SB 142 Is Just So….Gay.

In a country based on personal and religious freedom, I find it interesting that we, as Americans, even entertain such concepts as the one presented in SB 142, the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act.  Last Thursday, constituants congregated on the Capitol steps to protest the bill, which allows business owners and various service providers to deny service to patrons whose actions/lifestyles defy their respective religious tenets.  While stating that race, gender or ethnicity cannot be a factor in refusal of services or goods, the bill specifically omits guidlines regarding members of the LBGT community, and would serve to protect business owners in lawsuits resultant of denied service.

The business owners in question are largely comprised of Protestant/Evangelical backgrounds, and have proposed this bill in response to a growing number of LBGT patrons…but give or take a religious nuance here and there, a protestant background would preclude services rendered to adulterers, those practicing sexual relations outside of marriage, single parents, divorcees, felons, non-teetotallers, doctors who have performed abortions or prescribed birth control, drug users, etc. Some religious denominations would even prohibit services to be rendered to women who wear pants or have short hair, or men with long hair, or people who swear or smoke. And let’s break it down to the basics…the Ten Commandments are pretty universally agreed upon, so what about people who’ve stolen? People who’ve coveted? Lied? What about war veterans or police officers who’ve taken lives in the line of duty? Consider gluttony, greed and laziness. According to 2011 statistics, 64.5% of Kansas residents are obese.  Are proprietors planning on discriminating against 64.5% of their current patrons? Doubtful.

Religious freedom should be exactly that. Freedom. But let’s face it. There has never been such a thing. Protestant pilgrims burned those practicing witchcraft at the stake, slaughtered Native Americans for refusal to convert to Christianity. But is it so out of the realm of possibility to expect the American people to have progressed beyond discrimination, for anything? We’ve been the last horse to cross every civil rights finish line, and we should be ashamed, not proposing bills that invite further international derision resultant of our idiocy.  One could further argue that by passing this bill, the Senate is supporting specific religious beliefs and practices, which directly violates the idea behind separation of church and state, does it not?

The relationships people have with one another should be the business of those two individuals. In the same way we praise a faithful marriage or a good relationship, we should support others who have made an alternative decision, instead of further barracading the already rocky road which relationships cause us to travel.  Religion has been through the ages a monsterous thing, that makes aggregious and unlawful the natural desires we have as human beings. I always laugh a little when I see the phrase “When did you choose to be straight?” Most of us didn’t. I certainly never did.  It just was, like always having liked pizza or hating the color brown. And if someone were to assert that I have to start liking women because their God said so, I’d wonder why he created me with the desire for men in the first place. Especially if this person also claimed said God made no mistakes…

This bill is…to say the least, assinine. What happens when an emergency services company gets to discriminate against people? Hospitals? Private practices? Law firms? Sercurity agencies? Schools? This bill protects intolerance. It promotes an idea that goes against the very thing for which this country claims it stands. Religion, by it’s very definition, is a personal belief. As a personal decision, it cannot be grounds for refusing to treat with equal respect, a person who does not share said beliefs. Currently, the bill has been passed 91-33 at the House, and is currently awaiting further legislation.

Ann Romney Addressing Women’s Issues Makes About as Much Sense as Asking Prince William What it’s Like To Be Poor.

As Ann Romney celebrates her 63rd birthday, she has had recent occasion to call her decision to be a “stay at home” mother into question.  Hillary Rosen, a democratic commentator, suggested last week in a CNN interview that Romney might have difficulty relating to the female American public, as she has never been employed.  She went on to criticize Mitt Romney’s decision to use his wife an a guide for addressing issues and hardships prevelant with stay at home and carreer mothers alike.

In 2008, the Census Bureau estimated that there were 84.5 million American mothers, but that only 5 million are stay at home mothers.  Is it conceivable that Romney, who is part of a less than six percent slice of the American matriarchal pie, could really find a sense of kismet with an average mother?  Probably not.  I disagree with the Democratic party’s collective move to distance themselves from Rosen, because what she said is plausible.  Romney can speak from a tremendous amount of politcal experience, sure. But when it comes to balancing motherhood, a career, and spouse or significant other, or even more challenging, carrying these burdens alone…Romney has no valid opinion, and most mothers don’t have the luxury of her option.

