Aren't We All Created Equal?

Welcome to yet another edition of What's YOUR Deal?!? This marks a return to the regular format of what you have all come to expect from me: a rant, in total dismay, about the actions of the people around me. Maybe I just don't understand human behavior or maybe I'm the one with a personality disorder, but some things just don't make any sense to me. This past weekend was spent travelling and I seem to find the most fodder for my rants whenever I travel. I think it's mainly because everyone is out of their element, there is no "homecourt-advantage" for anyone. But that doesn't seem to stop people from thinking that the world still revolves around them. And it is to those people that I want to give them a hearty, "What's YOUR Deal?!?"

The fight for equality is one that we all still face. One way or another, we are all minorities in some aspect of our lives. Whether it's something physical or something within our belief system or something completely intangible, we all have something that makes us unique in the grand scheme of things. This is normal. However, the issue always seem to originate when groups of people get together and turn their minority beliefs into something big and try to impose their will upon others, generally another minority group. Before you all think I'm on another liberal rant about social justice, bear with me... you just might learn something about yourself.

I am actually writing this rant thousands of feet in the air while on Southwest Airlines Flight 2217, non-stop from Chicago Midway Airport to Los Angeles International Airport. I am not a fan of flying, not because of a physical issue or a fear of flying, but because I am forced to be in a small cramped space with a cross-section of society. My issues with the airline industry notwithstanding, I generally don't like people and quite honestly, think most people are retards. This retardation is exacerbated by being trapped thousands of feet in the air in a cramped space with a cross-section of society. And I mean absolutely no disrespect to those with actual developmental disabilities, because those people cannot do anything about their condition, however, retards are the ones that can, but choose not to.

I actually truly enjoy flying Southwest Airlines. Their service is impeccable and they don't nickel and dime you on things that should be included with the price of your airfare. They do offer early boarding for a small fee, which I enjoy capitalizing on, because then I can board early and pick my seat. I generally travel with my cat, Milo, drink entirely too much water to not have to use the bathroom in the middle of a Chicago to LA flight, and I have an arthritic right knee. I prefer sitting in an aisle seat because I can get Milo out from under the seat easily when we land, I don't shove my butt in people's faces when I need to get up and go to the bathroom, and I can stretch out my bad knee. I have those simple demands and I pay the appropriate fees to ensure that those ammenities are available to me. But does that make me any better than any of the other passengers around me? I don't really think so. But yet, other people think they are better...

I don't understand the elitism that is apparent in today's society. When I boarded Flight 2217, I was the 20th person to get on the flight, I picked my seat, near the front (HUZZAH!), aisle seat, and put Milo under the seat in front of me. As a courtesy, I warn people that want to sit near me or next to me that I have a cat, and they shouldn't sit near me if they are allergic. Nowhere in my boarding agreement does it say that I have to do that. I do it out of courtesy to the comfort of the people around me. Usually people will go, "Okay," and move elsewhere to sit if I got there first... except this time. Several minutes after telling one potential row-mate that I have a cat, this lady across the aisle from me asked, "Did I hear you say you have a cat?" Why, yes I do, I told her as I pointed at Milo. "Oh, I'm allergic, can you move?" Excuse me? Then the lady in front of me said, "Oh, I'm allergic too!" and then proceeded to repeatedly press the Flight Attendant button. I warned the people around me before I sat down, this seat was as much my right as their's were to them. It wasn't my fault that she didn't understand my initial warning that I had a cat with me.

Knowing full well that an altercation with Little Miss Elitist Jerk and Grandma Senility would just prolong my travel experience as well as guarantee me 15 seconds of fame on the news... I did not feel like dealing with it. So I starting gathering my stuff to move a few rows back to an aisle seat that was still open. I couldn't get up yet, because the aisle was still full of people trying to find seats, but Grandma Senility was still pressing that Flight Attendant call button frantically while waving her hands to get the Flight Attendant's attention. By the time he got there, she had apparently gotten livid, along with Little Miss Elitist Jerk, who initially suggested that I move rather than her. Grandma Senility was practically foaming at the dentures yelling, "She has a cat! I'm allergic to cats! I have told her repeatedly to move!" while Little Miss Elitist Jerk was chirping right along saying something about how the air will blow Milo fur at her. Apparently due to her increased age, Grandma Senility thinks repeatedly meant once. The poor flight attendant looked at me and I told him, "Look, I'm going to just move back a couple rows back, but I was just waiting until the aisle cleared."

No harm, no foul. But I don't believe that it's my fault that they're allergic to cats and were sitting near me despite my warnings that I have a cat with me. But yet, I was the better person, and moved from a seat that was rightfully mine. I paid for Milo to be on board, I paid for the right to be among to first to board, and I paid for a seat on this aircraft, just like they did. But, for some reason, they saw fit that they somehow had more of a right to stay there and make me move. Although, karma took care of me, the flight attendant gave me a free drink voucher and the person who subsequently took my old seat had a small screaming baby. Victory is still mine. But I digress.
The question to be asked here, and it is one that truly confounds me is how people can immediately assume that they are right and that their opinions hold more weight than anyone else's. I find myself in the same boat. Most of my rants are my opinions and they start steamrolling as more people read and agree with me. Does that implicitly imply that those that disagree with me are immediately wrong? No, I don't think so. Does it change my opinion that they are retards? The answer is no to that as well. Can the two thought processes co-exist? I would like to think so.

