Almost as soon as the Susan G. Komen For the Cure foundation withdrew support for breast screenings and funding for Planned Parenthood, there was a huge backlash in media, the Internet and social media condemning this action strongly. There is pressure on some organizations to withhold support for anything which supports reproductive choice and no matter how they spin it, the Susan G. Komen organization caved, and they did a disservice to women everywhere. They also did a disservice to all of their supporters who are really just about fighting cancer.
As we've seen, Facebook, Twitter, bloggers, YouTube and the power of instant communication and sharing on the web effectively make each individual a broadcaster who can serve as a conduit to focus on and amplify any issue important to them. As a result of this intense and widespread backlash, it seems the Susan G. Komen Foundation has thought better of punishing Planned Parenthood for being under 'investigation'. However, in the short time that the web was able to exert its grassroots power, people already withdrew support for the Susan G. Komen organization, gave directly to Planned Parenthood and made their righteous indignation known, with great effect.
The Susan G. Komen is apparently changing their policies to only withdraw funding for organizations under *criminal* investigation and has restored support for Planned Parenthood as well as breast cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood locations. Here's the announcement from Planned Parenthood:
--
UPDATE: February 3, 2012: The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation reversed its decision and continues to fund breast cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood health centers.
The outpouring of support online for Planned Parenthood and women in need of breast cancer screenings has been nothing short of astonishing, and because of it, the Planned Parenthood Breast Health Fund has received more than $3 million from thousands of people across the country in only three days.
Every dollar we received for this fund will go directly for breast exams and diagnostic services, as well as breast health outreach and education. And now that the Komen Foundation plans to continue their support, even more women will receive lifesaving breast cancer care.
We look forward to continuing our partnership with Komen partners, leaders, and volunteers, and supporters like you. Thank you so much for your voice and for standing with us.
--
I am glad they came to their senses, but all is not well. If the Susan G. Komen Organization decided to bend to pressure from the anti-choice crowd, are they really on the right side of the argument, despite what the public reversal and concession? This issue already cost the foundation their top public health official.
I suspect the damage has been done, and this will have lasting effects on donations and support for SGKftC, but at least they came around.
What's with cancer and discrimination lately, anyway? First, the American Cancer Society refuses to take atheist money, ostensibly because they don't want to be associated with atheists participants for their national events, and then the flap with the SGKftC and Planned Parenthood.
The bodies of women (or anyone) should not be battlegrounds for ideology, and cancer does not discriminate.
--
Friday, February 3, 2012
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
SOPA Blackout Tomorrow
Many prominent sites on the Internet are going dark tomorrow in an act of solidarity against the SOPA bill, or the Stop Online Piracy Act. This bill may sound good at first blush but would really lead to censorship and self-censorship. I for one am all for stopping piracy, but not by blocking whole sites, links, etc.. or even having a chilling effect on free-expression to protect the Entertainment industry. There are already anti-piracy laws in place without trying to change the Internet or create a new standard of censorship.
Check out this great video for more information:
--
Check out this great video for more information:
PROTECT IP / SOPA Breaks The Internet from Fight for the Future on Vimeo.
--
Sunday, January 1, 2012
New Year's Eve: Cee Lo Green Changes 'Imagine' Lyrics to be 'Pro' Religion.
I was watching CNN's New Year's Eve special with Anderson Cooper and Kathy Griffin and at one point, Cee Lo Green starts to sing 'Imagine' by John Lennon. I braced myself for him to change the lyric when it got to the 'no religion too' part and sure enough, he changed it to 'all religion's true'. Really?No, all religions can't be true, Silly Lo, and why did you feel the need to sing a freethought song by a dead musician, peace activist (and atheist) and then change his lyric? If you feel the need to change the song, why sing it at all? This is disrespectful to the song, its intent and Lennon's legacy—not to mention all non-believers. There's a popular song written by one of our own and religious asshats keep changing its lyrics.
Some theists and shallow-thinkers don't understand the uproar over the annoyance at this, but here's a little history lesson for them...we atheists have been dealing with 'little' changes with much bigger consequences.
