Method: The Latest Company to Promote Rape Culture.

I was e-mailed this disgusting and disturbing video today (by a friend who was absolutely mortified and outraged that such an ad could possibly exist):

After I watched it, I was equally enraged and disgusted.  How dare Method cheapen the instances of sexual assault/harassment/trauma that women face by turning it into a joke to push their agenda.

In no way is sexual violence anything to ever make light of.  And, I continue to feel equally enraged that this is a company that I have supported and given money to – by buying their products.

Never again.

Fuck you, Method, and the misogynist horse you rode in on.

Dina Goldstein’s ‘Fallen Princesses’ Series.

Perhaps a little late to the game, I familiarized myself with Dina Goldstein’s photography series, “Fallen Princesses“, yesterday.  In this series, Dina seeks to show what happens to Disney’s princesses after the “…happily ever after”, by placing them in what she perceives to be real world settings.

I find the series to be quite interesting, and some of the images are quite powerful.

Cinderella

Rapunzel

Snow White

Belle

Aurora (of Sleeping Beauty)

Jasmine

Ariel

Little Red Riding Hood

Princess from Princess & The Pea

Depicted are what Dina considers “…real issues that were affecting women around me, such as illness, addiction and self-image issues.”

While I enjoy the concept of the series, I have a couple problems with it.

1) Not all of the princesses she chose are Disney.  If she were to just say that she chose “fairy tale princesses” for her series, it would have made much more sense.  But, she didn’t.  She specifically said she was focusing on Disney’s representation of the “happily ever after” – in such, she left out some actual Disney princesses in order to include other, non-Disney princesses.

2) Red Riding Hood is not a princess.  As such, I am baffled as to why she is included in this series.

3) While I can understand, and climb on board with some of these depictions, how on earth is Jasmine’s supposed to be “fallen”?

The issues of Red’s obesity and Jasmine’s racial stereotyping have been brought up and flogged to death, so I will not discuss them at length here.  I will, however, touch on them – as they do fall in line with my initial reactions to seeing the photos.

Cinderella, while thought provoking, is a little hard to wrap my head around.  I understand that it is supposed to depict alcoholism, but it is poorly executed.  Placing her in the center of a bar full of old men, looking glum (yet not intoxicated), to me, does not portray alcoholism.  Perhaps if she wanted to portray the instances of self-medicating your woes with alcohol as her issue, rather than alcoholism, it would have been much stronger.  To me, this photo simply makes Cinderella appear to be “fallen” because she is having one drink and is lonely.

In the case of Red, I can understand the outcry – how much more fat shaming do we really need to see go on?  Fat people are aware of the fact that they are fat, there’s no need for the frequent reminders.  But, the issue is depicting her obesity in such a manner.  I understand both sides of the argument: on the one hand, gross overeating is not the only (and hardly the primary) cause of one’s obesity, and to depict it as such is really careless.  On the other hand, depicting overeating is the most accessible and most fixable cause of obesity.  That said, titling the photo “‘Not So Little’ Red Riding Hood” is really juvenile and takes away from the message that the image is trying to convey – particularly when your other photos just uses the character or story names.

In the case of Jasmine, the depiction is also lazy.  Giving her a rifle and sticking her in the middle of a war zone is too easy.  She may as well have strapped explosives to her chest, or stuck her in a nose-diving airplane.  The others attempted to deconstruct the lives of the princesses, and I think that the problem here is that, she’s not deconstructing anything.  She’s playing up a harmful stereotype of a culture that has a lot more going for it than being a sand-filled war zone.  I would also like to reiterate that Jasmine’s depiction of a woman in combat also is not “fallen”.  If anything, it’s the opposite.

I also had a real problem with Belle’s depiction.  Again, I think it is way too easy.  It also strays very far away from the essence of who Belle is.  The whole point to her character is the internal beauty, and how she doesn’t care about superficial qualities.  She grew up modest, and a sudden change to royalty likely wouldn’t mar the essence of who she is.  There were so many other things Goldstein could have done with that character that it’s a shame that she went for the obvious.