The issue lies with people assuming their position is infallibly correct, with no possible alternative and an inability to compromise. Life is not zero-sum, meaning one thought does not immediately make another impossible. Why are people so intent on holding their ground, even when evidence to the contrary exists? Or perhaps evidence of the utter inanity of their position exists? This is apparent in politics especially. Today's political climate seems to indicate that moderation is a near impossibility. Sometimes I feel bad for the President, who can't seem to be liberal enough and can't seem to appease the conservatives enough. Whatever happened to objectivity?

So, in the societal microcosm that Flight 2217 was, when I was faced with a choice of my right to be in that seat, near those people, or to be the better person, I chose to be objective. My aims were to get an aisle seat, near the front. Did it HAVE to be THAT aisle seat? No. But yet I find myself thinking, that while taking the enlightened path, I have compromised myself somehow. There's a little voice inside of me that did not want those two morons to "win" even though I was rewarded karmatically with a free beverage voucher and they were stuck with a screaming baby.

The question is now posed to you, my readers, what was the right thing to do? Fight for my right to be in that seat? Or turn the other cheek, in a manner of speaking? Or is there more to the scenario than just a simple difference in opinion? What does our opinion on this matter say about us as a society? What does this say about our belief systems and the very religions we believe in? I find myself pondering those great thoughts as I sit in this seat, a couple aisles behind where I initially wanted to be. Because one can make the same arguments for and against religions. Does the existance of one detract from the existance of another? Are Christians allergic to Muslims? Will Catholics have their eyes water and sinuses clog in the presence of a Jewish person? I don't understand why an atheist can't co-exist with someone that believes in a deity. What does our beliefs have to do with another's if there is no actual effect on their life? Why is it so important for us to impose our will upon others? What is OUR deal?!?

The Announcement: A Confession from Poonie

At last, a long awaited "What's YOUR Deal?!?" I'm actually surprised that you are reading this. Props to all of the other people that have been requesting a new "What's YOUR Deal?!?" I'm glad I have such a loyal fan base. Please tell your friends and buy a t-shirt! This edition, much like the last one comes in a slightly different format than all of you are used to. There is no particular reason why and I will likely resume my classic, "This is what has pissed me off about the world lately," that you have all come to expect. Without further ado and by semi-popular demand, here we go little girl... on a magic carpet ride. Okay everyone, I have a secret that I have been harboring from many people and I am going to reveal it publically in this blog. Only a select few of my friends know, but it has been eating me up inside so much lately that I feel it's finally time to put fingers to keyboard and broadcast my secret to the people of the interweb. To some, what I am about to reveal will not be a surprise and to others, they may be disgusted and pray for my soul. I have come to the conclusion that I will be comfortable enough with responses from either spectrum to weather the responses. That is why I chose to compose this blog today. I'm not going to pull a LeBron James and get airtime on ESPN to announce... "The Announcement" or something. So here we go. I am secretly jealous of Sarah Palin. Yes, this is the shameful secret that I have kept hidden for the past couple of years. It all started during the 2008 Presidential Election season when then-Presidential hopeful John McCain selected his then-little known Alaskan governor running mate. Who was this woman? Little was known about her, beyond the fact that she was a woman who was the then-governor of Alaska. She was supposed to be the Republican Party answer to Hillary Clinton, to steal the Clinton votes away from Barack Obama in the November elections. Her sole purpose was just exist. But then, she started making public appearances and... *gasp* speaking in public to the media. This woman was a fool! She speaks without preparation and passes off her opinions as facts. She is an unrepentant right-wing talking head that likes to shoot animals from helicopters and believes in all the things that I don't. She hates liberal bloggers like me because we play "Gotcha!" games with people who whither in the face of facts that are contradictory to their belief systems. In every way possible, I should hate this woman. But I don't. The feeling in the pit of my stomach when I see her Twitter feed or appearances on television and hear her voice on the radio isn't loathing. It's pure unadulterated jealousy. Why should I be jealous of this woman? By all definitions I am smarter than her. I hold more educational degrees than her. And while she could see Russia from her house, I had the control of weapons that could not just blow up her house but most of the houses on the planet. I can name magazines and newspapers that I enjoy reading and for the most part, I don't need to have handwritten notes on the palm of my hand when I speak in public. WHY? Why, then, am I jealous of Sarah Palin? What's MY deal?!? I'll tell you why. Because she is Sarah f'ing Palin commanding ridiculous amounts of money to speak at public events while saying things of little worth while I'm just another anonymous blogger on the internet that reached her readership peak in college as a weekly columnist in a now-defunct campus newspaper. That is what, as Peter Griffin would say, "grinds my gears." What makes Sarah Palin better than me? To be honest, I have no idea. Allow me to do a compare and contrast. Glasses: Sarah Palin wears glasses. I wear glasses. Tie, glasses make both of us look smarter than we really are. Education: Sarah Palin attended Hawaii Pacific University in the fall of 1982 and North Idaho College in the spring and fall of 1983. She attended the University of Idaho in the fall of 1984 and spring of 1985, and attended Matanuska-Susitna College in the fall of 1985. She returned to the University of Idaho in the spring of 1986, receiving her bachelor's degree in communications with an emphasis in journalism from there in 1987. I have a Bachelor's Degree in Biological Sciences with a minor in Criminal Justice from the University of Illinois at Chicago and a Master's Degree in National Security Studies with a concentration on Terrorism from American Military University. She may have gone to more schools, but I think my educational background is more impressive. Poonie: 1 Palin: 0 Elected Office: Sarah Palin was elected governor of Alaska. I was elected Junior Class Vice President in high school. Poonie: 1 Palin: 1 Sarah Palin never finished her term. I didn't really do a good job during my term. No points either way. Controversial Family Members: Sarah Palin's daughter had a child out of wedlock with a guy that eventually posed in Playgirl magazine.  I have a "Homer-sexual" cat that likes to do bad things to Homer Simpson. Poonie and Palin... still tied. While Bristol Palin and the father of her child is more notorious, Milo is definitely cuter and can haz cheezburgers. Public Persona: Sarah Palin likes to speak out randomly about subjects that she has no background in. I like to speak out randomly about subjects that I have no background in. Again, no difference beyond the fact that she gets paid to do what she does. Celebrity Lookalikes: Sarah Palin was mocked thoroughly by the genius comedy of Tina Fey on Saturday Night Live. The celebrity I most resemble is either a Lego, or possibly Jackie Chan in drag. Maybe a Jackie Chan Lego.  Damn... Poonie: 1 Palin: 2. I suppose that's it. Sarah Palin is better than me because she temporarily ran Alaska and Tina Fey does a wicked awesome impersonation of her. And this folks, is my dirty little secret. I am insanely jealous of Sarah Palin because of the influence she wields despite the knowledge void that she has. I almost dare to say that I aspire to be like Sarah Palin because of what she has been able to accomplish with what little intellect that she has. I suppose I can grow my hair longer and put it into a bun for the librarian look. I suppose I can drop my faintly Chicago accent for a Minnesotan one. Okay, maybe not. But the simple fact of the matter is that Sarah Palin yields ridiculous influence over the uneducated masses because of some inexplicable force that allows her to sway the weak minded. I can spout bumper sticker slogans and claim that anyone who disagrees with me is picking on me too. But I won't. I can't. I know those of you that read my blog are smarter than that. I can't bring myself to arbitrarily pick something or someone to blame for all of the world's woes and have people believe me. Because if I can, I'd totally pick the Masturbating Gummy Jesus that I once found in a bag of gummies: And for me to Palin-ize my works would eat away at and destroy my soul. This is why is truly hurts me to admit that I want to be like Sarah Palin. I want to buy her book and read it openly without fear of ridicule and shame. But yet, I don't want to pay to support her because that would feel wrong to me. (And yes, for me to refuse to buy a book is pretty much a big slap on the face. In fact, I own Dennis Rodman's autobiography, "Bad As I Wanna Be.") I want to stand among the masses and say nothing of worth to roaring thunderous applause. I want to spew nonsensical gibberish on my Twitter account and have people follow me religiously. I want to be Sarah Palin. I only hope you can all forgive me and accept me for what I've just revealed today.

