Shortly after the AIDS epidemic began, medical authorities instituted a ban on blood donations by gay men. Now, however, authorities are considering rescinding this ban, citing improved screening techniques as a way to protect the blood supply without resorting to such blanket prohibitions on potential donors. So you all know what this means, right? We can look forward to right-wing diatribes about how allowing homosexuals to donate blood will set the United States careening down a slippery slope that will culminate in dogs donating blood to cats and other violations of the natural order.
Friday, June 28, 2013
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Great Moments in Branding
The Ford Motor Company has announced that it will soon offer a new light truck that will be " the first-ever EcoBoost®-powered sport truck"--whatever that means. The truck will go on sale this fall and it will be named. . . the Tremor.
Keep an eye out for a related story, in which the Ford Motor Company lays off its director of marketing--or whoever thought it a great idea to name a truck after a symptom of Parkinson's Disease. What names did they reject? The Ford Rigidity? The Ford Incontinence? The Ford Bradykinesia? (Look it up!) This undoubtedly marks the worst instance of vehicle branding since General Motors started naming its luxury fleet after major figures of the Third Reich. I've been trying to unload my Chrysler Ribbentrop for years!
Keep an eye out for a related story, in which the Ford Motor Company lays off its director of marketing--or whoever thought it a great idea to name a truck after a symptom of Parkinson's Disease. What names did they reject? The Ford Rigidity? The Ford Incontinence? The Ford Bradykinesia? (Look it up!) This undoubtedly marks the worst instance of vehicle branding since General Motors started naming its luxury fleet after major figures of the Third Reich. I've been trying to unload my Chrysler Ribbentrop for years!
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Gay Marriage: Bread and Circuses
As I scrolled through my Facebook news feed this morning, I saw post after euphoric post celebrating the Supreme Court's decisions in two cases involving same-sex marriage. Thanks were being offered! Tears were being shed! (I have a substantial number of friends in the musical theater industry.) I'm happy that so many of my friends are happy, but, at the risk of being a massive wet blanket, I must admit to feeling less than overjoyed.
Don't get me wrong. SCOTUS got the decision right. As I have said repeatedly, insofar as the government should be involved in legislating romance at all, gays and lesbians should have the same inherent rights to marriage as heterosexuals. It's really a no-brainer--and, appropriately enough, those who oppose such rights are substantively lacking in brains (Bachmann)--or at least in hearts and souls (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito). But at the same time, how much did today's decision actually accomplish?
By overturning the Defense of Marriage Act and declining to decide a case involving California's Proposition 8 (which outlawed same-sex marriage and was subsequently declared unconstitutional by a California court), the Supremes ensured federal recognition of gay marriage and in effect made California the thirteenth state to legalize same-sex marriage. All well and good. But they issued no sweeping statement on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage; individual states can still choose to outlaw or condone such unions as they see fit. But virtually every Democratic lawmaker--and even some moderate Republicans--has come out in favor of same-sex marriage. The arc of history is indeed bending towards justice, and even if SCOTUS had done nothing, more and more states are likely to pass legislation allowing same-sex marriage in the near future.
Still, you might say, this decision likely expedites the eventual universal acceptance of same-sex marriage, and it certainly comes as a welcome relief to thousands of gay couples whose marriages no longer languish in some sort of legislative-judicial purgatory. Isn't that worth celebrating? Maybe. I can't help but think, though, that what we are really celebrating is the fact that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy apparently is more sympathetic to the personal, symbolic rights of gay people than he is to the actual, political rights of black people.
How cynical was it for the Court to release its decision on gay marriage the day after its decision effectively revoking the Voting Rights Act of 1965? People upset about the potential disenfranchisement of minority voters? Let them eat gay wedding cake! (That is, cake at gay weddings--not a homosexual pastry. Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
And while Tea Partiers and other assorted troglodytes will scream that today's decision represents a major milestone on America's inevitable journey down the road to Hell, they will soon come to realize--as supporters of gay marriage have long argued--that same-sex marriage affects exactly no one other than the happy couples and their families. On the other hand, the fact that retrograde state legislatures in southern backwaters can now happily experiment with ways to strip blacks and other undesirables of basic rights of citizenship affects us all.
