Question: Why is it that there are peanut-free baseball sections, smoke-free bars and warning labels on menus and food products yet those allegic to animal dander are still forced to ride in enclosed public transportation with someone else's pet?
Scenario: You can't smoke in bars now because a very biased and severly non-scientific study done almost 20 years ago may have discovered a possible link between secondhand smoke and cancer. Maybe. You can't eat peanuts in certain sections of the stadium now because some lady forgot to listen to the rest of the lyrics to "Take Me Out to the Ball Game" and she's scared her son might get sick from the peanut dust... But if you have deadly asthmatic allergies to animal dander, you know, the kind which closes up your throat and makes it impossible to breathe, therefore cutting off your access to oxygen (that thing you need to live) well then too bad for you. Better take the next bus.
Thoughts: The problem here is two things which both come down to perception:
First off is the idea of "allegies" as related to those Allegra and Claratin commercials. "sniffy nose" "red eyes" "sneezing" non-life thrteatening effects. Just annoyances. But that's not what happens to athmatics with animal dander allergies. Think more along the lines of stung-by-a-bee-sweeling-up-unable-to-breathe-three-seconds-from-death allergies. Then you'd be on teh correct train of thought. "Animal dander" does not mean your cat has t o be in my lap scratching my face to get me sick. It means that the dandruff or skin flakes given off your pet every single time it moves is transferred into the air and into my lungs which are now inflamed and closing off my oxygen supply.
The second problem here is the idea that pets are "cuter" than "cigarettes" so it's much easier to accept the "minor" inconveniences which come along. The problem is, I have asthma. I can walk around a smoker on the street. But I cannot remove myself from the bus or subway car (or dear god, the DELI) that you just waltzed your precious little allergy factory into. Animals do not belong near food. Seriously, I have to eat that stuff that your dog just shed hair all over. If I carried a bag of peanuts everywhere and started leaving peanut shells on everything I touched, you'd be darn sure they would ban "bags of peanuts" from everywhere but the peanutbutter aisle. People take THAT allergy seriously.
Conclusion: People, I beg of you. Leave the pets at home. You're killing me, literally. And while you're at it, buy a damn lint roller. If I can smell your pet on you you can still inflame my allergies just by leaning your fuzzy sweater all over my face on the train (unlike cigarette smoke, which is harmless on clothing). If precious needs to go everywhere with you, then you need to buy a car and deal with that animal allergy all on your own in your own space. But for the same reason that smokers can no longer light up in enclosed public places, YOU SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO TAKE PETS THERE EITHER.
No matter how "adorable" an allergy source is, you are still causing someone else unnecessary discomfort and pain every time you take your animals into public transportation.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Homosexuality: Why Conservatives Should "Get Over It"
Question: Is there any real legal grounds on which to outlaw same sex marriages, health benefits for same sex partners or adoptions by same sex parents?
Scenario: Your son is born gay. You don't know it yet, but he will as soon as his hormones kick in. While some boys in his class will be chasing the girls and making out valentine cards to them, he will be doing the same for his very own boy crush. It's just as innocent and just as harmless, but he will be chastised and teachers, parents and communities alike will be seeking a scapegoat to blame for his "weirdness".
Thoughts: Fact is, as much as people keep trying to deny it, homosexuality is not a choice any more than heterosexuality is. I never "decided" to like boys. I just always did so because my body was wired to react chemically to them. That's it. The same goes for every human being. In recent news, scientists even pinpointed the genetic makeup which predispositions one to be attracted to one sex over another. Of course, conservatives took this opportunity to try and construe homosexuality as an abberration that we can now "cure" instead of embracing the scientific proof that now shows homosexulaity as the natural instinct that it is.
In the end, they seem to forget that we have known for quite some time what genetic change makes some babies (whom ALL start out as females) into males. So, by the logic of many conservatives who have openly admitted they would change their babie's sexual preference in the womb, one can also easily change the SEX of their baby. And we've had that technology for quite some time. But does that really make it "okay"? The same people who are anti-abortion and anti-stem cell research are advocating the alteration and biochemical manufacturing of children? Something looks off here.
Is it really doing the right thing for your child or is it for yourself? If the child was diagnosed early with a disease or a physical ailment which could be cured through bioengineering, then I would be more open and understanding. But to tell me that you would risk your child's future on the weak excuse that you are "protecting" them from mockery and ridcule just screams of selfishness. What's next? Are we going to engineer our daughters to be better cooks and our sons to be better at sports? These sort of ideals are erasing the very beauty of individuality. The fact is, you may think YOUR perfect child, all star football champ or hometown beauty queen isn't being mocked or made fun of but, they are. There will always be that one child who was raised not to accept people who are different thatn them. Whether it's race, class or sexual preference. ALL children will be teased in their life. What you are trying to "protect" your child from would be better built in a home of loving and understanding parents and friends. NOT by forcing the child into a box or altering them to your skewed view of perfection.