Revolution is scary, but evolution is inevitable...

Before I begin this edition of What’s YOUR Deal?!? I would like to preface it with several disclaimers.

Disclaimer 1: I have always had a policy of never getting too political or too critical of the United States government and the laws by which we are all bound. It’s not only that I enjoy being gainfully employed but also, I really do believe in America, through all of its faults and glory. But most importantly: THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THIS BLOG DO NOT REFLECT THE VIEW OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OR ANY ORGANIZATION WITHIN. I am a bleeding heart social liberal, and if you don’t like that, you can stop reading now. Or continue and maybe learn something.

Disclaimer 2: Keeping Disclaimer 1 in mind, I’m also a social justice ninja. I don’t like seeing injustice and I don’t like seeing people perpetuating injustice because they are not adequately informed.

Disclaimer 3: This will not be one of my normal rants, because I will not violate my first Disclaimer. However, in keeping with my role as social justice ninja, this edition of What’s YOUR Deal?!? must happen, not as a rant, but as a list of observations that you can draw your own conclusions from.

Let’s begin...

*****

For those not obsessed with the news and current events like I am, recently there was the first of probably many rumblings towards the potential repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. This particular topic is very near and dear to my heart not just because I am a current events geek but also because of several factors:

1. I am a member of the United States military.

2. I am female.

3. I am a minority. (Although technically, Asian folks outnumber everyone worldwide.... minor detail.)

What do these things have to do with Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? Well, allow me to make my observations.

As background information, here is what Wikipedia has to say about DADT:

Don't ask, don't tell (DADT) is the common term for the policy restricting the United States military from efforts to discover or reveal closeted gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members or applicants, while barring those that are openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual from military service. The restrictions are mandated by federal law Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654). Unless one of the exceptions from 10 U.S.C. § 654(b) applies, the policy prohibits anyone who "demonstrate(s) a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces of the United States, because "it would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability." The act prohibits any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The "don't ask" part of the policy indicates that superiors should not initiate investigation of a service member's orientation in the absence of disallowed behaviors, though credible and articulable evidence of homosexual behavior may cause an investigation. Violations of this aspect through persecutions and harassment of suspected servicemen and women resulted in the policy's current formulation as don't ask, don't tell, don't harass, don't pursue.

Okay, now we all know what DADT is. In summary, gay people are allowed to serve in the current military but are not allowed to tell people that they are gay or “demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.” And no one is allowed to ask, harass, or pursue gay military personnel about their sexual orientation. While this compromise, made in 1993 is a little better than an outright ban on gay folks from serving and a little baby step forward from the olden days of mental health and undesirable discharges.