How do theists feel about our paper money being restored from 'In God We Trust' back to the original Latin, 'E Pluribus Unem' or 'From Many, One'? The latter message is all-inclusive, where the religious message makes non-Christians and non-believers into second class citizens. Paper money was changed in 1957 and there are still 'clean' dollars to be found as proof. This is just a small phrase, so why do people freak when the attempt is made to restore paper money with its original motto?
Christians even changed the lyrics of our Pledge of Allegiance, as written by Francis Bellamy, a pledge which was originally secular. Now, it is effectively an unconstitutional public school, state-employee-led prayer because Christians added 'under God' in 1954 as a reaction to the Red Scare and McCarthyism. If lyrics aren't a big deal, why is there such resistance to restoring the pledge from the 'under god' version to the original secular version? Why did Eisenhower allow Christian special-interests to change the original secular pledge?
Here is the original pledge as written by Francis Bellamy before it was turned into prayer which makes non-Christians and non-believers into second-class citizens who, if they opt-out, put themselves at risk of castigation and singling-out for special abuse:
I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic, for which it stands
one nation, indivisible
with liberty and justice for all.
There's good reason some of us are sensitive to these changes. Our pledge and money are STILL infected with religious dogma from secular, all-inclusive roots—and it hasn't stopped there.
All religions CANNOT be true, but they can all be false.
--
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Holiday UPS Fun!
UPS Holiday Fun!
1. Ordered gift for girlfriend from Amazon. No idea a signature was required but I work from home so generally that might not be a problem.
2. Dec. 23-UPS 'tries' to deliver package even though my girlfriend and I are home all day. She has the hearing of a bat. UPS leaves InfoNotice on door. I sign it and stick it on door thinking they will simply leave the package on their return. My neighbors haven't stolen my packages so I am not too worried, and it's not a big-ticket item.
3. Dec. 23 (evening)-UPS 'tries' to deliver package again. They don't honor the signed InfoNotice and new InfoNotice is in the middle of the walkway (not even on my door). I have a feeling the guy ran in and ran out without even looking at the door.
4. I call UPS after 20 minutes of horrific, looped hold music. UPS agent assures me I can pick it up on Saturday from the Sylmar processing facility between 9a and 5p. I verify that they have correct, complete address and they do.
5. Dec. 24th—I go to UPS. No package. They say package is locked up on a truck and I wait half and hour while they look through it and come back empty-handed. Turns out I have to come back on the 27th to pick it up, and I can't even have them re-deliver and even if they do, I'll probably miss it the way this is going.
6. I buy the gift locally on the way home and submit Amazon request to return original (which I still don't have).
Lesson learned: Signature-requirements suck and are mightily confusing to UPS and drivers in a rush. The agents at the UPS center tried to tell me that somehow signing their own signature form doesn't actually count as a signature, and that I have to be there in person. What is the point of the signature form then if it can't count in lieu of my being there in-person? DERP.
They then tried to tell me that packages that don't require a signature will have delivery people honor the signature form, but packages that don't need a signature are left at the door in the first place, and there'd be no InfoNotice to sign! DERP!
Logic is hard. Signature requirements suck unless *I* want that security. Buyer beware.
--
1. Ordered gift for girlfriend from Amazon. No idea a signature was required but I work from home so generally that might not be a problem.
2. Dec. 23-UPS 'tries' to deliver package even though my girlfriend and I are home all day. She has the hearing of a bat. UPS leaves InfoNotice on door. I sign it and stick it on door thinking they will simply leave the package on their return. My neighbors haven't stolen my packages so I am not too worried, and it's not a big-ticket item.
3. Dec. 23 (evening)-UPS 'tries' to deliver package again. They don't honor the signed InfoNotice and new InfoNotice is in the middle of the walkway (not even on my door). I have a feeling the guy ran in and ran out without even looking at the door.
4. I call UPS after 20 minutes of horrific, looped hold music. UPS agent assures me I can pick it up on Saturday from the Sylmar processing facility between 9a and 5p. I verify that they have correct, complete address and they do.
5. Dec. 24th—I go to UPS. No package. They say package is locked up on a truck and I wait half and hour while they look through it and come back empty-handed. Turns out I have to come back on the 27th to pick it up, and I can't even have them re-deliver and even if they do, I'll probably miss it the way this is going.