Don't get me wrong. SCOTUS got the decision right. As I have said repeatedly, insofar as the government should be involved in legislating romance at all, gays and lesbians should have the same inherent rights to marriage as heterosexuals. It's really a no-brainer--and, appropriately enough, those who oppose such rights are substantively lacking in brains (Bachmann)--or at least in hearts and souls (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito). But at the same time, how much did today's decision actually accomplish?
By overturning the Defense of Marriage Act and declining to decide a case involving California's Proposition 8 (which outlawed same-sex marriage and was subsequently declared unconstitutional by a California court), the Supremes ensured federal recognition of gay marriage and in effect made California the thirteenth state to legalize same-sex marriage. All well and good. But they issued no sweeping statement on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage; individual states can still choose to outlaw or condone such unions as they see fit. But virtually every Democratic lawmaker--and even some moderate Republicans--has come out in favor of same-sex marriage. The arc of history is indeed bending towards justice, and even if SCOTUS had done nothing, more and more states are likely to pass legislation allowing same-sex marriage in the near future.
Still, you might say, this decision likely expedites the eventual universal acceptance of same-sex marriage, and it certainly comes as a welcome relief to thousands of gay couples whose marriages no longer languish in some sort of legislative-judicial purgatory. Isn't that worth celebrating? Maybe. I can't help but think, though, that what we are really celebrating is the fact that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy apparently is more sympathetic to the personal, symbolic rights of gay people than he is to the actual, political rights of black people.
How cynical was it for the Court to release its decision on gay marriage the day after its decision effectively revoking the Voting Rights Act of 1965? People upset about the potential disenfranchisement of minority voters? Let them eat gay wedding cake! (That is, cake at gay weddings--not a homosexual pastry. Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
And while Tea Partiers and other assorted troglodytes will scream that today's decision represents a major milestone on America's inevitable journey down the road to Hell, they will soon come to realize--as supporters of gay marriage have long argued--that same-sex marriage affects exactly no one other than the happy couples and their families. On the other hand, the fact that retrograde state legislatures in southern backwaters can now happily experiment with ways to strip blacks and other undesirables of basic rights of citizenship affects us all.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Tuesday Musing
You know it's time to get back to the gym when you see a highway sign saying "Wide loads use right lane" and you take it personally.
Monday, June 24, 2013
Monday Miscellany
"Passengers may bring one carry-on and one personal item."
So. . . isn't that just two carry-ons?
So. . . isn't that just two carry-ons?
Sunday, June 23, 2013
To Each According to What We Say They Deserve
Last week, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke outlined the steps that the government would gradually--gradually, mind you--take in withdrawing economic stimulus measures that have been in place for the last four years or so. As the national economy improves, the Fed will "scale down gradually its monthly purchases of Treasury securities and mortgage-backed bonds beginning later this year and ending when the unemployment rate hits 7 percent." The central bank will also eventually begin raising interest rates, which currently hover around zero, in an attempt to ward off inflationary pressures. Shortly after Bernanke made this announcement, the Masters of the Universe on Wall Street flipped out and stocks took a nose-dive. I don't pretend to understand all the vagaries of high finance, but I do understand that, whenever the Fed Chairman raises interest rates--or even mentions raising interest rates at any time in the foreseeable future--stocks crash.
Now, just last year, the Republican nominee for President, Mitt Romney--whose picture could presumably grace a dictionary entry for "Wall Street"--got into a heap of trouble when he lambasted the 47% of Americans "who are dependent upon government": a group of people who would never vote for Romney because he would "never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
So what we learned last week is this: The same titans of finance who scream "Socialism!" when the government offers support so that poor people can do things like eat or avoid homelessness will also scream--in terror--if that same government threatens to withdraw support for programs that enable multi-millionaires to become billionaires.
And Republicans wonder why they can't win elections.
Now, just last year, the Republican nominee for President, Mitt Romney--whose picture could presumably grace a dictionary entry for "Wall Street"--got into a heap of trouble when he lambasted the 47% of Americans "who are dependent upon government": a group of people who would never vote for Romney because he would "never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
So what we learned last week is this: The same titans of finance who scream "Socialism!" when the government offers support so that poor people can do things like eat or avoid homelessness will also scream--in terror--if that same government threatens to withdraw support for programs that enable multi-millionaires to become billionaires.
And Republicans wonder why they can't win elections.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)