Flash forward to recent developments, according to Wikipedia:

On May 27, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Murphy amendment[1] to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 on a 234-194 vote that would repeal the relevant sections of the law 60 days after a study by the U.S. Department of Defense is completed and the U.S. Defense Secretary, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the U.S. President certify that repeal would not harm military effectiveness. On the same day the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee advanced the identical measure in a 16-12 vote to be included in the Defense Authorization Act. The amended defense bill passed the U.S. House on May 28, 2010, and the U.S. Senate is expected to vote on its version in the summer. The Washington Post has stated that if the bill is approved by Congress and signed by the President, any change to don't ask, don't tell would likely not happen before 2011.

Now, as I said in Disclaimer 3, I will not rant about this. But I will now list my observations.

Observation 1:

There are gay people in the military already. DADT is not a ban on gay people. A repeal of DADT probably won’t mean a gay pride parade suddenly erupts on every military installation. Our allies allow gay people to serve openly. Our military serves alongside gay people every single day, whether or not we know it. Personnel are living in dorms, confined quarters, deployed, and showering with gay people already. Most gay people probably won’t even come out extravagantly anyways, because given how fickle the political process is, it’d be easy to repeal the repeal and suddenly the fiscally overmanned military is downsized rather quickly.

Observation 2:
While reading a fantastic book about the history of women in the military entitled: A Few Good Women: America’s Military Women From World War I to The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I came across this quote from Brig. Gen. Wade H. Harslip in 1941:

“Congresswoman Edith Nourse Rogers has been determined for some time to introduce a bill to provide a women’s organization in the Army. We have succeeded in stopping her on the promise that we are studying the same thing, and will permit her to introduce a bill which will meet with War Department approval. Mrs. Roosevelt also seems to have a plan. The sole purpose of this study is to permit the organization of a women’s force along the lines that meet with War Department approval so that when it is forced upon us, as it undoubtedly will be, we shall be able to run it our way.”

This is the same thing that’s going on now. Only except, there won’t be a gay organization within the military (or at least I hope not, segregation never works out for anyone). If we replace the word “women” with “gay,” Mrs. Roosevelt with President Obama, and “War Department” with “Department of Defense” this statement is as true today as it was in 1941.

As a female in today’s military, it was the pioneers from 100 years ago that has allowed me to serve my country rather than serve someone dinner. The same arguments about masculinity, social norms, and sexual interactions were made before, not for gay people but for women. It is easy to forget that a women’s role was in the kitchen waiting for her soldier, sailor, airman, and/or Marine to come home. A woman not acting in that role was a threat to the fabric of society and the family structure. Just like an openly gay person is a threat to the fabric of society and the family structure. Women joining the military didn’t make the military more feminized and giant orgies didn’t erupt in the ranks. Although, there have been historical cases of sexual misconduct, it isn’t the norm. And it’s a crime whether or not women or gays are allowed in the military. Which leads me into observation 3...

Observation 3:
To assume that gay people will suddenly want to hit on, have sex with, and/or rape everyone is also an argument that has previously been made... against heterosexual men. From the same book, it references the viewpoints of James Webb, a former Secretary of the Navy, and Marine Corps veteran. He was opposed to having women at the Naval Academy saying that Bancroft Hall was a “horny woman’s dream” and “these tendencies can be controlled in an eight-hour workday but cannot be suppressed in a twenty-four hour, seven-days-a-week combat situation.” He also said, “Introducing women into combat units would greatly confuse an already confusing environment and would lessen the aggressive tendencies of the units, as many aggressions would be directed inward, toward sex rather than outward toward violence.” The authors, Evelyn Monahan and Rosemary Neidel-Greenlee make a great point:

“If Mr. Webb is correct about people not being able to control their ‘aggressive violent and sexual nature’ for longer than an ‘eight-hour workday,’ it is a wonder that women are not being raped by men ‘who can’t be expected to act against’ what Mr. Webb considers ‘men’s nature’ on every street corner.”

While there will always be bad seeds everywhere, men or women and gay or straight, the majority tend to be quite normal and not very sexual assaulty. Women in the military have taken significant strides since World War I. Submarines in the Navy have recently become open to women. Nuclear missile crews are mixed gender. Why can’t gay people and straight people work together in a confined environment? They already do now, it’s just no one knows about it.

Observation 4:
There is something cosmically amusing about fighting crazy fundamentalist religious extremists with gay people.

Observation 5:
Admiral Mike Mullen said it best: "Mr. Chairman, speaking for myself and myself only, it is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do. No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me, personally, it comes down to integrity -- theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.”

Observation 6:
Congressman Todd Akin, Ranking Member of the Armed Services Seapower & Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee, released the following statement on May 27th, 2010:

“Later today, Democrats will try to sneak by one of the biggest military policy changes in decades, forcing a liberal social agenda down the throats of our military... Our military exists for winning wars, not for advancing a liberal social agenda.”

Mr. Akin is partially correct. The military had to accept more women in the early 20th century because of recruiting and retention issues, however the military also accepted more people under lower standards and waivers for criminal activity. This practice has not changed, especially in today’s world where the military is consistently doing more with less. The military does exist for winning wars and wouldn’t it make more sense to recruit and retain the best and brightest that America has to offer gay or straight, not the ones recruited and retained with a waivers and lower standards?

Historically, the military has been at the forefront of social change. Women in the military and desegregation started with the military. As a female minority in today’s military, I am grateful that the military advances liberal social agendas.