6. I buy the gift locally on the way home and submit Amazon request to return original (which I still don't have).
Lesson learned: Signature-requirements suck and are mightily confusing to UPS and drivers in a rush. The agents at the UPS center tried to tell me that somehow signing their own signature form doesn't actually count as a signature, and that I have to be there in person. What is the point of the signature form then if it can't count in lieu of my being there in-person? DERP.
They then tried to tell me that packages that don't require a signature will have delivery people honor the signature form, but packages that don't need a signature are left at the door in the first place, and there'd be no InfoNotice to sign! DERP!
Logic is hard. Signature requirements suck unless *I* want that security. Buyer beware.
--
Monday, December 12, 2011
Why I am Against Marriage (And You Should Be Too).
I understand and support marriage-rights for all, but I don't think government should be in the marriage business. As long as they are, I agree, everyone should have equal access. What I am suffering with day to day though is marital status discrimination—like the fact that my girlfriend's company (CBS) won't cover opposite-sex domestic partners (health insurance) but is forced to cover same-sex domestic partners —which is needed, I understand because gay couples still can't legally marry in CA due to the 2008 passing of Prop (H)8. We've been trying to get coverage for me (through her) since 2004 with various H.R. people, and to no avail. There are 4-5 opposite-sex domestic couples *that we know about* that would benefit immediately if CBS would simply stop discriminating. Yes, I am naming names. I see no reason to protect them from their own discriminatory practices.
No company should have an interest in whether I am straight/gay, atheist/theist, single/married, child-free or a father. Why is a California company (or any company) allowed to discriminate on the basis of marriage? This is wrong on any metric, and the solution does not bear simply 'getting married'.
Marriage is not satisfactory because the discrimination inherent to a pro-marriage society attempts to force that very solution to the problem a pro-marriage (and anti-single/cohabiting) society created in the first place. I see the only solution as boycotting marriage and trying to fight to get equal treatment under the law. The pro-marriage status is residue from religiously-inspired edicts against cohabitation or 'living in sin', where only a couple decades ago an unmarried couple could not rent an apartment. or book a hotel room for 'moral' reasons—moreso for those in power who held strong pro-marriage ideals and were basically free to discriminate at-will (until these practices were challenged). Marriage has also been used as a way to discriminate against interracial-unions with miscegenation laws until these were challenged (with success) by Loving vs. Virginia in 1967.
The pro-marriage/anti-single agenda is just the tail-end of a time where being single or in an unmarried relationship is seen as acceptable—but it's not there yet. Even the Republican candidates in 2011 are *still* talking about 'pro-marriage' ideals, and this no-doubt is strongly-inspired by religious ideology.
Unmarried people now outnumber married people in America, but we still get treated quite badly or as if we don't matter. This is due in-part because plenty of progressive-minded people are still getting married, and activists for singles-rights are few and far between. Thankfully, the gay-rights proponents have been unwitting allies for a while now as they fight to get their rights as domestic couples, but opposite-sex domestic couples are still barely recognized. What I should also mention is that companies in CA can choose voluntarily to cover unmarried opposite-sexed domestic couples, but there's no state mandate to do so and other companies (such as CBS) choose to discriminate against us.
If we lived under Jim Crow laws during racial segregation I would not consider 'riding on the back of the bus' a solution either, or simply eating where in the 'white' or 'black' parts of the restaurant. Married couples should not enjoy a 'favored status' in society at all. Even with car insurance, felons in terrible marriages get a discount, where the upstanding non-criminal who chooses to be single suffers a higher rate. This is just wrong, and is probably why Massachusetts and the European Union no longer allow marital-status discrimination with regard to auto-insurance rates. It's also wrong to disallow unmarried domestic partners access to partners in the hospital, where married people are allowed access without question (even if they're in a bitter and contentious separation).
Marital-status discrimination is so endemic that people barely even notice or think about it—but that will change as fewer people validate marriage by getting married. Even the couple who is pro-marriage is still affected by discrimination against opposite-sex domestic partnership...what if they want a long engagement and want to cover a future-spouse on their healthcare plan? Are they simply out of luck? In many states, they are and many companies are still allowed to discriminate based on whether they want to 'encourage' marriage or not (such as CBS). I work in the game industry, and most companies opt to cover unmarried domestic partners—I know because I've checked, so those who don't cover unmarried domestic partners have made a choice to do so, and this discrimination won't stop until *we* who are employed by these companies (or affected by them) take a stand.
