to feed their families). That is clearly stated, and as much as it disgusts me, I don't have to ask why.

With this Canadian thing, they don’t say why. They give no reason for valuing caribou above wolves.

The second thing that hit me is Who the Hell is that stupid? The caribou are dying from habitat loss. Killing off wolves won’t help. Do they actually think they can fool people into thinking they are doing something about the problem this way? If it's really not OK for the caribou to die, then they have to stop destroying their habitat. Period.

They have two choices. Either stop destroying caribou habitat or admit that the oil is more important to them than the caribou.

Want to Send Your Parents to Jail? Show Up Late for School a Whole Bunch of Times.

OK. I could have said “frequently” or “on a regular basis” but I chose “a whole bunch of times” because I love the line in Freeway when Vanessa (Reese Witherspoon) asks Bob (Kiefer Sutherland) if he wants to get shot “a whole bunch of times.” I don’t know if that is a coincidence or if it was my subconscious making the connection between the poor results of public education not-so-subtly hinted at in the movie and the stupidity of bringing criminal charges against parents whose kids are late for school.

I have to say from the beginning that I have some mixed feelings about some of what is going on here. When I was late for school, I was the one who got punished even when my mom was to blame and took responsibility by send a note saying as much. I didn’t think that was right and neither did she. But, criminal charges were not involved, for either of us.

The Loudoun County Public Schools, of Virginia, are taking tardiness to a new level. This year, one mother was arrested and charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and another couple was issued a court summons on a Class 3 misdemeanor, due to their children being repeatedly late for school.

We’re not talking about being massively late and missing a significant amount of school time, either. In most cases the kids were three minutes late or less, and in some cases they slid in just as the bell rang, but still got cited for tardiness.

I am also curious as to why the couple was issued a summons, when the other mother was dragged off to jail on a Saturday night while, away from watching her own kids and other people’s kids during a sleepover, requiring her to call on other adults to come fill in.

When I read the comments on the various news articles about this subject, I see a lot of people who think the parents should be held responsible. They think this is a very big deal and a huge distraction, taking away from the quality of education that these late kids’ classmates receive.

In case you haven’t figured it out yet, I’ll spell it out for you: I agree that the parents should be held responsible. My problem is turning it into a criminal offense. And what really freaks me out is how flippant some people are about that.

It is a big deal. It is a very big deal to convert this from an infraction of school rules to a legal issue putting parents at risk of losing their liberty, and ultimately their jobs, homes, and families, and putting children at risk of being ripped from their homes and placed in foster care, and otherwise having their lives destroyed.

 
If it is really that important to the education of their classmates, then expel the late kids after multiple infractions. Make their parents deal with it that way.

McDonalds Anti-Pit Bull Ad Faux Pas

Wow! File this one under “How stupid can you get?”, “Open mouth, insert foot” and probably a few other categories.

I have little sympathy for the PC sensitive, but I am anti-stupidity, and I have a serious problem with pit bull-bashing. I listened to the ad, and to me, it’s not hard-core pit bull-bashing; it’s supposed to be humorous and it is put forth in a very light-hearted fashion. On the stupidity scale, though, it’s off the charts!

Here’s the quote:

"Trying a brand new menu item at McDonald's isn't risky. You know what's risky? Petting a stray pit bull."

Why is it stupid? Let me count the ways! But, I’ll focus on the one that doesn’t involve my personal feelings:

It’s a huge PR mistake. If I had to take a guess I would say that McDonalds probably falls in the top 10%, or better, of entities with PR knowledge and experience. How could they let this slip? Anyone with even less-than-basic marketing knowledge knows that attacking dogs in general is going to piss off the majority of Americans and attacking pit bulls, which have a large “special interest” backing is going to create a serious backlash. So, even if I agreed with the joke, I would still say “You had to know this would come back and bite you in the ass!” (no pun intended)

Getting a little more personal, if you know pit bulls or dogs in general, you know that breed is irrelevant. Of the pit bulls I’ve known or met, the biggest danger was that they might lick you to death.

Now I’m not ruling out the possibility that this was a bait-and-switch “mistake”. Set it up to go viral and then, after the backlash, coast on some donations to pit bull rescue, with free advertising. Yeah, maybe it’s not so stupid after all?