Scenario 2: Now your son is a grown man and found another man with whom he is happy and would like to spend the remainder of his life. In a desire to declare his faithfulness and undying love for this man, he wants to get married. Explain, in completely secular terms, why this act should be illegal?
Thoughts: It's not. The precedent was already set with this case. The same Supreme Court ruling which banned all miscegenation laws in this country should also apply to same-sex marriages. It is an act between two consenting adults. There is no reason for any state to deny people this very basic of human rights. And since it affects their tax standing and their medical insurance it has very real affects on the lives of those denied their right to marriage. Now, don't think for a second that I am saying a church should be forced to honor or accept a couple with whom their faith disagrees. This is their perrogative. If a non-profit organization wishes to exclude certain people from their buildings and their ceremonies, then that is their right to do so. However, this act does not excuse the actions of legal unions sanctioned in a courthouse. ALL non-religious marriage ceremonies deserve equal respect in the secular eyes of the law. There should be no debate on this topic.
And before those of you who desire to go back on my first scenario and point out that homosexuality has been shown to be a "mutable" trait and therefore not comparable to race, may I remind you that "mutable" just means changable. So by your logic, it's okay to ban the marriage of people in wheelchairs or on crutches. Hey, it's a temporary trait, so it's not covered, right? Wrong. ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. period. There is no mutability in that law and there is no room for biased laws based on any trait, whether alterable or not.
Scenario 3:
Thoughts:
Closing:
Scenario: Your son is born gay. You don't know it yet, but he will as soon as his hormones kick in. While some boys in his class will be chasing the girls and making out valentine cards to them, he will be doing the same for his very own boy crush. It's just as innocent and just as harmless, but he will be chastised and teachers, parents and communities alike will be seeking a scapegoat to blame for his "weirdness".
Thoughts: Fact is, as much as people keep trying to deny it, homosexuality is not a choice any more than heterosexuality is. I never "decided" to like boys. I just always did so because my body was wired to react chemically to them. That's it. The same goes for every human being. In recent news, scientists even pinpointed the genetic makeup which predispositions one to be attracted to one sex over another. Of course, conservatives took this opportunity to try and construe homosexuality as an abberration that we can now "cure" instead of embracing the scientific proof that now shows homosexulaity as the natural instinct that it is.
In the end, they seem to forget that we have known for quite some time what genetic change makes some babies (whom ALL start out as females) into males. So, by the logic of many conservatives who have openly admitted they would change their babie's sexual preference in the womb, one can also easily change the SEX of their baby. And we've had that technology for quite some time. But does that really make it "okay"? The same people who are anti-abortion and anti-stem cell research are advocating the alteration and biochemical manufacturing of children? Something looks off here.
Is it really doing the right thing for your child or is it for yourself? If the child was diagnosed early with a disease or a physical ailment which could be cured through bioengineering, then I would be more open and understanding. But to tell me that you would risk your child's future on the weak excuse that you are "protecting" them from mockery and ridcule just screams of selfishness. What's next? Are we going to engineer our daughters to be better cooks and our sons to be better at sports? These sort of ideals are erasing the very beauty of individuality. The fact is, you may think YOUR perfect child, all star football champ or hometown beauty queen isn't being mocked or made fun of but, they are. There will always be that one child who was raised not to accept people who are different thatn them. Whether it's race, class or sexual preference. ALL children will be teased in their life. What you are trying to "protect" your child from would be better built in a home of loving and understanding parents and friends. NOT by forcing the child into a box or altering them to your skewed view of perfection.
Scenario 2: Now your son is a grown man and found another man with whom he is happy and would like to spend the remainder of his life. In a desire to declare his faithfulness and undying love for this man, he wants to get married. Explain, in completely secular terms, why this act should be illegal?
Thoughts: It's not. The precedent was already set with this case. The same Supreme Court ruling which banned all miscegenation laws in this country should also apply to same-sex marriages. It is an act between two consenting adults. There is no reason for any state to deny people this very basic of human rights. And since it affects their tax standing and their medical insurance it has very real affects on the lives of those denied their right to marriage. Now, don't think for a second that I am saying a church should be forced to honor or accept a couple with whom their faith disagrees. This is their perrogative. If a non-profit organization wishes to exclude certain people from their buildings and their ceremonies, then that is their right to do so. However, this act does not excuse the actions of legal unions sanctioned in a courthouse. ALL non-religious marriage ceremonies deserve equal respect in the secular eyes of the law. There should be no debate on this topic.