In light of my observations, I believe that there will be growing pains and it may take 100 years for gay and lesbian military personnel to truly reap the benefits of equality, much like the struggles of women and minorities in the past have had to deal with. Society will change and it is not revolution, but intellectual evolution. History has shown that military is the instrument of social change, whether or not the status quo likes it. It was the same for women and minorities. Those that don’t learn from history will be doomed to repeat it. But in this instance, I think history has it right.

Reruns are bad...

Welcome back to yet another edition of What’s YOUR Deal?!? I know, I’ve been slacking off lately and not ranting about the world despite so much fodder for ranting. But I really do try to avoid politics, not necessarily the issues behind politics, but the goings ons in Congress lately do make we want to strangle folks. No, What’s YOUR Deal?!? is really for the everyman that doesn’t necessarily pay attention to the news but just wants the mockery of the mundane and rantings for karmatic justice reflected in a little corner of the interwebs that we can all call our own. And here we go... As a child of the 80s and I have vivid memories of shows like Transformers, GI Joe, The A-Team, The Karate Kid, and Knight Rider... and today I find myself having a sudden urge to perm my hair and find a sweater with big shoulder pads. Why? Because, children of the 2000s will also grow up having the same vivid memories of shows and movies like Transformers, GI Joe, The A-Team, The Karate Kid, and Knight Rider. It’s enough to make me want to go, “Ruh roh, Raggy!” Oh wait... that’s not really Scooby Doo... This guy is. My mind is completely boggled by the bizarre time warp that I’m being fed by the Hollywood media machine. Since when was Bumblebee a Camaro? He was a yellow VW Bug! Why are GI Joes crazy half-cyborg things that more closely resemble the Borg from Star Trek, than their original intent: And since when was KITT a Ford Mustang... THIS is KITT, David Hasselhoff and all: And now we have this... At least they left the van alone... but REALLY? And why is Jackie Chan Mr. Miyagi? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMsZM-MNI1A&NR=1 Are we THAT inept at creativity that we are forced to go back to the past and dredge up our childhood heroes and inject them with CGI special effects and maybe a hearty dose of steroids and serve it up to the next generation? Because that’s exactly what we’re doing, every 20 years or so, things come back. Remember the Brady Bunch movie remakes in the 90s? Are we going to expect to see the return of the Power Rangers in this coming decade? Seriously now, people. I have to point out that THIS is what happens when we don’t foster creativity in kids and leave The Man holdin’ us down. We will be watching the same reruns for the rest of our lives. Different is good. Think outside of the box. Thank you, parents and our mind-numbing education system, for squishing that. Speaking of mind-numbing education system squishing things ... I came across this article the other day: http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/03/11/mississippi.prom.suit/ “A Mississippi county school board announced Wednesday it would cancel its upcoming prom after a gay student petitioned to bring a same-sex date to the event. ‘Due to the distractions to the educational process caused by recent events, the Itawamba County School District has decided to not host a prom at Itawamba Agricultural High School this year,’ school board members said in a statement.” and then this article: http://www.examiner.com/x-30841-DC-Culture-and-Events~y2010m3d12-Walmart-sells-black-Barbie-at-reduced-priceConspiracy-or-inventory-control Apparently Wally World is drawing flak for selling black Barbies for half the price of a white Barbie. Am I the only person that sees that these are similar issues? This is the reason why What’s YOUR Deal?!? exists. I want to stop being the only person that sees that equality and karmatic justice as inherent rights for all of humanity... and those gay penguins in China: People will go out of the way to make an issue about one set of perceived inequality but yet can turn the blind eye to someone else getting shafted. People can make an issue about anything. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I’m incredibly attuned to hidden messages and twisting things and using rhetoric to make a point. I mean, I saw this commercial the other night: And my first reaction was, “Wow, the minorities are the ones outside of the house wanting this magical gum and the poor Asian dude was sad because no one gave him magical white people gum.” Is Trident racist? I don’t believe they are, but if you look around and deep enough... social injustice is everywhere and is inherent. But who fights for those that are in the minority? Unfortunately, it is the minority that has to fight for attention and justice. Those in the majority have no reason to change and every reason to vilify that which they do not understand or care to get to know. They’d as soon cancel a high school prom than to risk a minority intrusion into the status quo. What is so scary about a lesbian going to prom? It happens in high schools across the country and has the world come to an end? Is there a gay epidemic where people need to wear medical masks to prevent inhaling magical gay fairy dust from gay people? Should we start vaccinating against The Gay? (Oh wait... vaccinations are evil too... I forgot.) I mean, really? Walmart immediately caved under pressure and equalized the prices of their Barbies. But who’s going to pressure Itawamba Agricultural High School to venture into the 21st century. It’s even worse to read the comments posted under these articles to see the close-mindedness that in inherent in society. If this is what we’re teaching kids today, then we are screwed in the future. People can twist words and turn things into political venom for the ages and I can’t say I’m innocent of that too. But the simple fact of the matter is that we are unjust in the manner by which we view the world. Racism is not dead, but the mere insinuation of potential racism and the backlash it will cause is enough to change something. Why can’t this girl go to prom with her girlfriend? What message is Itawamba Agricultural High School sending to the kids and the families in that community? “Sorry, you can’t have prom because of THE GAY!” How are these kids going to grow up viewing gay people? Instead of, “Hey, that’s so and so with her date,” it’s going to be, “Hey, that’s so and so and she screwed up our prom.” How is that going to help make our world better? Open your minds people. See the world from a perspective that’s not your own. (Although, sorry stupid people... I really can’t be that stupid if I tried.) If we keep rehashing the same stories and ideas from generations past, then we will never grow as a society. We have to foster change and foster innovation in order to bring out the best in humanity. Otherwise we will stagnate and repeat the mistakes we have made in history because we failed to learn lessons from them. Quite frankly... I don’t need to see more repackaged reruns, in the media and in life. And neither do you.

