You Don't Want It "Repealed"

I'm warning you right now: This entire post is kind of based solely on a technicality. There's no implied meaning behind any of it. I'm just pointing something out. That's all. Don't blame the messenger. And don't accuse me of being pedantic. I just find it interesting. Barely interesting, but interesting none the less.

It looks like the whole "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" provision for serving in the US Armed Forces is about to go down in flames. The study/survey that the Pentagon did was finally concluded and it showed that about 70% of folks that are currently serving said that they would not have a problem serving with other folks who are gay. Seventy percent is a pretty good majority, don't get me wrong, but I find it interesting that it wasn't higher than that. I'm not sure what it means, but I'd like to know. Sadly, I doubt that there is actually any way of knowing, so I'm just going to leave it at 70% said "OK", so woo-hoo! Or something like that.

And here's where I point out a technicality that I haven't seen addressed yet. Everyone keeps reporting that the Senate has voted to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Usually, when something is repealed, that means that it goes back to how it was before. For example, the Twenty-First Amendment to the US Constitution repealed the Eighteenth Amendment which had instated Prohibition. After the Twenty-First Amendment had passed, things went back to how they were before the Eighteenth Amendment had been enacted. That is, alcohol was once again legal, just as it had been before Prohibition.

By calling the vote in favor of discontinuing the US Armed Forces policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", isn't that implying that things in the military will go back to how they were before DADT was implemented? That really doesn't help folks who are gay and want to serve openly, as before DADT, the policy was that if you were gay, you couldn't serve at all.

Aren't there going to have to be some new rules written or old rules amended that remove any mention of whether or not someone is gay or not? Because if they simply boot out DADT, without new rules, what is to stop it from reverting right back to what it was before? Yeah, see, that's the question that I don't see answered anywhere. Not one single news source that I have read or heard or seen has addressed what the effect is going to be on gay soldiers and those who are gay who want to sign up. And of course, no one mentioned that before DADT, those who are gay couldn't serve at all. They act like DADT is so constrictive and repressive. Uh, it was a little more restrictive before DADT, don't you think?

So, that's all. It bugs me when people talk about this provision being "repealed". I think it's misleading. I also think the media sucks. That is all.

Idiotic Things I Read Today

You'd think that I'd be happier, what with the election finally over. Finally, I can have the TV on for more than 5 minutes without being bombarded with an ad by Meg Whitman or Jerry Brown telling me why their version of hell is better than their opponent's. But I'm irritated. I started perusing the Innerwebs this morning and just found idiocy after idiocy. Let's review.

My semi-beloved San Jose Mercury News ran a piece detailing the most awesome victory parade in San Francisco for the World Champion San Francisco Giants after they won the World Series in most excellent fashion on Monday. When describing the size of the massive crowd, the article read: "Those arriving in downtown San Francisco -- where police officers gave crowd estimates ranging from 200,000 to 1 million -- were greeted by gigantic orange and black balloons that bobbed on the traffic signals."

That's the BEST you can do?! Somewhere between 200,000 and a freaking million? OK, that's not really an estimate. That's just pulling numbers out of your arse. Anyone could come up with an estimate like that! What good does that do anyone? That's just a ridiculous way of saying "The crowd was very, very large". You morons.

Then there was an article over at Politics Daily. I'm not going to bag on the writer of the article so much, as I do kind of like what she tends to write. She was probably just having an off day. The point here is that the article focuses on the folks that Sarah Palin endorsed. The title of the article reads "Sarah Palin's Midterm Scorecard: A Winning Record, but Some Key Losses". In essence, it goes on to detail how Sarah Palin supported "...more than 100 conservative candidates during the primary and general elections." Um, OK. I guess she can do that being how she's being whatever it is that she's being these days. (I still haven't quite figured that out yet.) It then goes on to say, "A Politics Daily tally puts Palin's Tuesday successes at 62 wins, 23 losses and seven contests that are still too close to call, with Palin's candidates trailing in five of those races."

Let's do the math. She supported more than 100 candidates. She currently has 62 wins, 23 losses and 7 undecided. That's 92! That's not more than 100. What gives? On top of that, what makes these "wins" or these "losses" Sarah Palin's to absorb? Aren't there a lot of people out there who would support just about any conservative candidate, no matter how wacky they appeared (Christine O'Donnell, I'm talking about you)? I think there are. Since when did the wins and the losses of the conservative candidates fall squarely on the shoulders of Sarah Palin? She's a former half-term governor who once spent a couple of months running for Vice President! (And don't get me wrong. For the most part, I like Sarah Palin. But her endorsement of someone certainly isn't gold by any means and it shouldn't be construed as such.)

And finally, I'm really getting tired of how any time an animal attacks a human, it is made into some sort of sensationalistic news, as if something like that is so shocking and so unheard of that we should all just be in a state of disbelief that it ever occurred. Take this headline from The Huffington Post: "Peter Evershed KILLED by 5 Lions in Zimbabwe." Um, yes. I would imagine that five lions WOULD kill a man.