Government should not be in the business of recognizing what is basically a sexual relationship, especially while polyamory remains illegal in most states. The Browns featured in the show 'Sister Wives' were basically run out of Utah, a state with an overwhelmingly Mormon majority whose roots lie in polygamy! The hypocrisy is thick here.
Another angle to consider here is that the religious right see healthcare (and other) benefits as a real perk of marriage, and in-promoting marriage over 'living in sin', supporting any individual power to receive quality health-insurance undermines the reasons to get married and indirectly, religion itself.
This is not to put direct blame on people innocently getting married, but the effects are very real, and I refuse to apply a solution (marriage) caused by preferential treatment of one class of people (married) over another (unmarried or gay). My heterosexuality (which I have no control over) allows me to marry legally, but in my view, it's like being white and happily eating at 'white-only' restaurants during the Jim Crow era. I would rather boycott that restaurant entirely and spend my money at the all-inclusive establishments and eat with a clear-conscience.
No government is bigger than the one who invades the bedroom and 'validates' relationships while invalidating others—do you hear that, socially-regressive Republicans? Out best weapon against the injustices of 'marriage' is to simply refuse to participate while continually striving for true equality under the law.
--
No company should have an interest in whether I am straight/gay, atheist/theist, single/married, child-free or a father. Why is a California company (or any company) allowed to discriminate on the basis of marriage? This is wrong on any metric, and the solution does not bear simply 'getting married'.
Marriage is not satisfactory because the discrimination inherent to a pro-marriage society attempts to force that very solution to the problem a pro-marriage (and anti-single/cohabiting) society created in the first place. I see the only solution as boycotting marriage and trying to fight to get equal treatment under the law. The pro-marriage status is residue from religiously-inspired edicts against cohabitation or 'living in sin', where only a couple decades ago an unmarried couple could not rent an apartment. or book a hotel room for 'moral' reasons—moreso for those in power who held strong pro-marriage ideals and were basically free to discriminate at-will (until these practices were challenged). Marriage has also been used as a way to discriminate against interracial-unions with miscegenation laws until these were challenged (with success) by Loving vs. Virginia in 1967.
The pro-marriage/anti-single agenda is just the tail-end of a time where being single or in an unmarried relationship is seen as acceptable—but it's not there yet. Even the Republican candidates in 2011 are *still* talking about 'pro-marriage' ideals, and this no-doubt is strongly-inspired by religious ideology.
Unmarried people now outnumber married people in America, but we still get treated quite badly or as if we don't matter. This is due in-part because plenty of progressive-minded people are still getting married, and activists for singles-rights are few and far between. Thankfully, the gay-rights proponents have been unwitting allies for a while now as they fight to get their rights as domestic couples, but opposite-sex domestic couples are still barely recognized. What I should also mention is that companies in CA can choose voluntarily to cover unmarried opposite-sexed domestic couples, but there's no state mandate to do so and other companies (such as CBS) choose to discriminate against us.
If we lived under Jim Crow laws during racial segregation I would not consider 'riding on the back of the bus' a solution either, or simply eating where in the 'white' or 'black' parts of the restaurant. Married couples should not enjoy a 'favored status' in society at all. Even with car insurance, felons in terrible marriages get a discount, where the upstanding non-criminal who chooses to be single suffers a higher rate. This is just wrong, and is probably why Massachusetts and the European Union no longer allow marital-status discrimination with regard to auto-insurance rates. It's also wrong to disallow unmarried domestic partners access to partners in the hospital, where married people are allowed access without question (even if they're in a bitter and contentious separation).
Marital-status discrimination is so endemic that people barely even notice or think about it—but that will change as fewer people validate marriage by getting married. Even the couple who is pro-marriage is still affected by discrimination against opposite-sex domestic partnership...what if they want a long engagement and want to cover a future-spouse on their healthcare plan? Are they simply out of luck? In many states, they are and many companies are still allowed to discriminate based on whether they want to 'encourage' marriage or not (such as CBS). I work in the game industry, and most companies opt to cover unmarried domestic partners—I know because I've checked, so those who don't cover unmarried domestic partners have made a choice to do so, and this discrimination won't stop until *we* who are employed by these companies (or affected by them) take a stand.