Read more about this ad here and here.

 

CBGB?

About a week or so ago I was coming across stories that there are rumors of CBGB reopening, or something. It was all very mysterious and very vague, but it got my attention.

CBGB club facade, Bowery St, New York City. Photograph by Adam Di Carlo, taken 10/1/2005.

Now I’m reading that the CBGB brand was sold several months ago, and for now the new owners are keeping their identity a secret.

I am curious to see what comes of it. I can’t say it sounds promising, but some of my favorite bands started out there, and I hate the feeling I get when I think about it being gone.

Due Process?

In 2006 I wrote an article called Due Process of The Law – What Does it Mean? The Changing Face of Due Process in the Anti-Terrorism Era for what was then Associated Content and is now Yahoo! Voices. It has always been, and still is, my most popular article on the site.

Now, six years later, I’m wondering if it is time to revisit the subject. To examine what has changed since I wrote the original article. And, I am also trying to decide if the subject needs more than an article. Possibly an eBook.

What do you think?

Sid and Nancy Collector’s Edition Only on Blu-Ray?

Sid and Nancy 25^th Anniversary Collector’s Edition was released on December 27, 2011. When I heard this I was very disturbed to find that it seems to be only on Blu-Ray. But, after reading this review it sounds like the 1998 edition (Criterion Collection) has better special features.

I saw Sid and Nancy for the first time when I was 13 or 14 and it has been my favorite movie ever since. It was also the first DVD I bought when I got a computer that played DVDs, before I even had a DVD player for my TV. When I heard that this new edition was only on Blu-Ray, I actually started to think that I might have to get a Blu-Ray player just so I could see it. I’m glad I don’t have to worry about that now.  

Author Page on Facebook

I have finally created an author page on Facebook. I should have done it a long time ago, but I just wasn’t making the connection. So, hopefully I will see you there!

Insurance Must Cover Contraceptives – Yay!

An article on the New York Times website, January 20, 2012, says:

The Obama administration said Friday that most health insurance plans must cover contraceptives for women free of charge, and it rejected a broad exemption sought by the Roman Catholic Church for insurance provided to employees of Catholic hospitals, colleges and charities. The Obama administration said Friday that most health insurance plans must cover contraceptives for women free of charge, and it rejected a broad exemption sought by the Roman Catholic Church for insurance provided to employees of Catholic hospitals, colleges and charities.

I think this is rare, good news. Generally, I’m against the government getting involved in healthcare, especially when it comes to micromanaging care, but this is a very good thing.

It does not apply to churches. This is like the discrimination laws for hiring. Churches can discriminate when hiring based on religious beliefs. I can live with that. It makes sense. But, Catholic colleges and hospitals do not get that luxury under the Civil Rights Act.

Also from the Times Article:

The National Association of Evangelicals said that as a result of the White House decision, “Employers with religious objections to contraception will be forced to pay for services and procedures they believe are morally wrong.”

Um, no. They will be forced to pay for insurance that covers it. How is that “paying for contraception” anymore than if their employees spend the paychecks they give them on contraception?

Either way, it is indirect, and ultimately the employee chooses whether or not they will use contraception.

Fringe-ology

I heard an interview with Steve Volk, author of Fringe-ology, on the radio the other day. You can go listen to the interviewand watch the book trailer here.

I have to read this book, and I am adding his blog to my blogroll. I just love his common sense approach. He believes that sometimes we need to accept the fact that we just don’t know. At least not yet. He got frustrated with extreme believers and skeptic alike. Basically people who have to say or think they have all the answers, no matter what, and no matter how at odds their answers are with the evidence.

It is very nice to hear someone else say they die-hard skeptics are very much like radical believers, and that it requires an extreme stretch of the imagination to believe the explanations that they rely on to explain away any possibility of the paranormal.

He also says that paranormal events and entities are not necessarily supernatural. Just because our current science can’t measure or explain something, does not mean it doesn’t exist or that it is supernatural. Science is constantly evolving.

We don’t know everything yet. How hard is that for people to understand? Or is it just too scary for some people to live with?