Aurora, I don’t understand.  She wakes up upon being kissed by the prince in the end.  Therefore, why is she asleep while he is in a retirement home?  What is that possibly saying about real women’s issues?  Also, how does this depict life after her “happily ever after”?  If anything, this depicts what would happen if her “happily ever after” never occurred.  In the same vain, the princess of Princess & The Pea depicts life if her “happily ever after” never occurred, but does not portray her in any real scenario.

Another issue that I have, with the series as a whole, is that these are the “real issues” that she perceives women’s issues to be.  Of all of them, I find Rapunzel and Snow White to be most striking and saying the most about real women’s issues.  I feel that, in all, the message that she was attempting to get across was a good one, and the idea was fantastic.  But, as far as execution, it was just poor and lazy.

She states that there are two more to be added to the series, let’s hope that she gets to the heart of real women’s issues with those.

1967 All Over Again.

Interracial couple denied marriage license in La.

By MARY FOSTER, Associated Press Writer

Friday, October 16, 2009

(10-16) 01:50 PDT New Orleans (AP) –

A white Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have.

Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

“I’m not a racist. I just don’t believe in mixing the races that way,” Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. “I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else.”

Bardwell said he asks everyone who calls about marriage if they are a mixed race couple. If they are, he does not marry them, he said.

Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.

“There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage,” Bardwell said. “I think those children suffer and I won’t help put them through it.”

If he did an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do the same for all, he said.

“I try to treat everyone equally,” he said.

Bardwell estimates that he has refused to marry about four couples during his career, all in the past 2 1/2 years.

Beth Humphrey, 30, and 32-year-old Terence McKay, both of Hammond, say they will consult the U.S. Justice Department about filing a discrimination complaint.

Humphrey, an account manager for a marketing firm, said she and McKay, a welder, just returned to Louisiana. She is white and he is black. She plans to enroll in the University of New Orleans to pursue a masters degree in minority politics.

“That was one thing that made this so unbelievable,” she said. “It’s not something you expect in this day and age.”

Humphrey said she called Bardwell on Oct. 6 to inquire about getting a marriage license signed. She says Bardwell’s wife told her that Bardwell will not sign marriage licenses for interracial couples. Bardwell suggested the couple go to another justice of the peace in the parish who agreed to marry them.

“We are looking forward to having children,” Humphrey said. “And all our friends and co-workers have been very supportive. Except for this, we’re typical happy newlyweds.”

“It is really astonishing and disappointing to see this come up in 2009,” said American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana attorney Katie Schwartzmann. She said the Supreme Court ruled in 1967 “that the government cannot tell people who they can and cannot marry.”

The ACLU sent a letter to the Louisiana Judiciary Committee, which oversees the state justices of the peace, asking them to investigate Bardwell and recommending “the most severe sanctions available, because such blatant bigotry poses a substantial threat of serious harm to the administration of justice.”

“He knew he was breaking the law, but continued to do it,” Schwartzmann said.

According to the clerk of court’s office, application for a marriage license must be made three days before the ceremony because there is a 72-hour waiting period. The applicants are asked if they have previously been married. If so, they must show how the marriage ended, such as divorce.

Other than that, all they need is a birth certificate and Social Security card.

The license fee is $35, and the license must be signed by a Louisiana minister, justice of the peace or judge. The original is returned to the clerk’s office.

“I’ve been a justice of the peace for 34 years and I don’t think I’ve mistreated anybody,” Bardwell said. “I’ve made some mistakes, but you have too. I didn’t tell this couple they couldn’t get married. I just told them I wouldn’t do it.”

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/10/15/national/a124653D11.DTL&tsp=1

Is this What it means to be ‘Sexually Revolutionized’?