The Return of What's YOUR Deal?!?

Okay fans (or whatever is left of my fanbase since my several months of hiatus from ranting), welcome to the first What's YOUR Deal?!? of 2010. I'm sure some of you are wondering what I've been up to if I haven't been pissed off at people... the short answer is: Yes. All kidding aside, there is so much stupidity in today's world that it's hard to convey into a rant that doesn't involve swearing, throwing my laptop out the window, or inciting a riot. I point out, the health care debate, the extreme right-wing, people who still don't believe President Barack Obama is a US citizen, etc. Every single day, I turn on the news and I see something absolutely ridiculous about Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, and a whole host of people who I wish I could ask, "What's YOUR Deal?!?" Those of you that have read my blog for a while know that I'm socially liberal but overall, I'd consider myself a moderate. I just want things to make sense, regardless of what someone's party line is. And everyone knows, I HATE toeing the party line.

But, the best of my rants come from the heart and personal experiences. I hate injustice in all of its forms, whether its to me, to my family, to my friends, or to anyone else in the world that I see getting the short end of the stick. I am a big fan of fairness and equity in all we do. So this What's YOUR Deal?!? returns to its roots: me serving as the social justice ninja enacting intellectual vigilante justice on those that have done someone wrong. And if you don't like it, Suck on it Trebek.



So, what has inspired me to rant? Well this one is dedicated to a friend of mine, that I believe has done nothing wrong but for some reason, was reprimanded due to someone else being a petty little weasel. I will not go into more detail, because this applies to everyone, not just this particular instance. And also, there's a possibility that the inspiration for this rant may also read this, and I would like to afford him or her the dignity of remaining anonymous to the criticism that the person would receive.

Onward!

Today's world is full of information and the sharing of information. We thrive on it. This concept is why sites like Facebook, Twitter, and various blogging sites are so popular. Unfortunately, this same concept is also what drives reality TV shows. (See one of my old rants, for my opinion on that: The Idiots Are Winning) Sometimes people do stupid things like post something on Twitter and Facebook that will get them in trouble, like someone calling in sick and then subsequently posting pictures of their drunken party escapades while they were supposedly too ill to work. Or perhaps posting pictures of affairs or status updates indicating infidelity is more to some people's morality. That kind of stuff is straight up stupid.

The next level up is the slightly ambiguous tip-toeing on the line between stupid and acceptable. In the case of this woman: Facebook Firing she was fired because she called her job boring. Wow. I suppose that can be bad, but in my opinion, rather stupid. But, I'm not an expert on pettiness. I wouldn't recommend degrading your job regularly on Facebook because well, if you hate it that much, why don't you quit? And if it's not that bad, then... well, there are better places to complain about work than to broadcast it to the world.

And then there's the category of people posting innocent things in their status or Twitter of them enjoying life. I don't see anything wrong with that because, well, that's what it's for. How many times have we posted pictures of fun times with friends and family or a status update announcing something fantastically joyous? That's what that stuff is for. It's for us to keep up with friends and family we can't afford to call everyday and tell them everything about our lives.

What that is NOT for are the petty people who are so insecure in their own happiness and job security that they feel like they must narc on someone feeling joy so that they can get some personal gain out of it. What's YOUR deal?!? These people piss me off. Where do you get off judging someone? Or tattling on them when what they were doing was perfectly legitimate. "I'm having fun on my day off," shouldn't be grounds for a reprimand. Mind your own business you snivelling little social outcast that's apparently jealous that you didn't get invited to hang out with the cool kids. WTF is wrong with the world today? People are seemingly so afraid that the joys and happiness of others will somehow make their own life more miserable. Sorry, dude or dudette, newsflash: other people have a right to be happy. And you can:



I think this issue is not just in the realm of Facebook and Twitter and other social networking sites. It's the reason why America is in the state that it is, with the extreme right wing telling people health care will kill grandma and why gay marriage will cause straight divorce or whatever crazy ridiculous justification people come up with to deprive people of happiness. Are we as a society so joyless and so sad that the moment something good is happening to someone else, we are so jealous and enraged that we must do everything in our power to put an end to it? Do we have to scour Facebook and Twitter for posts from our friends and co-workers in a quest to find some dirt to use against them? Are we so desperate to do so that we practically make stuff up about other people so that it sounds worse than it is just to make ourselves feel better and important? Are we so cowardly about such things that we dare not confront people as individuals to their face, but rather stabbing them in the back? Is that who we are?

I really hope not. But something tells me that this blog and others like it, calling people out for such idiocy will be very gainfully engaged for the foreseeable future. You people sicken me... and if you have a problem with that, tell me to my face. I want the pleasure of telling you this:

Driving a bus to hell, I see?