Government should not be in the business of recognizing what is basically a sexual relationship, especially while polyamory remains illegal in most states. The Browns featured in the show 'Sister Wives' were basically run out of Utah, a state with an overwhelmingly Mormon majority whose roots lie in polygamy! The hypocrisy is thick here.
Another angle to consider here is that the religious right see healthcare (and other) benefits as a real perk of marriage, and in-promoting marriage over 'living in sin', supporting any individual power to receive quality health-insurance undermines the reasons to get married and indirectly, religion itself.
This is not to put direct blame on people innocently getting married, but the effects are very real, and I refuse to apply a solution (marriage) caused by preferential treatment of one class of people (married) over another (unmarried or gay). My heterosexuality (which I have no control over) allows me to marry legally, but in my view, it's like being white and happily eating at 'white-only' restaurants during the Jim Crow era. I would rather boycott that restaurant entirely and spend my money at the all-inclusive establishments and eat with a clear-conscience.
No government is bigger than the one who invades the bedroom and 'validates' relationships while invalidating others—do you hear that, socially-regressive Republicans? Out best weapon against the injustices of 'marriage' is to simply refuse to participate while continually striving for true equality under the law.
--
Friday, December 9, 2011
Patti Stanger (The Millionaire Matchmaker) is Still an Idiot!
What's wrong with this woman?
So, readers of this fine blog already know I can't stand Patti Stanger, but I just wanted to recap more of her idiocy.
For one, don't trust a matchmaker who's single. Ok? Nuff said on that.
Second, she insulted the gays recently saying they couldn't be monogamous, and then changed her story saying it was just L.A. gays. Still not true, Patti. Did you want to narrow your search further to an L.A. County suburb, nutbag?
She talks about guys being 'ageists', but did anyone mention that she's anti-atheist? She's so incredibly dippy that she thinks astrology and psychics are real, and she seemingly expects people to be as loopy and spiritual as she is, like it's some kind of benefit. Hint, hint Patti, you don't work for 'God' as you've recently claimed on Andy Cohen's Millionaire Matchmaker Reunion Show (Part 2) because there's no god, but even if you did work for he who spun the Cosmos into being...why is he being so stingy helping you find love? Maybe she's not impressed by your performance.
I still remember the one atheist guy on the show and he was rejected from the dating pool pretty quickly. Listen Patti, not everyone believes crystal healers can 'fix' people or in your spiritual nonsense. A fucking millionaire could be a short, albino atheist and still meet plenty of people without your 'help'. Seems to me that a lot of millionaires simply use Stanger as a madam or they just want to be on TV.
Somehow Patti thinks redheads can't get dates either. Yeah, do you think Nichole Kidman struggles to find men? How about your widely-despised and two-faced New York housewife friend, Jill Zarin? Speaking of Zarin, I am not impressed with the friends Patti keeps, either.
What's with the stupid ass rule on no sex before monogamy? How the Hell is a couple supposed to know if there should be monogamy without knowing how the sex is? How will they even get to the sex if they can't discuss real issues, such as politics or religion? It seems the only one who gets to talk about religion is Patti, as she carefully vets who is Jewish, who's a Shiksa (non-Jewish woman) or a Chupacabra (someone who is Jewish who doesn't appear Jewish, from my understanding). She sure loves to talk about who is Jewish, while one of her rules is that couples can't talk about religion or politics. This is funny, since Patti always seems interested in which of her dating candidates are 'spiritual' as if it's somehow a good thing. One of her worst clients was a devout Christian! I've never seen her hook up an atheist, but I think atheists might be on average too smart to pay a nutjob like Patti to give them bad advice. ;) So, the people who self-select and go to a loudmouth like Patti are probably desperate to begin-with.
Patti is also a height-ist. I've heard her refer to guys of average height (around 5'8") as munchkins or whatever derogatory word her sloppy brain and unfiltered mouth blurts out. Guys are taller than women on average, but they're not wearing heels either. It seems to me that Patti is kind of a tall woman who loves her heels and still wants guys to be taller than her, and her frustration about this is obvious, but so is her superficiality.