Imagine, if you will, driving down the road on your way home from the grocery store.  Traffic is vast, but flowing quite nicely.  And then you get to a rather backed up intersection… what’s going on up here? you wonder to yourself.  And then, you see it.

At this particular intersection are two corners filled with scantily clad 14 – 17 year old girls with suckers, raising money for some unknown cause.

Is this what we’ve come to – whoring out our teenagers to raise money for our charities?

Why did feminism even happen if this is allowed to go on?

The girls eagerly ran from car to car with their collection apparatuses  in hand and suckers in mouth.  Miles of legs bared to the world.  It was like watching a nightmare in action.  Part of me wondered if the girls realized just what the situation was that they had gotten into, part of me pitied them, and part of me was enraged.

Then I had to think back to when I first realized my sexuality.  I was at around age 14 and was fond of my short-shorts, much like these girls; however, unlike these girls, I was not quite so fond of the tight shirts.  But, I digress.  There was one particular hot going-into-summer day when I donned my shorts and went to school, only to be cat-called all day by the teenage boys who were also coming into that age.

I was embarrassed!

I thought that I was merely dressing according to the weather, and had no idea that the length of my shorts (which really, were only a few inches above the knee) were articles to be enticed by.

From then on, I wore only long pants, year-round, with capris being the shortest that my pants would ever get.  Until fairly recently, I refused to even wear knee-length skirts or dresses.

I do realize that I am an example of an extreme,  but I think that if these girls were to realize the caliber of what they could be compared to, their reactions wouldn’t be so different.

In the news today…

Study recommends total ban on smoking for soldiers

• Story Highlights
• Military health experts propose ban on tobacco use by soldiers
• Study: Tobacco use impairs military readiness, later lead to serious health issues
• New study also calls for ban on the sale of tobacco products on bases

From Chris Lawrence
CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) — You’ve seen the iconic picture of a soldier with a cigarette dangling from his mouth, but that could soon be a thing of the past.

The Pentagon is considering a ban on the sale and use of tobacco in the military.

A new study commissioned by the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs recommends a complete ban on tobacco, which would end tobacco sales on military bases and prohibit smoking by anyone in uniform, not even combat troops in the thick of battle.

According to the study, tobacco use impairs military readiness in the short term. Over the long term, it can cause serious health problems, including lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. The study also says smokeless tobacco use can lead to oral and pancreatic cancer.

The Defense Department’s top health officials are studying the report’s suggestions and will make recommendations to the Pentagon’s policy team and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

The study recommends phasing out tobacco products such as cigarettes and cigars over a five- to 10-year period.

However, the suggested ban does not sit well with many in uniform, including retired Gen. Russel Honore, best known for coordinating military relief efforts for Hurricane Katrina-affected areas with an ever-present stogie. He said soldiers at war need to puff.

“When you’re tired and you’ve been going days on end with minimum sleep, and you are not getting the proper meals on time, that hit of tobacco can make a difference,” said Honore, who was in charge of the Army’s training programs before he retired.

Other soldiers questioned whether this was a good time to stamp out smoking, given the Army’s concern with a high suicide rate.

“For some, unfortunately, they feel that smoking is their stress relief. Well if you take it away, what is the replacement?” said Sgt. 1st Class Gary Johnson.

The Pentagon supports the goal of a tobacco-free military, said spokeswoman Cynthia Smith.

“However, achieving that goal will depend on coincident reductions of tobacco use in the civilian population,” she said.

Dr. Ken Kizer, the author of the study, found that civilians don’t smoke as much as soldiers. One in three active duty soldiers smoke, he said, adding that among the general population, that number is less than one in five.

The Pentagon banned smoking in buildings on bases years ago. It has counselors on call to help service members quit. But while local governments have heavily taxed tobacco, the commissaries often sell it at deeply discounted prices.

“The military sends very mixed signals,” Kizer said. “This is what’s confusing to people.”

The study found that profits from those tobacco sales — $80 million to $90 million — often pay for recreation and family programs on base.