For those who are raising an eyebrow at the name alone, he doesn’t say that you have to believe anything in particular to disagree with the skeptics. He is not saying that just because the skeptics’ explanation doesn’t add up, that the UFO theory is the automatic solution. He simply says that it is OK to accept the fact that there are some things we haven’t figured out yet and cannot explain. We

don’t have all the facts about everything.

There doesn’t always have to be an answer. Not today, at least. I like that.

“My Cause is Better than Your Cause” Syndrome

This is something I see and hear a lot of, and it really bothers me. Some issue or cause comes up, and someone or some group is trying to do some good, and inevitably someone pipes up with the suggestion or condemnation that “cause X” is less worthy than some other cause and that those who help out should be helping with something else.

Sometimes it is a thoughtful suggestion that I can sympathize and generally agree with. For instance, Americans probably should help starving and underprivileged kids in the U.S. before devoting their resources to other countries. For that matter, I personally believe that it’s best to start with your own family and friends, then branch out to your local community, and so on.

But, that’s just how I feel and how I choose to do things. I don’t pass judgment on people who choose to do something, anything, out of kindness. I do feel that my opinion and choices matter when it comes to what the government does with my money, but that’s a different subject.

In other instances it is more arrogant and insulting. Yes, there are people who will say that if you support animal welfare projects you are a piece of shit because no one should do anything for animals until all humans have been helped. Or, the people who think you should divert your donations to organizations that “help the environment” or work for world peace, or whatever. There are even people who believe that other individuals should only be allowed to give to certain causes.

That’s where I lose it.

We could argue all day long about which causes “should” be the priority, but the reality is that people give the most and give the best to the causes that move them and speak to them personally. We should be glad when anyone wants to do anything good and helpful. Trying to dictate to what and why a person chooses to give of themselves, and condemning them for their choices, only discourages people from doing anything good at all.

So, here’s my point (or one of them, anyway). When you do something that other people say you should do, or that you merely feel obligated to do, it’s usually half-assed. When you do something you are passionate about, it’s full-on and effective. And, you feel better about it. It’s actually rewarding and that trickles down to your personal goodness and how you treat those around you.

I would rather see people being passionate and effective in causes that don’t mean much, or anything, to me than a bunch of mediocre, ineffective crap going to the things I find most important.

Feral Cat Emergency, Helping Only Takes a Few Seconds of Your Time

I had planned to post something that would give you more of a taste for the general flavor of my blog as my first real post, but this is an urgent matter that cannot wait…

This is a feral cat emergency in Waco, TX. You cn do something to help with just a few seconds of your time.

From The Petition Site:

In the summer of 2007, Lions Club granted Heart of Texas Feral Friends access to Lions Park so our volunteers could spay/neuter and vaccinate the park’s cats through a process called Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR).

Our volunteers helped TNR more than 40 cats, at NO COST to Lions Club. Today, there are only 9 TNR cats living at the park, all are spayed or neutered, vaccinated against rabies, and cared for daily by volunteers.

Now, five years later, Waco Lions Club board members voted to evict these 9 cats from Lions Park…

You can go read more and sign the petition here.

You can get updates on the situation and find out what you can do at the Heart of Texas Feral Friends website. This is the latest update:

Sun., Jan. 15 at 7 p.m.

It's outrageous!
"NO TRESPASSING" SIGNS HAVE BEEN POSTED at our "COMMUNITY" LIONS PARK,
preventing HOTFF Volunteers from feeding the 9 Park Cats.

Who would have expected this from a respected long-standing "service group"
towards a fellow volunteer group providing them a free program
on land leased to them by the City of Waco for the "public good"?

First Post

I have been thinking about creating this blog for a long time. I will be posting my thoughts on many subjects, book reviews, movie reviews, and stuff like that. You can expect a lot of cranky opinions and rants, as well as praise for things that make me happy.

I will post links to other people's articles and websites that I want to share with my readers. And, as a writer, I will probably engage in some shameless self-promotion.

The title has a history, and one day I may tell you about it.

It might help you to know that I have a tendency to write these things in chunks, as in a bunch of posts at once. Then I try to space them out using the scheduling option on posts. So, by the time you read a post my mood may have changed completely.