And before those of you who desire to go back on my first scenario and point out that homosexuality has been shown to be a "mutable" trait and therefore not comparable to race, may I remind you that "mutable" just means changable. So by your logic, it's okay to ban the marriage of people in wheelchairs or on crutches. Hey, it's a temporary trait, so it's not covered, right? Wrong. ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. period. There is no mutability in that law and there is no room for biased laws based on any trait, whether alterable or not.
Scenario 3:
Thoughts:
Closing:
Friday, August 1, 2008
US Slavery Reparations: Uneccessary and Implausible
Question: Should the American government apologize and give reparations to the descendants of African slaves in America?
Scenario: I wish this was just an imaginary issue, but it's not. Steve Cohen of the US House has decided that it's high time some white people start apologizing for the actions of people who may or may not have been their great-grandparents. http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/usa/features/article_1420551.php/US_House_apologizes_for_slavery_reviving_reparations_call
In this ideal reparations paid future, Jewish descendants will be taxed to pay for the deeds of people they are not related to. Though slave-descendants themselves, they will be punished for crimes they never committed all based on their skin color. As I am sure the only way to decide who owes who will be the consensus check-box which lumps all pale-skinned men and women into the group of "White/Caucasian" regardless of their past.
Thoughts:
First off, learn some history. The African slave past is nothing unique nor original. In fact, in some corners of the globe, women are still sold as sex slaves and tribes still hold their POWs as slaves. The idea that African Americans have somehow "suffered" more than any other race is ludicrous. It is part of our collective social structure to take advantage of one another when we can. In our collective past, every race on this planet has at some point been both slave and master. No one deserves special treatment based on their skin color. NO ONE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_%28Ottoman_Empire%29
http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/slaves_freemen.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26296
Secondly, people seem to forget that in order for this whole "idea" to come to fruition, taxes would have to be raised or a special tax introduced in order to raise this money. This means that all working Americans, even those who are NEW to this country or descended from people who never owned slaves would be financially punished for crimes which they are not guilty. In some cases, the very descendants themselves would be taxed to pay for these reparations. Money doesn't magically fall from the sky. It comes from real, working people. And at the end of the day, reparations would be punishing people who were never alive during nor responsible for the actions of the past.
Lastly, who is to receive these reparations? Jamaicans who moved here months ago and had nothing to do with slavery? What about the Native Americans and Mexicans who served as slaves in America BEFORE Africans were ever purchased from their original slave owners: the Muslims. Who are we really punishing and rewarding? People are so quick to blame someone for the wrongs of society now that they are focusing entirely too much on the past of a select few citizens and ignoring the very real PRESENT conditions which are really contributing to imbalance in this society.
Scenario: I wish this was just an imaginary issue, but it's not. Steve Cohen of the US House has decided that it's high time some white people start apologizing for the actions of people who may or may not have been their great-grandparents. http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/usa/features/article_1420551.php/US_House_apologizes_for_slavery_reviving_reparations_call
In this ideal reparations paid future, Jewish descendants will be taxed to pay for the deeds of people they are not related to. Though slave-descendants themselves, they will be punished for crimes they never committed all based on their skin color. As I am sure the only way to decide who owes who will be the consensus check-box which lumps all pale-skinned men and women into the group of "White/Caucasian" regardless of their past.
Thoughts:
First off, learn some history. The African slave past is nothing unique nor original. In fact, in some corners of the globe, women are still sold as sex slaves and tribes still hold their POWs as slaves. The idea that African Americans have somehow "suffered" more than any other race is ludicrous. It is part of our collective social structure to take advantage of one another when we can. In our collective past, every race on this planet has at some point been both slave and master. No one deserves special treatment based on their skin color. NO ONE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_%28Ottoman_Empire%29
http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/slaves_freemen.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_medieval_Europe
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26296
Secondly, people seem to forget that in order for this whole "idea" to come to fruition, taxes would have to be raised or a special tax introduced in order to raise this money. This means that all working Americans, even those who are NEW to this country or descended from people who never owned slaves would be financially punished for crimes which they are not guilty. In some cases, the very descendants themselves would be taxed to pay for these reparations. Money doesn't magically fall from the sky. It comes from real, working people. And at the end of the day, reparations would be punishing people who were never alive during nor responsible for the actions of the past.
Lastly, who is to receive these reparations? Jamaicans who moved here months ago and had nothing to do with slavery? What about the Native Americans and Mexicans who served as slaves in America BEFORE Africans were ever purchased from their original slave owners: the Muslims. Who are we really punishing and rewarding? People are so quick to blame someone for the wrongs of society now that they are focusing entirely too much on the past of a select few citizens and ignoring the very real PRESENT conditions which are really contributing to imbalance in this society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
