Human decency

I am taking an online class that requires that students address current political issues. This week's topic was gay marriage as a public policy issue, this is what one of my class mates wrote.
His name is Tom

I think what the City Council in Salt Lake City did was based merely on a standard of feeling sorry for people who have sexual orientations that are not traditional so to say. Recently I got a job doing work in Salt Lake City helping clients with medical benefits mainly for retired people. One of my supervisors was a homosexual and had a disease that made his skin peel a lot. Unfortunately I was forced to have this person train me at his office desk and it was really scary for me to just be around him. He always looked really sick and had a huge pile of dead skin on his desk that he would constantly peel away because he had a sexual disease. I understand people like this need to work but I think what they do if they have problems like this should be limited if it is offensive to others. I quit this job within a matter of about three weeks because I just didn't want to be in this type of environment. I'm sure this cost the company money by training me and having me leave. I just think people that have these kinds of problems should be limited to what they do. I also worked at eBay in their billing department in Salt Lake and they had some homosexuals there. They thought it would be a good idea to put them next to each other so they wouldn't be a burden on others and unfortunately they became very loud and obnoxious. They would always talk about dirty sexual things with each other and what gay clubs they were going to hit for the weekends. I couldn't stand that job for much longer either but at least I had the choice of not sitting near them. Currently I think the population of homosexuals in Salt Lake is pretty large and it can be difficult sometimes to know how to manage them with HR means so I think this is something that can be very difficult to really come up with a definite answer with. I think banning gay marriage in the future will become more difficult to pass. I think the gay population is booming in many areas of the country, especially in places like New York City and even Salt Lake. I think that while there are many problems with homosexuals such as that they can have bad habits, live in poor conditions, and often try making people to take part in their ways so they can satisfy themselves that people may try having gay marriage just to see if this can help with the problems of spreading diseases, unethical behaviors, and so forth. I think when people are married they have committed to stay with their partner and not go off on their own to prey on others so this could have a potential for being more beneficial to society. Personally however, I don't approve of this and the outcome may be a little difficult to predict. I think there is much validity to the factors in the fivethirtyeight analysis are pretty accurate. The recent publicity alone for gay marriage seems to have gone up a lot with media such as CNN or other major publications and it doesn't really seem to ever slow down so I think their predictions could be at least in the right direction and this also includes Utah as well. For some reason I think Gay's in Utah are getting larger in population and they really don't seem to be slowing down too much in their popular ideals.

I was stunned by the ignorant and cruel assertions made by this man, but what shocked me more was that only one person besides myself said anything about it. Another student pointed out the incorrect statements made by Tom, but the rest of the class stayed silent. I am aware that the first amendment allows us to speak freely, and in his defense Tom said that he felt he had to keep these opinions to himself and so vented them online. He further defends himself by saying that he should be able to express his true feelings, I agree with that, but where does free expression end and the need for decency begin?
This man could have said "I don't like gay people", or "On religious grounds I appose gay marriage." but he did not. Instead he refers to all gay people as "the homosexuals," or "the gays". he makes unfair judgements about all gay people, and accuses them of rape and other criminal actions. I am grateful that even here in conservative Utah that this kind of language is not tolerated in public, but I know that Tom's statement in this regard is not entirely true. I am grateful that he has enough tact and a sense of shame to know that these words should not be spoken. My goal then is to make the Internet, or pockets of it such a place. A place where ideas can be shared, and differing opinions respected without allowing for the use of hate filled inflamed language. This was posted on a school bulletin board, this is the online equivalent to saying this in a class room. We must treat online discussions with the same degree of thoughtfulness as we treat face to face interactions. This is especially true in an academic setting. We must speak out, we must make the world an uncomfortable place for people like this to speak so hatefully in. There are far kinder ways to share your opinion without resorting to this horrid language.