To begin, I get thoroughly annoyed when the media runs the name of some person afflicted by tragedy in a way that makes the reader feel as if something horrendous has happened to someone that they knew. Does anyone know who Peter Evershed was, other than people who actually knew him? No. He was a 59-year-old businessman from Zimbabwe. But the headline makes the reader initially feel as if they've just read "Brad Pitt KILLED by 5 Lions in Zimbabwe". (And, in this example, it wouldn't be much of a stretch for Brad to have actually been in Zimbabwe. He could have been over there buying another child to complete his collection. They don't have one from Zimbabwe yet, do they?)

See, animals eat meat. Humans are made of meat! Of course they're going to eat a human if they're given the chance. It's a big piece of meat! Why is that so shocking to people? Or maybe it's only shocking to the media. I'm not sure. But in another example of the inexplicable shock that this article tries to convey is when they quote some Zimbabwe guy as saying, "We appeal to everyone to exercise extreme caution. Animals have become extremely unpredictable." Wait. What now?

Have become? Animals have become unpredictable?! They're animals! Aside from that, since when is a wild animal eating human considered "unpredictable"? Seems pretty predictable to me. If you showed anyone a picture of a human standing in the wild with a bunch of lions walking around and you asked that person to guess what might be about to happen, I'd guess that nine times out of ten (with the tenth being the moron who wrote the article) the person you are asking would correctly infer that the chap in the picture is about to become lion lunch! HOW is that unpredictable?!

I've had enough. I'm going to go watch a little TV without a political ad in sight to try to make myself feel better.

You're Not Really Offended

In another example of a company caving into allegedly "offending" a consumer (or potential consumer, I guess), we have a brewing company being informed by some overly sensitive individuals that their label was offensive and contained am image that should not be tolerated in our society anymore. Note: The person was a Wiccan astrologist and "healer". (Translation: She fancies herself a witch.) Side note: The image on the beer bottle was of a "witch" being burned at the stake. Wait. What now?

Correct. According to the delicious folks over there at Slashfood, the Port Brewing Company concocts a "...wheat beer, spiced with grapefruit zest, orange peel and coriander" called Lost Abbey Witch's Wit. Yummy. But it wasn't the deliciousness of the beverage that sparked the outrage of a one Vicki Noble. She is the aforementioned "witch" from the paragraph above. She saw the label on the bottle and flew off the proverbial broomstick handle! (That means she wrote a strongly worded email to the company.) Behold! Said label!

Huh. Cool. Kinda creepy. Good for Halloween sales, I would imagine. Sadly, capitalism isn't the focus of this tale. No, it's that there was a drawing of a person seemingly being burned at the stake with throngs of onlookers gathered 'round. THAT was the nugget of contention that Ms. Noble had with the beer. In her email she wrote: "Can you imagine them showing a black person being lynched or a Jewish person going to the oven?...Such images are simply not tolerated in our society anymore (thank the Goddess) and this one should not be, either." Oh, for cryin' out loud.

You know what the difference is between showing a black person being lynched or a Jewish person "going to the oven" and the depiction of someone being burned at the stake? The difference is that the first two might stir up some outrage because they actually happened. Witches being burned at the stake did not happen! You'd think that someone who claimed herself to be a witch would know that.

Are we really supposed to allow fake outrage at something that is allegedly offensive when it isn't even real? First of all, it's a drawing. It's not like there was a really nice color photo taken at the fiery event that was plastered on the bottle there. No, someone drew that. Second of all, witches that were tried during the Salem witch trials (which is what I'm assuming that she is wrongly referring to with all of her misplaced outrage) were generally hanged. I think that there were only around sixteen of them (not the gazillions like people have been led to believe) and they weren't burned at the stake. They were hanged. And finally, witches aren't real! Good Lord.

But what do you think the Port Brewing Company, of which Lost Abbey is a division, did? You got it. Instead of saying, "Tough witches teats" they instead will "...spend thousands of dollars to change the label." ::: sigh ::: What is wrong with you people?

Why would you do that? According to the article, a one brewery spokesman, a one Sage Osterfeld, said that "complaints flooded the brewery, accusing Port Brewing Company...of "inspiring violence against women. . . . We have been compared to the violence in Darfur." Oh, for Christ's sake! Are they burning people at the stake in Darfur? No? Then that's not a very good comparison then, is it? And it isn't crap like the labels on beer bottles that inspires violence against women. There are plenty of things that do inspire violence of all sorts, but I'm going to stick my neck out and say that beer bottle labels are NOT one of them. And I'd really like to know how many complaints "flooded the brewery". Ten? Regardless, if these people weren't loyal consumers of your brand, who gives a fat rat's ass? They can complain all they want; it's not like it's going to hurt sales or anything.

Port Brewing Company, I am deeply saddened by your actions. There is no reason why you should have had to change your awesome label. Why couldn't you have just told those who were all fake outraged that you were sorry? What did you think was going to happen if you didn't change the label? Were you afraid that they would cast a spell upon you? Psst! I'm going to let you in on a little secret. That doesn't work!

It's a shame, Port Brewing Company. Had I heard about this and heard that you did not cave in to fake outrage over a non-existent issue, I would have been tempted to go out and buy up your wonderful beverage by the truckload. But now? Now, not so much. Now I just see you as another cowardly company (not that I had ever heard of your before today, mind you, but I'm just saying) who would rather give power to the undeserving rather than stand up for what is right. I won't be buying any of your beverages in the future. Do you think that changing your label is going to make all of those "witches" flock to buy your product? I think not. Good choice, though. Reeeaaaalllly good choice.