Article found at: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/12/military.smoking.ban/index.html

———————

Where do I even begin with this one?

Well, to start:

- I am not a regular smoker – meaning I only smoke when I am under extreme stress or when I am socially drinking.

- I have never (nor will I ever) been in the military

That said, I do not agree at all with the idea of this.

You want to take smoking out of bars, clubs, and restaurants?  Fine, great!  It makes my meal better not having to be around clouds of smoke, and when I go out (and don’t partake in tobacco puffing), I enjoy not smelling of smoke after.

You want to take smoking out of the vicinity of hospitals, fantastic.  But wait… with that comes banning it from locked, inpatient, psychiatric facilities where patients don’t want to be, and use nicotine as a stress reliever from their problems?  Weeeeeell… okay.

You want to limit outdoor places people can smoke?  I guess that’s okay.

You want to ban smoking from the military?  Huh?!

That about sums up my reaction to the multiple stages in the smoking ban saga.

The reason I feel that tobacco, in any form, shouldn’t even be raised as an issue in the military is quite simple, really – these are people being sent into harm’s way, knowing that at any moment, they may never return to their families.  If ever there were a time to smoke like your life depended on it, well… I would think that would be it.

There are a couple of quotes from the article that screamed at me, and I will highlight them here:

Dr. Ken Kizer, the author of the study, found that civilians don’t smoke as much as soldiers. One in three active duty soldiers smoke, he said, adding that among the general population, that number is less than one in five.

Well, Dr. Ken Kizer, OF COURSE civilians don’t smoke nearly as much as active duty soldiers!  I think that the stress that I consider to be extreme is absolutely nothing compared to what stresses soldiers face.  After all, I’m not removed my friends and family to be sent somewhere where I will be shot at, spat at, unappreciated for my efforts, and what have you.  Nor am I ever in the place to be used as a pawn for my government’s agenda.

The Pentagon supports the goal of a tobacco-free military, said spokeswoman Cynthia Smith.

Of course “the pentagon” would.  It’s a giant office building on US grounds where their inhabitants don’t actually face the dangers of combat.

The study found that profits from those tobacco sales — $80 million to $90 million — often pay for recreation and family programs on base

Right, so let’s just rip that away.  Who else is going to pay for those programs?  Certainly not the Pentagon.

I’m quite certain that every single person with the ability to read and comprehend is fully aware of the dangers of smoking.  Using that as a reason for putting a ban on the activity is fairly weak.

I would like to know the real reasoning behind this idea.

Clearly, the people who propose ideas like this don’t think about the factors that contribute to why smoking is done in venues as mentioned above.   And I have to wonder, why the government jumps on the agenda pushing of these groups.

I’d be curious to know what anyone who is or has ever been in the military thinks about this.

First Time For Everything.

As disturbing as this confession is, I have to admit that for the first time ever, I actually agree with Newt Gingrich’s sentiments on an issue.

Though, as far as why it’s a news headline and an issue, I am not entirely sure.

Gingrich: Focus on Obama puppy ‘fairly stupid’

Posted: 01:06 PM ET

From CNN Associate Producer Martina Stewart

News of the arrival of the new first puppy has already caused a partisan split between Newt Gingrich and CNN Contributor Donna Brazile.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich weighed in Sunday on news that the first family has finally settled on a new puppy for daughters Malia and Sasha.

“I hope that the girls love the dog,” Gingrich said on ABC’s “This Week.” “I hope the family – and all the pressure they’re going to be in – finds it useful. And I think that this whole thing is fairly stupid.”

The six-month-old puppy is a Portuguese water dog that the Obamas have decided to name Bo. The dog is a gift to the first family from Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy, a longtime Obama political ally who also owns several dogs of the breed.

“It’s great that they have a dog. It’s great that the kids are adjusting,” Gingrich said. “And where they got it from – who cares? It’s a nice gesture on Senator Kennedy’s part to give it to them but who cares?” Gingrich added.