Every now and then I'd be Googling around the interwebs and run across bizarre news stories. Not the ones that are front page headliner news, but the random ones that make most people go, "WTF?" if they stopped to think about the implications of the ridiculousness of the news story. This week was no different. I give you this picture: Which, in my opinion is not nearly as offensive as possibly this favorite picture of mine, which was even used in last week's blog: But apparently is IS offensive: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090819/NEWS/908190370/1001/DART-suspends-driver-after-she-refuses-to-use-bus-bearing-atheist-ad According to the article: "Controversy over a bus advertisement promoting a local atheist group has found its way to the driver's seat. On Monday, the Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority suspended bus operator Angela Shiel after she refused to drive a bus with an Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers ad on its side. Shiel, 41, said the ad's message, 'Don't believe in God? You are not alone,' went against her Christian faith." The article continues with: "Shiel, a DART bus driver for four years, now could be fired because of her refusal to drive the bus. DART policy states that drivers cannot choose which buses they drive, DART General Manager Brad Miller said. 'Drivers are not permitted to reject a working bus," Miller said. "It's a very fundamental policy for DART. ... It's an essential rule that we will maintain.'" And this: "According to the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, DART's driver policy also helps uphold advertisers' First Amendment rights. The union recently dropped a review of DART that began when the atheist group's ads first came off the buses. 'As a government agency operating a public forum, DART and all of its employees, including its drivers, are required to follow the First Amendment,' said Ben Stone, executive director of the ACLU of Iowa. 'Since DART managers cannot claim a religious reason to censor bus ads, neither can drivers.' Stone likened the situation to a government employee claiming a religious right to refuse to work with someone of a different faith. 'When you work for the government, part of your job is to respect the rights of your fellow citizens, and you cannot use your religious beliefs to evade that responsibility,' he said." There's a few more points in that article that make me raise my eyebrow, like the woman's husband's point, according to the article: "'This has been her faith since the very first day on the job,' Glenn Shiel said. He said that making her drive the bus would be telling her to be 'two-faced for the fact that she wants an income. To me, it's kind of wrong to deny a person of their job because they have a belief.'" Another interesting point is that passengers have been bypassing the so-called "Atheist Buses" as well. Now that everyone has sufficient background information, I give a hearty, "What's YOUR Deal, lady?!?" You're not driving a bus to a concentration camp! It's a bus, with a sign on it. How is it any less offensive than walking down the street and seeing this ad? Or the countless ridiculous commercials about herpes and the wonderful bicycle rides and kayaking trips that people suffering from herpes can apparently go on because their herpes make excellent river guides or something. There so many other more offensive things in the world than a tastefully done ad from an atheist organization. How is that ad any more offensive than religious ads? I've seen some pretty bad ones of those, telling me that I'm going to hell and assorted other things. I'm sorry, folks, I'm Buddhist. Your ad doesn't mean anything to me. Likewise, if your faith is strong, does it MATTER that the bus you're driving is advertising for a atheist group? You can use that ad as a conversation starter on your bus to tell people about your religious convictions if you want. Not that I want my bus driver to be talking to me about religion if all I want to do is get from point A to point B... but the option is there. The bus isn't taking away anyone's right to their own religious belief, it's a government bus. It's supposed to be unbiased. Your religion, whatever it may be, can also buy ad space on one. This woman isn't being fired, she's being suspended for not doing her job. I'm sorry, I can understand that if I'm a bus driver and I refuse to drive a bus... that makes me not a very good bus driver. Can any other profession just refuse to do their job and still expect to be employed? What if your doctor saw your cross, Star of David, or other religious identifier and refused to treat you? What if people in the military just said, "Fuck it," and abandoned their posts? Would you want these people to still be gainfully employed, while not doing what they're being paid to do? NO. But this woman still has a job despite refusing to do it. Why must religion be so overbearing? Why can't it understand the separation between church and state? The state has an obligation to ensure everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe. This bus is no different. DART isn't suspending or firing the woman because she's religious. They're not going, "Oh, you're not ALLOWED to drive this bus, because you're Christian." She did it to herself! Drive the stupid bus! Don't try to martyr yourself to some non-existent cause because you want your name in the newspapers and a "What's YOUR Deal?!?" devoted to you. Yes, religion is a touchy subject. But it really shouldn't be. The government, should NEVER say anything for or against ANY religion. And the DART policy of, "Hey, pay us and you can have an ad on our bus," is really quite non-denominational. It's not like it's advertising killing or violence against any religion group either. It's just an ad that says, "Hey, you don't believe in God? It's okay." That's about as non-threatening as an ad can be. What more do you want? Kittens and puppies? Religion, get out of government. Nothing bothers me more than when religion is used to explain why something should or should not happen. This is what irks me the most about the entire gay marriage argument. Um, gay people want to get married because of legal rights not because gay people are trying to burn down your church and everything it stands for. If your church doesn't want to perform gay marriages for the religious aspect, then DON'T. Why can't a gay couple just go down to City Hall and get a marriage license without the religious mumbo jumbo? How is that at all a threat to religion? If you don't want gay marriage in your personal life, then don't get married to the same sex yourself. If you don't want to be a passenger on a bus advertising something you don't believe in, don't get on the bus. Don't complain if you're late to school or work because you did that, though. But if you're paid to drive that bus, knowing the policies of your employer, drive the bus or face the consequences. It's not a hard concept. Especially if you consider the flip side to all of this. How many times do we all see the word God in our day to day lives. American money, the American Pledge of Allegiance, etc., etc. How do you think that makes atheists feel? Hmmm? Now that you've refused to drive a mile in their shoes, you know how it feels to have to conform. We're all equal. Our lives aren't gumdrops and candy canes, for us to function as a society we need to realize that everyone around us is different. And that's okay. We need to accept that people believe different things, people dress differently, look different and it's all okay. And just because other people are different, they not a threat to your own personal beliefs, dress, and appearance. And we're not all going to hell for it.

YOU CAN'T DO THAT IN PUBLIC!

