Wal-Mart Wimps

Wal-Mart Halts Movie Suggestions on Web – Yahoo! News
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is shutting down the system that creates movie recommendations on its shopping Web site after it linked a “Planet of the Apes” DVD to films about famous black Americans, including Martin Luther King Jr.
Under a “similar items” section, the DVD set’s page linked shoppers to four films about the lives of King, actress Dorothy Dandridge, boxer Jack Johnson and singer Tina Turner.

First of all, I don’t see why Wal-Mart thinks their software is broken. The fundamental theme of “Planet of the Apes” and Dr. King’s campaign for civil rights is that rational beings have equal value and deserve equal treatment despite differences in outward appearance. Almost any large group will have both reactionary and progressive thinkers. Some will be susceptible to superstition, others will be prone to explore the reasons behind those superstitions. Some will be prone to violence, others will understand that violence only proves who is strong, not who is right. Some will cling desperately to the status quo (and do their best to convince those who don’t even profit from the status quo that it is in their best interest to preserve it anyway, generally by appealing to the previously mentioned susceptibility to superstition) and others strive to make a better world. Some will try to enforce conformity, others will celebrate diversity. Both the movie and Dr. King speak out against the oppression and exploitation of the minority by the majority justified by differences in outward appearance.

On second thought, Wal-Mart’s action is perfectly understandable. This is an example of political correctness at its finest worst. Political correctness is the product of reactionary personalities who have settled on progressive ideals. They defend any victory for social progress by quashing any further discussion of the matter, especially any suggestion that any reactionary argument has any merit or warrants further discussion (for example, that since men and women have equal rights, any suggestion that men and women are not the same is unacceptable and must be punished). One of the axioms of political correctness is that any speech that might offend someone is unacceptable. In this case, Wal-Mart fears (correctly) that someone might incorrectly perceive the link between the disparate offerings as one between black and ape rather than the appropriate connection of the common theme of civil rights among rational beings regardless of outward appearance.

Political correctness is just as much of a hindrance to social progress as any [whatever]ism it might oppose. Personally, I’ll never understand why anyone would think good enough is better than better.

The Abyss is Gazing Back

Why are we even having a conversation about the merits of torture?

After all, the motivation behind the Geneva Conventions was morality, not legality and despite neocon yattering to the contrary, torture doesn’t yield reliable information from patriots (and yes, all people willing to die for their cause consider themselves patriots) as witnessed by Sen. John McCain.

Let’s recap: If a combatant is captured, they can do you no harm. Torture doesn’t work anyway. Don’t torture.

Now for the most part, the objections to the objections about torture seem to hinge on the fact that the global terrorists aren’t following the rules, therefore we (the good guys) shouldn’t have to.

Unfortunately, this is like saying it’s OK for the class bully to twist the arm of of some kid (who not coincidentally pissed him off before) to tell the bully which of his friends just smacked him in the head with a spitball* so the bully can beat them up and take their lunch money. The bully justifies himself because shooting spitballs is wrong and he is the biggest and strongest so nobody can stop him. But let’s face it, the kid whose arm is in a bind is not going to give up his friend. After enough resistance to satisfy his own self esteem, he will blurt out the name of weird kid with glasses, hoping the bully won’t hit a kid with glasses but if he does, oh well, it’s the weird kid but at least he may still have a shot at throwing a curve-ball.

The problem here is that if the bully continues to indiscriminately twist arms without ever finding out who is behind the spitballs (especially if everyone thinks it’s obvious that he already knows who shot the spitball), not only will he continue to take spitball fire every time he turns his head, eventually the class will decide, “Enough, already” and gang up on him. Not coincidentally, the bully’s grades are gonna drop since he’s no longer paying attention to his home work because he’s obsessed with enforcing the spitball ban.

Perhaps the bully should watch the news instead of 24 reruns.

 

Whoever battles with monsters had better see that it does not turn him into a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. – Nietzsche 

(*My spitball analogy is not intended to trivialize what happened at the WTC. We appropriately responded to that by going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. At least it would have been appropriate if we’d actually completed that mission rather than getting distracted by the Food for Starving MIC Executives Welfare Program in Iraq. My intent was to highlight the juvenility of the justification of torture.)