Perhaps it was a partisan difference, but Democratic strategist and CNN contributor Donna Brazile had kinder words for the new first puppy.

“What’s not to like about this dog?” Brazile said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union. “He’s cute. He’s adorable. But, I hope he’s potty trained,” she joked.

Isn’t there plenty of actual news to be reporting about – rather than that the Obamas got a dog and that Gingrich feels all the media buzz surrounding the fact that the Obamas got a dog is stupid?

Just a thought.

On Child Actors.

I am of the multitude of moviegoers that is prone to announcing, “ugh, I hate child actors” with the utmost disgust.

Normally, I avoid films in which there would be an abundance of child actor presence, however months ago, I saw the [Swedish] film “Let The Right One In” and it made me ever so slightly change my tune (but, not by a whole lot).

The film stars two 12 year old Swedish children, one who plays a vampire.   They were both very good actors – actually, all of the children in the film were very good actors.  And afterwards, my friends and I commented on how normal and typical “every day” everything in the movie seemed.

That, in addition some interviews and articles I have been reading, got me to thinking…  Perhaps I don’t “hate child actors,” for the ones I’ve seen in a number of films (including ones that I grew up watching) aren’t all bad (after all, one of my favorites was always the French short film ‘The Red Balloon”).  There is such a difference between child actors in British and American film, and other forms of cinema that perhaps I just hate the child actors that I see every day.

To me, there’s nothing more irritating and creepy than the Dakota Fannings and Haley Joel Osments of the world with their cherub faces, and well-before-their-time intellect.  It’s almost as if they’re pod people, or even robots, sent down to suck the lives out of the normal every day people of the world, merely by appearing on film.

And let’s not get started on the Olsen twins…

At the same time that I am freaked out by them, I also have no choice but to feel pity for them.  It’s almost like pageant children who are picked out because they’re “cute” and shoved into show business by money/fame hungry parents who may or may not have their best interest at hand (Jean Benet Ramsay, anyone?).

In addition, when the child actors grow up, most of the time, they’re never as “cute” as they were when they were 6 or 7, instead looking like some bizarre, older and caricatured version of their younger selves;  and they end up royally fucked up, coked out, and corrupted.

How and why does this happen?

On the rare occasion that it doesn’t happen, how is it that they escaped the “child actor curse”?

How often is it that we see former child actors parodying themselves on television sitcoms or cameoing their past characters in slapstick films?

Sometimes, though, I do enjoy child actors.  I like it when I see an adolescent that acts and seems like a normal human being.  I like it when they look normal, as well – like all the children in ‘Let The Right One In’.   To me, it  seems like they’re the types who are well-adjusted, and will grow up to be normal adults.  Perhaps even not getting stuck parodying themselves for the rest of their existence.

I guess it’s more that I pity child actors…

And Again with the Port Authority.

As published in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, last week:
 

Union says ‘work stoppage’ likely if Port Authority imposes contract

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

By Joe Grata, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The union representing bus and trolley operators says a “work stoppage” is likely if the Port Authority imposes a contract of its own making Dec. 1 as planned.

If members of Local 85, Amalgamated Transit Union, go on strike or are locked out, public transit will be halted for people who account for 230,000 rides a day.

“They’ve painted us into a corner,” Local 85 President-Business Agent Pat McMahon said yesterday.

He plans to call a special meeting in the near future, “depending on when and where a hall is available,” and 2,300 rank-and-file members will be asked to authorize a job action that would likely take effect on Dec. 1, a Monday. That’s the day that the contract adopted by the authority board Oct. 24 is to be unilaterally imposed on the union.

“The more we look at this, if they go through with it, we have no choice but to do a work stoppage,” Mr. McMahon said. “The union will not stand for this. So citizens should be looking for this [service stoppage] because it’s what the Port Authority is forcing us to do.”