Hello, loyal readers of What's YOUR Deal?!? I'm back and relatively coherent. I've been painkiller free for over a week. No, I'm not a drug addict but I've definitely been out of it. I actually barely recall last week. So the fact that I even posted a rant actually surprised me. But kudos to Mentos for her excellent point that was posted as a reply on my Facebook about how people DO eat healthy... but they also eat a LOT of healthy... and then they wonder why they can't fit through a door. That's a definitely a "What's YOUR Deal?!?" But, overall, I'm perfectly fine with people that are um... substantial. I'm perfectly fine with a lot of things, because I think that people have a right to be whoever they want to be, as long those substantial people do not crush me or eat my cat. Fair enough? I think there's a fundamental difference between someone like me that points out the idiocies that surround us and people who say... inspire this picture: For those who can't see the picture, it's of a bus with a sign on the side that says, "Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings." Flying to the moon... very cool and overall gives people warm fuzzies and inspiration. 9/11... very uncool and overall gave people paranoia and anger. But, that's the overall big picture of today's rant. Shout out to my friend Lauren, whose Facebook status inspired me to write this week's rant about people that are publically retarded and inconsiderate. How does this even relate to that bus? Well, let me explain. Lauren posted something about people that just leave their clothes in the washer in a communal laundry room and that is unnecessarily rude. I've spent plenty of time in communcal laundry rooms doing laundry. Not everyone is cool enough to have their own washer and dryer or have the time to spend in a laundromat listening to the spin cycle or staring at their clothes go roundy roundy in the dryer. But then there are the people that just leave their clothes in the washer or the dryer for hours upon hours. Why? Who knows? It's not like it's a personal washer or dryer or something, where they CAN do that. I mean, hell, my clothes have been in my personal dryer since last night. Oooooh, shame on me. But, you CAN'T DO THAT IN PUBLIC! I know this. I KNEW this when I was living in an apartment with a communal laundry room. I knew I wasn't going to time it perfectly everytime to get my clothes in the dead of winter with 3 feet of snow on the path between my apartment door and the laundry room and get my clothes out exactly when they're ready. This is especially crucial when there's say... only two washers and one of them was broken... I would leave my laundry basket there, so someone who needed the one working washer would just move my clothes into the basket and leave it there for when I came back. I've actually had someone tell me that, "Wow, you're not afraid someone will steal your basket?" I remember looking at that person and thinking, "If someone is desperate enough to steal my laundry basket, they probably needed it more than I do." Not to mention, it's a PUBLIC LAUNDRY ROOM! Someone could very well steal all of my clothes too. But it's a risk I had to take to ensure I wasn't funky and wearing stinky clothes. It's a necessary risk to ensure I was considerate. That's that level of humanity that I think we don't have. People assume that just because they're using it, it's their's to do as they wish. You know those people that leave soap residue in the washers or or otherwise leave a mess in the laundry room. As if to imply, yes, this is a public space, therefore, someone else will clean up MY mess. And it's THOSE people that complain when stuff BREAKS because they're STUPID. It is those people that would pee all over the toilet seat in a public restroom. YOU KNOW who you are, you failure at hovering! Or the people that otherwise fecally decorate the public restrooms. How does that even happen? These are also same people that don't flush the toilet when they're done, leaving me the winner of Musical Toilet everytime I go to the bathroom in public. You know the game where you and your friends all go to the bathroom and ONE person ALWAYS gets the toilet with the surprise in it. Yeah. Thanks. You idiots make my day everytime. *thumbs up!* That's the point of my ranting. I want people to open their eyes to the consequences of their actions or even their inactions. But I'm not like these people and the Westboro Baptist Church: Yeah, the people that picket military funerals saying God Hates Fags and somehow that if there are gay people among us... random people die, space shuttles blow up, and military service members deserve to have their funerals desecrated with stupid? Sidenote: If any dumb asses like that show up at my funeral, I want everyone there to run them off in the most ridiculously hilarious way possible. Perhaps a contingent of gay people offering to hug them and "spread the gay" or something. Who knows? But I digress. I don't care what you do at home. If you break your washer and dryer or leave your clothes in it for a week, I don't care. If you pee and crap all over your walls and carpet, I don't care. I may not visit, but I don't care. I'm not going to say God hates you or blame you for all of the problems in the world. But the moment you prevent me from washing and drying my clothes or pee and crap all over a toilet I NEED to use... GAME ON! Maybe you think I'm judgemental for being so picky about what I think is the right way for people to behave... maybe you're partially right. I'm not that extreme. I'm not going to picket your funeral because you're dumb. People are focused on the completely wrong things. While people are picketing military funerals and blowing up buildings, we continually let people ruin our day to day lives. Given the option, if I can eliminate one "threat to our day-to-day lives", I'd rather get rid of the idiot that doesn't flush the toilet in public than the gay couple trying to get married. Or I'd rather see the idiot leaving the clothes in the washer for hours upon hours disappear off the face of the planet before the nice religious people that don't picket public places or blow things up. I just want my readers to take responsibility for their actions and if actions need to be taken, focus those actions on the things that matter. Because the inconsiderate actions of the laundry room lazy-ass or the restroom retard leads to further inconsiderate actions in other aspects of their lives. It is these people that are a threat to undermine the American family and marriage and whatever else that those crazy nutjobs at the Westboro Baptist Church and those organizations like it use as their rhetoric. So, close with: I hate your unclaimed laundry. And your poopy. And I don't think God likes it either.