Let’s take a look at Romney’s statistics…She attended Cranbrook, a private boarding school (cost: $230,000+), Brigham Young University (on average 5-10k per semester), and later, Harvard (average 2-5k per semester).  She is an avid, medal-winning equestrian, and her horses alone are purported to be worth more than $100,000 each, not including the enormous costs of their upkeep and training.  This is obviously not an ordinary “stay at home” mother.  Is it just me, or did her slice of the average American pie just become exponentially smaller?  Her statistics also beg the question, where did all this money come from?  She was the daughter of a heavy machinery magnate, who later served as a mayor of one of the wealthiest areas in the state.  She then married, straight out of college, and continued to garner support from both her father and her husband.  So one must take some offense when Romney makes statements such as “there is no tougher job than being a stay at home mother”.   There are far tougher jobs, such as being a stay at home mother without a household staff and a steady, rather exorbitant income, which she does nothing to facillitate.

Rosen was grounded in her statements, in those regarding Mrs. and Mr. Romney.  Rosen was publically critized for not only her remarks towards Mrs. Romney, but she was also chastized for suggesting that Mr. Romney does not look at women as equals.  But is that really a statement so far out of the realm of believability?  Romney is an avid, active self-proclaimed member the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, whose current (and that’s a whole other can of worms…) practices encourage women to be stay at home mothers, and teaches that they have a specific role as nurturers and family caregivers.  In the past, men were allowed to practice polygamy, while women were not. Women were held to very specific guidelines regarding chastity and religious practice that men were not.  How can these people make any sort of legitimate claim towards equality with or understanding of their average constituant?

Politicians and their families, especially those backed by a church boasting Time Magazine’s label of “one of the highest grossing religious organizations per capita”, cannot, and should not take offense to largely accurate allegations as to what and who they are.  Nor should hardworking journalists and political figures be denounced or be made to apologize for having the courage to address the issues currently on the mind of John, or perhaps more accurately, Jane Q. Public (see Rosen’s fantastic rebuttal article here).  Suggesting that a woman who has, in fact “never worked a day in her life”, is unqualified to address women’s economics, is an accurate, albiet somewhat insulting, assessment.

I find it interesting that Ann Romney felt the need to create a twitter account and christen it with the somewhat defensive first tweet of: “I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys.  Believe me, it was hard work”.  I also find it difficult to muster any sympathy for the woman.  The cost of her education alone is far more than I’ll make in a lifetime.  And after all, what would I know about living on an almost unlimited budget, with a full-time staff to plan meals and care for my children, while I’m out riding horses and planning charity events?

The Thing Is…

So the roomie and I went to see “The Thing” this weekend, and while I have to give them props for not trying to remake it, and doing a whole “prequel” angle…Seriously. It was disappointing. The only improvement over the last one was that it didn’t feature Wilfred Brimley.

I don’t understand Hollywood’s attitude towards movies. It’s like, if I, a completely untrained observer, can pick out 87 discrepansies in your movie that irritate me to the point of complete disinterest, why can’t you? Don’t insult my intelligence by expecting me to just give some sort of indie hipster excuse as to why your movie makes no sense…

The Thing.

1. So…you’re digging around in some ice, you find an alien ship, you find a frozen alien. You extract said alien, and everybody is so busy parading around with their oversized extraterrestrial popsicle, that no one stops to wonder why the biopsy they performed produced a non-frozen specimen. The only way it wouldn’t be frozen is if…oh my gawd…it’s alive. And even then, fuck, why wouldn’t you notice the cells weren’t dead? I mean, I had a goldfish that froze once, and the same thing happened. Totally fine once it thawed out. And my goldfish wasn’t the size of God with giant claws…
2. The invading aliens can’t replicate anything not organic, but yet, the people are all replicated wearing synthetic materials, watches, shoes… And everybody made a big deal about checking for metal. OMG, he has no fillings! Alien! But…the human body contains metals and minerals. Whatever.
3. You’re telling me three people hollowed out a cavern, in solid ice, the size of a football field?
4. Where the fuck did people in Antarctica get a keg? You’re in the middle of a remote tundra, in a mostly abandoned outpost, but there’s an abundance of nonskunky beer and a keg. Totally realistic.
5. The only black dude hears a noise, in the room with the alien, and goes alone, unarmed, to check it out. Seriously, bro? You’ve never seen a horror movie before? Or Star Trek, even? The black dude always goes first.
6. Shit hits the fan, and suddenly, everyone and their mother has a flame thrower. Can I get a job in Antartica? Shit. Hook a kid up. And hitting a thing that survived in an ice cube for 100,000 years with a short burst from a flame thrower probably isn’t going to kill it. Not to mention that fact that the thing ends up burning like it’s covered in eu de lighter fluid, but what is burning? Wouldn’t it just be charred? It’s not wearing clothes, and last time I checked, meat doesn’t really catch on fire, it just cooks.

