'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.