A loss of compassion

Those of you who read my blog, know that I have spoken about the Tea Party as well as the new role religion seems to play in the post Tea party world.
Well I was recently witness to two events that made me realize that in this new order of things compassion has been set aside in lieu of an individualistic "personal accountability" narrative.
In my philosophy class a student needed a note taker. The person who volunteered would receive a gift certificate to the USU (Utah state University) bookstore at the end of the semester. So at the beginning of class our professor sent the sign up sheet around. When class ended 50 min later the sheet was empty. Not a single person was willing to share their notes with a student in need.
The other event was a tweet by Bill Maher talking about the fact that Jerry Lewis was no longer the face of the MDA (Muscular Dystrophy Association), someone made this comment. "I can't believe they are still doing charity shows, why are hard working people always asked to give money to people."
What these two stories illustrate is a radical shift in thinking in the last three years. It used to be that people could not say such things for fear of being seen as having a cold heart, or being selfish. Now these kinds of statements are nothing to run from, in fact to a certain group of people these statements are seen as bold and patriotic.
My first semester at USU I watched professors solicit not takers for their classes, and saw many students rise up and take on the task. Three years later, and the tides have turned. This is not okay with me , and it should not be okay with you. We risk our human dignity if we allow ourselves to believe that helping others is wrong.   

When things come too easy

As I listen to the discussion that surrounds the issue of gay marriage, a few things always come to mind.

It has long been obvious that straight people take their access to marriage for granted. Getting married is cheap, if you are marrying a member of the opposite sex. Also you can do it anywhere, because of this I feel that straight couples have become like Mormons who live near the temple. When there is a temple right in your city, it becomes so easy to forget how sacred and special a trip to the temple is. So people pop in for a quick session before picking up groceries. This would be great except that people who live to close to temples have started taking cell phones into endowment sessions. The special sacredness flies away when your texting in the celestial room. It is the very same with marriage, when you can have one cheaply and at any county clerks office the special sacredness of that act is dulled. My evidence is the number of marriages that end in divorce, also the rapidity with which some couples get married.

When a gay couple wants to get married, they have to pay three times the cost to change their names (if the state they live in does not recognize the marriage) They must put a great deal of thought into the marriage because in most cases they do not get any financial security. The idea that gay couples are less committed to each other is nonsense when you examine what they must endure to marry. A straight man who marries multiple times is not more committed to marriage, not necessarily, it's just far easier for him. In the same vein, a member of the Mormon church who takes her cell phone with her to the temple once a week, is not more devoted than the woman who drives 300 miles to visit the temple twice a year. When you have to traverse more obstacles in order to reach your goal, it is harder to take it for granted.

I believe that most religious people do not want to legalize gay marriage because they do not want to acknowledge that they have taken the sacred act of marriage for granted.

Terrorism

When it was released that the shooter in Norway was a Christian fundamentalist, Fox news responded by playing the martyr. Poor Christians being attacked by the "liberal" media, this should sicken you like it sickens me. The fact is, he was a Christian fundamentalist. Bill O'Reillly says that you can only be a Christian if somebody else says you are. He claims that declaring yourself a Christian does not count. I would like to remind him that Evangelicals, most of whom make up his audience, become "saved' by declaring that Christ is their savior and died for their sins. Most of the time in Christianity a personal declaration is not only all that is required, it is necessary to prove that you have indeed been "saved". Fox news can't' spend ten years spreading Islamaphobia by linking the actions of radical Muslims to the religion of Islam, and then get mad when someone says that the Norway terror attacks were linked to a radical Christian. The media are not in any way trying to link this guy with all Christians, they are simply reporting his motives. His motives which were set down in his own manifesto.

the other reason this bothers me is this. The Tea Party represent themselves as Christians, yet at a rally held Wednesday, I saw a sign that read "By ballot or by bullet". Hmm, Bill O'Reillly said that true Christians don't promote violence. So either these Tea Party members are not Christian or Christians do sometimes go to far.

Debt ceiling press conference.

While John Boehnner and Barack Obama spoke to the nation about the unprecedented debt ceiling fight, I was celebrating the pioneers entrance into Utah.