Okay, so obviously it’s a horror movie, and supposed to be somewhat cheesy. But people, I didn’t sign up for the Evil Dead trilogy-esq corniness here. If something is supposed to be scary, as The Thing should have been, make it believable. I want to be scared. That’s the whole point. And that is yet another frustrating result of remakes, sequels and prequels. You already get the concept. John Carpenter made his aliens textured, grimy and scary as fuck. None of this CGI bullshit. And don’t even get me started on the sad, wannabe Ripley main character…

Speaking of Aliens, that movie was one of the best sci fi horror movies, period. And when you really think about it, not much happens. But the psychological, suspense, holy shit, what the fuck just popped out of John Hurt, that made the movie. And then of course…the rest of them came out and kinda ruined it. But that was brilliant. Or The Descent. That movie pulled the same jump out and attack like, seven times. But I fell for it each time. Presentation!

The Thing relied way too heavily on gore, limited imagination, and horrible acting. Gore works, but there has to be a psychological aspect to it as well. Aliens had it’s alone in space thing, The Descent had total darkness and being lost, even The Ring had the whole murder mystery thing behind it. Or take 30 Days of Night…great movie, remote location, darkness, whatthefuckarethesevampiremonsters…

Horror movies should be scary. Bottom line. I’m tired of going to movies, remakes or otherwise, and being bored. Somebody make something amazing, imediately. KTHX.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

For those of you who have read my somewhat vague facebook quotes and wondered in what context they’ve been posted, it usually involves something that’s occured at work. An office, at least mine, serves as little more than a breeding ground for drama, bandstanding, politics and personal sabotage. If I wasn’t legally obligated to keep my mouth shut about my everyday goingson, I’d have pitched this shit to a producer ages ago…

But, and this again goes for my current place of employment, there’s an interesting mix of personalities that constantly conflict. Success in this piece can all be boiled down to your ability, or lack thereof, to mimic a sheep. One could also say that it highly depends on your ability to hide your amusement/irritation towards people who, for various reasons (some less valid than others), have been placed in a supervisory position over you…

But let’s talk about that for a second…in my profession, promotions and increased responsibility are meted out almost automatically, given certain timing/proper networking/evidence of easy manipulation. You’ve been a part of the organization long enough? Promoted. You know the right people the right way and they see that they can give you more responsibility while still maintaining total control over the decisions you make? Promoted.

That last part is especially troublesome. Looking at it from a business perspective, as a CEO, supervisor…whatever, which makes more sense? People who will do exactly what you tell them and make everyone they’re in charge of do the same, or people that will think outside the box for new solutions, ways to innovate and streamline existing issues and processes? The latter, right? Wrong. And keep in mind that someone that just does what you tell them is going to continue  “in the box” way of thinking, and effectively squelching anyone under their charge who has any ideas toward the contrary.

Given my natural inclination towards entreprenurialism, I am always trying to make improvements to my life, work, self, relationships, what have you…so when, at my workplace, I try to make improvements, and am met with such responses as “Well, that’s not how we’ve always done it”, or “That might make us look bad”, it’s a little frustrating.  It’s also frustrating when the people offering these feeble excuses are less than admirable examples of professionals themselves.

 That last bit brings me to my point, albeit, a little late in the post…Just because you are my supervisor, doesn’t mean you get my respect automatically. Sure, there’s a modicum of obeisance I’m required to pay you, but as my hero, Mr Putin once said, “only a fool is validated by the respect he’s shown without first checking himself to be sure he’s earned it.”

So try this on for size, world. What if promotions were based off of what the people beneath you thought? Sure, you might say the right things to the right people and do the right shit when the right people are watching, but everyone forgets about the worker bees. Take for instance, a person with whom I share my workspace that has called at least four meetings complaining to those beneath him that he feels he is not being paid the respect he [expects] deserves. I wish I had a mirror to bring so you could see how foolish you look demanding respect.  Respect is about what you do, not what you say you do. Be awesome, don’t speak awesome, and don’t  expect  diamonds when you’re only giving cubic zirconia. And folks, there is nothing worse than cubic zirconia, because its nothing more than a cheap hypocrite.

Earn your shit. Don’t expect it. Just because you get it doesn’t mean you’ve earned it. If you haven’t, realize it and fix it.