It's one thing to get on someone's case for attitude, but for height? One could easily refer to Patti as a loudmouthed, unfeminine moosey-douchebag, but I'll save that for later. ;)
I guess I am guilty of passing judgement too, because Patti Stanger is an idiot and there's probably not much she can do about it.
—
So, readers of this fine blog already know I can't stand Patti Stanger, but I just wanted to recap more of her idiocy.
For one, don't trust a matchmaker who's single. Ok? Nuff said on that.
Second, she insulted the gays recently saying they couldn't be monogamous, and then changed her story saying it was just L.A. gays. Still not true, Patti. Did you want to narrow your search further to an L.A. County suburb, nutbag?
She talks about guys being 'ageists', but did anyone mention that she's anti-atheist? She's so incredibly dippy that she thinks astrology and psychics are real, and she seemingly expects people to be as loopy and spiritual as she is, like it's some kind of benefit. Hint, hint Patti, you don't work for 'God' as you've recently claimed on Andy Cohen's Millionaire Matchmaker Reunion Show (Part 2) because there's no god, but even if you did work for he who spun the Cosmos into being...why is he being so stingy helping you find love? Maybe she's not impressed by your performance.
I still remember the one atheist guy on the show and he was rejected from the dating pool pretty quickly. Listen Patti, not everyone believes crystal healers can 'fix' people or in your spiritual nonsense. A fucking millionaire could be a short, albino atheist and still meet plenty of people without your 'help'. Seems to me that a lot of millionaires simply use Stanger as a madam or they just want to be on TV.
Somehow Patti thinks redheads can't get dates either. Yeah, do you think Nichole Kidman struggles to find men? How about your widely-despised and two-faced New York housewife friend, Jill Zarin? Speaking of Zarin, I am not impressed with the friends Patti keeps, either.
What's with the stupid ass rule on no sex before monogamy? How the Hell is a couple supposed to know if there should be monogamy without knowing how the sex is? How will they even get to the sex if they can't discuss real issues, such as politics or religion? It seems the only one who gets to talk about religion is Patti, as she carefully vets who is Jewish, who's a Shiksa (non-Jewish woman) or a Chupacabra (someone who is Jewish who doesn't appear Jewish, from my understanding). She sure loves to talk about who is Jewish, while one of her rules is that couples can't talk about religion or politics. This is funny, since Patti always seems interested in which of her dating candidates are 'spiritual' as if it's somehow a good thing. One of her worst clients was a devout Christian! I've never seen her hook up an atheist, but I think atheists might be on average too smart to pay a nutjob like Patti to give them bad advice. ;) So, the people who self-select and go to a loudmouth like Patti are probably desperate to begin-with.
Patti is also a height-ist. I've heard her refer to guys of average height (around 5'8") as munchkins or whatever derogatory word her sloppy brain and unfiltered mouth blurts out. Guys are taller than women on average, but they're not wearing heels either. It seems to me that Patti is kind of a tall woman who loves her heels and still wants guys to be taller than her, and her frustration about this is obvious, but so is her superficiality.
It's one thing to get on someone's case for attitude, but for height? One could easily refer to Patti as a loudmouthed, unfeminine moosey-douchebag, but I'll save that for later. ;)
I guess I am guilty of passing judgement too, because Patti Stanger is an idiot and there's probably not much she can do about it.
—
Friday, September 23, 2011
Lady Gaga Wants To Make Bullying Illegal?
I love me some Gaga and appreciate her pro-gay campaigning and her support of Japan in the wake of the recent tsunami. But now she wants to make bullying 'illegal'.
You can't just make 'bullying' illegal, Gaga! What next, make it illegal to 'dis' Justin Bieber or hate on country music? What about religious or political disagreements? Will Palin or Bachmann be able to put Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewart in jail for 'bullying' because these TeaBagger wingnuts occasionally receive well-deserved ridicule?
The problem is that the definition of 'bullying' is just too vague, and at a certain point it's already illegal (sexual harassment, hate-crimes, discrimination, stalking, etc.). Actual physical abuse is already illegal.