He said options would be discussed at the union’s mass meeting but contended any work stoppage should not necessarily be viewed as a strike.

“It could be deemed a lockout because the Port Authority is taking action that is illegal [by virtue of an imposed contract],” Mr. McMahon said. “Our members will have to authorize what we do.”

While authority Chief Executive Officer Steve Bland has heard talk of a possible job action, he said Mr. McMahon’s strike/lockout talk was the first time he had heard “anything authoritative.”

“We’re offering them excellent pay and benefits and we’re leaving the doors open, so how can that be called a lockout?” he said.

The imposed contract provides 3 percent annual wage increases over the next three years. It also raises the retirement rate to age 60 with 30 years of service in order for employees to receive lifetime health care benefits. It also incrementally raises employees’ health care contribution to the equivalent of 3 percent of the base wage, the same rate that management pays.

In return, the authority would be able to save a total of $13.3 million in its operating budget over the next three years. Legacy costs — the primary concern of County Executive Dan Onorato, who’s withholding $27 million in subsidies — could go down $115 million in the same period.

“[A strike is] something they have at their disposal if the union leadership has such a blatant and callous disregard for customers,” Mr. Bland said. “I’m not sure you turn down an offer when you’re making $24.25 an hour … so it boggles my mind that they would consider such a severe disruption of service to the community. If they do, it’s on their heads.”

Members of Local 85, who include operators, mechanics, first-level supervisors and other hourly employees, have remained on the job under terms of a contract that expired June 30.

Mr. McMahon said Local 85’s legal counsel will continue researching options to keep the board from putting an imposed contract into effect. He also said the union has sent a letter requesting the authority to resume negotiations.

“We’ve gotten no response,” Mr. McMahon said.

Mr. Bland said the only union meetings appropriate at this point would be to discuss implementation of the contract being imposed Dec. 1.

“Obviously, there are a lot of details to discuss but, absolutely, we have a contract that will go into effect,” he said. “It’s a responsible offer that doesn’t reduce wages or benefits. Our board made it very clear that we took this action as a last resort.”

Mr. McMahon said he had a copy of an office memorandum, not intended for his eyes, that discusses a 30 percent service cut and fare increases, some of which may be implemented no matter what the outcome of the labor dispute.

Mr. Bland called it a “draft” of ways that the authority might cope with its growing budgetary problems.

“We’ve been saying all along that if we don’t get a contract, we have to reduce service levels and raise fares,” he said. “For him [Mr. McMahon] not to think we haven’t been working on that stuff … that’s a fool’s paradise. It’s not a final plan and we’ve been working on all sorts of contingency plans, including a strike contingency plan.”

Joe Grata can be reached at jgrata@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1985.

First published on November 5, 2008 at 12:00 am

I am so enraged by the prospect of this, it’s not even funny.  Why make an entire city suffer rather than reasonably discussing contract terms that everyone can live with?

And what’s the big problem with these contract terms anyway?  Everything seems to be pointing towards positive – especially the pay increase.

What else could you possibly want?

Politics, Politicians, Political Mindedness… and S.

The media is buzzing with US politics, everywhere you turn.  This is the month for debates and finalizing decisions as, in a matter of weeks, we will be choosing our next “man for the job”.

Everyone is saying, “I’m so tired of this Bush fiasco”, “McCain = 4 more Bush years”, “Is Obama really the man for the job?” and let’s not even start on Sarah Palin.  Ugh.

During the past few months, I have been approached by a multitude of canvassers getting those last minute voter registrations done.  I have been asked a multitude of times whether or not I am an Obama supporter.  I get looks of shock when I reply…

…No!

I will repeat it again and again and again: I will not be voting for Barack Obama.  I will also not be voting for McCain.

I will, in fact, be voting for Ralph Nader (and Matt Gonzalez).

Watching the debates, reading platforms, educating myself on the candidates and their running-mates has sold me more and more on Nader than I had previously been.