Great Line:

CAVUTO: Yeah. But, Cal, this is not about the person behind the cash register, the person who’s stocking toys. This has to do with the organizations themselves, the Wal-Marts and the big stores that seem to have an inherent policy not to say the words, “Merry Christmas.”
THOMAS: I don’t care, Neil! I don’t care what they say! Their holidays are on April 1, April Fools’ Day, OK? I won’t mess with them if they don’t mess with me. Let them do whatever they want. They’re stores! They’re selling stuff! They’re increasing the bottom line.

from mediamatters.org

Just How Far Away Was the Next Dr.?

Lesbian: Doctors denied artificial insemination because of religion – Yahoo! News

(Cour t TV) — A lesbian woman will challenge an appeals court ruling that permitted two doctors to claim a religious defense in their refusal to artificially inseminate her.

A California appeals court last week sided with the doctors, Christine Brody and Douglas Fenton, saying they can claim religious liberty in refusing to treat a patient who was gay because it was against their Christian beliefs.

Guadalupe Benitez filed a sexual-orientation discrimination suit against the doctors at a San Diego women’s clinic after they refused to artificially inseminate her in 2000.

Benitez claims that on her first visit, Brody informed her that while her religious principles precluded her from performing the procedure on a gay woman, another doctor in the clinic would.

First question (or is it second?) Why did Ms. Benitez think it was a good idea to continue as a patient at the clinic after they told her they were a bunch of bigots?

Benitez says, however, that after 11 months of costly, painful tests and surgeries, when the time came for the insemination procedure, she was turned down and told that she “would not be treated fairly” or “get timely care” at the clinic because of Dr. Brody’s and other staff members’ religious beliefs.

Now I don’t know what religion (but I can guess) they were claiming the liberty to charge her for everything but the actual thing she came there for, but I’m pretty sure that religion has a prohibition against theft (as in THOU SHALL NOT STEAL) because, THEY ALL DO! It’s a classic ‘bait and switch’ con and the clinic should be prosecuted for that fraud.

As for the ruling, if doctors can pick and choose between patients based on their religious beliefs, then they should wear a sign that says, “I’ll help you if I think you’re worthy”, preferably stamped on their foreheads.

WWJD indeed?

Media Matters – Donohue makes rounds attacking Bush holiday card; is asked, WWJD? 

Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights president William A. Donohue took to the airwaves December 7 and 8, criticizing the White House holiday card for excluding the word “Christmas.” He described the omission as a “dumbing down” of the holiday, and charged President Bush with “pulling a Clinton” by “caving in to the forces of political correctness.” 

By “Religious and Civil Rights” they mean the right of the overtly pious to tell everyone else what to do and how to live. Now back to the rest of our story…

Donohue also indicated that his indictment of the White House holiday card stemmed from his desire to maintain “leverage” against retailers who similarly choose to employ non-Christian holiday greetings in advertisements or store displays. On American Morning, O’Brien pressed Donohue, “What if Jesus got this card, what would he do? Would he be angry about it? He’d be OK with it, wouldn’t he?” Donohue responded, “Well, maybe he would, but I’ve never met him.” O’Brien subsequently asked twice, “WWJD?”

Now without offering any conjecture on what a Christian means by, “I’ve never met [H]im,” it seems to me that this is a very simple question to answer for anyone who’s read the gospels (or at least three out of four) or has at least a modest familiarity with the New Testament and is capable of using an internet search engine.

The answer? He would flip out! But not about the card. Christmas has become a mockery. What should be a celebration of generosity has become a crass contest of consumerism and greed. JC tossed the money changers out of the temple because trading on piety for personal profit is not what His house, or this holiday, is all about.

By the way, substituting the brief “Happy Holidays” for “Merry Christmas, Kwanzaa Greetings, Happy Hanukkah, Yule Tidings, Sunny Solstice, Festivus for the Rest of Us, and May You Be Touched by His Noodly Appendage” is the most economically sound decision the President has made in the last five years. If it’s the beginning of a trend, I’m all for it.