The sentiment is fine, but trying to 'outlaw' bullying is like trying to outlaw conflict or stupidity, lack of education, bad moods, in-groups/out-groups or dominance struggles, etc.. Why not just better educate kids how to deal with bullies, I mean, aside from killing themselves? The kid who kills himself because of bullying in my view hasn't been made tough *enough*, so making them softer doesn't seem to be the answer.
Filling jails with 'bullies' is not the answer, and jail will only make bullies worse (at taxpayer expense). Who's going to be the judge of this bullying? How are we going to deal with the added court costs? Are we going to put the extra prisons in your neighborhood, and who's going to pay for them? We need *fewer* people in prison to make room for *real* criminals, not bullies.
When I was a kid, I was bullied quite a bit for being one of the shortest kids in my grade. In high school, it was a madhouse the first week or so...at least until I started letting kids know I wasn't an easy target, could humiliate them with my wit or speak loudly with my fists if they got physical. Often, the very act of returning banter was all it took to nullify the bully. Sometimes, the worst thing one can do when 'bullied' is to submit. This is normal dominance behavior in children and we should learn to deal with it, not just make it illegal.
In essence, the bullying I got made me tougher (and I was already a tough kid). Is bullying wrong? Perhaps. Is it human nature? Of course. Can a kid who got bullied end up changing the minds of others? Most definitely—it really depends how we deal with it. We've all had someone we underestimated who came to surprise us and earn our respect, right? I know I have. Is teasing the same as bullying? That's where it gets messy. Who's making the call?
Anyway, I appreciate the sentiment, but education is the key here. We need to start young and let children know that being different is ok, and to realize that there's more to people than outward appearance, sexual orientation, height, etc. More educated children exposed to some early diversity training are going to be less likely to bully in the first place, but we'll never totally eliminate it because it's part of human nature.
You can't just make 'bullying' illegal, Gaga! What next, make it illegal to 'dis' Justin Bieber or hate on country music? What about religious or political disagreements? Will Palin or Bachmann be able to put Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewart in jail for 'bullying' because these TeaBagger wingnuts occasionally receive well-deserved ridicule?
The problem is that the definition of 'bullying' is just too vague, and at a certain point it's already illegal (sexual harassment, hate-crimes, discrimination, stalking, etc.). Actual physical abuse is already illegal.
The sentiment is fine, but trying to 'outlaw' bullying is like trying to outlaw conflict or stupidity, lack of education, bad moods, in-groups/out-groups or dominance struggles, etc.. Why not just better educate kids how to deal with bullies, I mean, aside from killing themselves? The kid who kills himself because of bullying in my view hasn't been made tough *enough*, so making them softer doesn't seem to be the answer.
Filling jails with 'bullies' is not the answer, and jail will only make bullies worse (at taxpayer expense). Who's going to be the judge of this bullying? How are we going to deal with the added court costs? Are we going to put the extra prisons in your neighborhood, and who's going to pay for them? We need *fewer* people in prison to make room for *real* criminals, not bullies.
When I was a kid, I was bullied quite a bit for being one of the shortest kids in my grade. In high school, it was a madhouse the first week or so...at least until I started letting kids know I wasn't an easy target, could humiliate them with my wit or speak loudly with my fists if they got physical. Often, the very act of returning banter was all it took to nullify the bully. Sometimes, the worst thing one can do when 'bullied' is to submit. This is normal dominance behavior in children and we should learn to deal with it, not just make it illegal.
In essence, the bullying I got made me tougher (and I was already a tough kid). Is bullying wrong? Perhaps. Is it human nature? Of course. Can a kid who got bullied end up changing the minds of others? Most definitely—it really depends how we deal with it. We've all had someone we underestimated who came to surprise us and earn our respect, right? I know I have. Is teasing the same as bullying? That's where it gets messy. Who's making the call?
Anyway, I appreciate the sentiment, but education is the key here. We need to start young and let children know that being different is ok, and to realize that there's more to people than outward appearance, sexual orientation, height, etc. More educated children exposed to some early diversity training are going to be less likely to bully in the first place, but we'll never totally eliminate it because it's part of human nature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Atheist Angle RSS Feed