It has also made me loathe the two-part system more and more.  In particular, when I get the response, “he’s running again?!”

 

I recently happened upon an “alternative news source” during the Biden/Palin debate called The Grist.  The Grist is an environmentally conscious online newspaper with a different, fresh spin on the world’s happenings, as well as election ‘08 coverage.  And in this online newspaper are several interviews – each one with a major candidate from the democratic, republican, independent, and green parties.

Among the poignant questions that the interviews have asked, is the following (asked of each candidate interviewed): “What do you do personally to lighten your environmental footprint?”

For some reason, I find this question to be of particular importance.  I honestly think that the way this question is answered speaks very much about how a person views the world and says where their priorities are.  It essentially asks, how do you live your life and what is your world like?

McCain (R): We just moved from a very large house with swimming pool and grounds into a condominium, so we made a dramatic change. My daughter has a Prius. And we have a place up north where we have solar panels in some of the buildings. But we haven’t done enough, and we intend to do more.

Obama (D): We just bought a Ford Escape, so I traded in a non-hybrid for a hybrid. We are in the process of replacing our light bulbs in our house and trying to limit the use of our air conditioning, trying to make sure that we unplug and turn off all of our appliances when we’re not using them. It’s a fun project to work on with my 9-year-old and my 6-year-old.

McKinney (G): Well, I don’t consume very much. Where possible, I’m changing my shopping habits, in terms of the food that I buy. I choose to buy from the local folks as opposed to the mega folks. Of course, you have to go to the supermarket every once in a while to get stuff. I’m trying to live within the 200-mile rule of thumb in terms of my food consumption. As a black person, there’s a dearth of services generally and a lack of healthy food in the black community, so that’s been a challenge.

Nader (I): I consume very little except newspapers, and I recycle them. I don’t have a car. I’m the antithesis of the over-consumer.

Like most people (I would imagine), I want the person who is to make the large decisions about my world to be someone I can relate to and to be someone I can imagine walking in the shoes of.  To me, that gives me a little bit of ensurance that, were I to be in a position where I had to make a similar decision, there is a little hope that this person would come to a similar to conclusion.

As someone who chooses not to own a car, recycles as many goods as possible, and makes my own paper, I feel that Nader is that candidate.  And, as long as his values are the way that they are, he will be for a very long time.

 

I also leave you with this little Grist/Nader goodie:

If George Bush were a plant or an animal, what kind of plant or animal would he be?

Poison ivy. As for an animal, I wouldn’t demean any animal species that way. It’s easy to say coyote, but that’s a stereotype of animals. What carnivore has ever, as a species, done what Bush has done to the Iraqis?

On Public Transportation.

The scene was typical: pedestrian approaches difficult to cross intersection; however standstill occurs with pedestrian, car, and bus.  Not wanting to get run over, pedestrian allows vehicles to go first, and then makes a run for the bus stop, only to have bus pull off.

And so begins “Public Transportation: A Rant.”

I realize that buses aren’t mandated to stop and wait for patrons to get to the bus stop and board.  I also realize that, as a patron, I should be at the stop before the bus gets there.  However, it is just common courtesy and decency for the bus driver to allow a person who is running for the bus to board.

In addition to the frequency of bus drivers to drive off without the patrons, the bus drivers have a tendency to range between ten and 45 minutes of tardiness.  This isn’t merely an annoyance, it’s an inconvenience – particularly when patrons have places to be… like work.

It is bad enough that the powers that be over at the Port Authority offices recently increased pricing on a very shoddy public transport system, but now the drivers want to go on strike.

Now, I may be flawed in my thinking, but shouldn’t the service be at it’s supreme before its employees decide to be demanding of whatever goods it is that they are seeking?

I find myself hard pressed to care about employees who are rude, perpetually late, and make my life all the more inconvenient as a result of that rudeness and lateness.

To the Port Authority employees, I say – get your acts together and provide a real service rather than a disservice before getting demanding and boycott happy.