The Mormon pioneers had been blamed for causing problems in every state they lived in, so they wanted to be free. In much the same way, the poor in this country are being blamed for causing problems in regard to the debt. The vast majority of us just want to be allowed to live in peace. It seems that no matter what we give, it is not enough. The Mormons attempted to make peace by agreeing to certain rules established for them. In the end it was not enough, and they were driven out of Ohio, and later Illinois. In 1996 congress set up rules for the poor in an attempt to make peace with Republicans. Since then we have lived under these rules, rules written by Republicans. Now, as happened with the Mormons, we are being asked for more. We are being asked to give up our homes so that other people can have them. Any debt deal that takes away from those who can least afford it, and asks for no revenue, is asking for an entire class of people to give up on ever rising above poverty. This is too high a price, the common sense solution is simple, we need both revenue and some intelligent spending cuts. No job was ever created by taking food and shelter away from needy families.

I have said this before, but it bears repeating. At the time that our social safety nets were established, we had more revenue. Since then, the need for these programs has not decreased, but the tax rates have plummeted. If you stop bringing in money it is impossible to sustain any program. As Obama said, we need a balanced approach.

Cut Cap and unbalance

Last night the house voted on the cut cap and balance measure. This measure has the support of most members of the Tea Party, and wannabe members such as Orin Hatch.

This amendment is the dumbest thing that has ever come out of the house.

The idea behind this proposal is the flawed thinking that American families live within their means. This of course is not the case, a majority of families don't have enough revenue to live within their means. So they are in debt. See Republicans want us to believe that if we stop spending the money, the need will go away. Perhaps they are hoping that the baby boomers that are starting to retire will disappear once they find out that congress doesn't want to pay them the benefits they earned. Look the truth is, that we need revenue. Even if we cut spending we still have rent to pay so to speak.

Americans need jobs (revenue) just like the nation does. We used to pay our bills, back when the tax rates for the rich were higher. At that time the life of the working class was better, the job site was safer and pay was enough to have a home. When congress took down tax rates jobs started to be outsources, and pay stalled.

Come on guys. We are smarter than this, we can see through what the Republicans are saying.

Since they love imagery, here's some.

Imagine a family is expecting a baby. They tell their children, and everyone is excited. then they inform the children that in order to pay for the baby, dad will have to work more hours. Well dad says he doesn't want to work longer hours. The plan, cut cap and balance. Dad says things are going to be different, no more new school clothes, or shoes. Instead that money will go to the baby, that way dad doesn't have to generate more revenue, and the family doesn't go into debt.

See, do you see how stupid and selfish this is. This is the Republican plan.

The playboy club? Not here.

NBC has been on a whirlwind advertising campaign this summer. They are trying to drum up interest in their upcoming fall shows. One of those shows is called "The playboy club", this show is set in the 60's around Hugh Heffner and his first club. But Heff himself takes a backseat to the crime drama that forms the basis of the story behind the main characters.

This is a mob drama that has the playboy club as it's backdrop. The costumes are far more sedate than the outfits of today, yet KSL refuses to air the show on it's NBC affiliate in Utah.

They claim that because of the title of the show, that ties to pornography would be offensive to viewers and go against their standards of decency.

I would like to remind them that KSL is currently showing a reality based program called "love in the wild" On this show unmarried men and women spend copious amounts of time together in next to nothing. The point of the program is for these virtual strangers to preform tasks together and find "love". i find it odd that this program is somehow right in line with their strict decency standards. KSL claims that since they are embarking on a campaign to end pornography addiction airing this program would be a conflict of interest. Since the program is about the mob in Chicago, I fail to see the connection. If they were striving to end addiction to crime shows I could see their point.

What this comes down to is simple ignorance, rather than seek out more information about the shows content, management at KSL chose to ban the show based on it's title. this is not a new concept for Utah, Larry Miller banned a comedy called "Zach and Meeri make a porno" Because his audience were afraid of the word Porno.

In this day and age, when cable boxes have parental controls, and most Mormon families have DVR: it seems stunningly ridiculous to ban a show from prime time. All this does is lose advertising dollars for KSL and make it harder for people to access entertainment.