A chance for me to share my thoughts (or, maybe just vent a bit).
Friday, January 19, 2018
Dumb Bill Alert: If Colts Kneel, Spectators Get Refunds!
One of the things that I prepare myself for at the beginning of each new year is the almost inevitable onslaught of stupid bills introduced in the Indiana General Assembly. In past years there have been bills to nullify federal laws, bills to require local sheriffs to arrest federal officials, bills to require that children in public schools say The Lord’s Prayer, and so on and so forth. Usually, these bills don’t become law, but given recent examples like RFRA or the annual attempts to unconstitutionally stop all abortions in the State, it isn’t a guaranty that the stupid (or unconstitutional) bills will be relegated to the trash.
An Indiana lawmaker is filing legislation that would require the Indianapolis Colts to offer fans refunds if Colts players kneel during the national anthem at home games.
Rep. Milo Smith, R-Columbus, said his bill would allow fans who feel disrespected by the kneeling to ask for a refund during the first quarter.
"To me when they take a knee during the national anthem, it’s not respecting the national anthem or our country," Smith said. "Our government isn’t perfect, but it's still the best country in the world and I think we need to be respectful of it."
…
Smith and his daughter were attending the Colts' September game against the Cleveland Browns when a group of Colts players decided to kneel along with about 200 other NFL players across the country.
He was offended but stayed at the game.
"I'm pretty patriotic, and it didn't sit right with me," said Smith.
My initial reaction was to laugh. My next reaction was to joke that if spectators are eligible for refunds, it should be because of the poor performance of the Colts this year (leading to the team’s dismal 4-12 record). But then I remind myself that introducing a bill — proposing that something become the law of the State of Indiana — is neither a trivial nor laughing matter. And then I get angry.
First, let’s remember that Republicans claim that they want to disentangle businesses from the government. How often have you heard the mantra that “burdensome regulations” stifle business? Yet here is a Republican legislator seeking to impose potentially massive costs upon a single type of business because he was offended. He wasn’t physically harmed or forced to incur additional costs. Nope. He was offended. Just imagine living in America and having to put up with the idea that someone might have a different viewpoint that you don’t find to be patriotic enough. What kind of country would allow such a thing?
Apparently Rep. Smith (who, by the way, hails from the same city as Vice Pastor President Pence) isn’t offended at African American men and boys being shot by police; after all, he hasn’t introduced legislation to help remedy that problem or to require police departments (and, hence, the state) to better compensate those unjustly killed by police (or even to adjust the method by which we adjudicate whether a police shooting was “justified”). Nope. Dead black dude? Meh. Offended white dude? Refund my money!
So let’s look at the actual text of House Bill 1011 (HB1011):
ARTICLE 61. CAUSES OF ACTION: ANTI-PATRIOTIC DISPLAYS
Chapter 1. Professional Sports Anti-Patriotic Displays
Sec. 1. As used in this chapter, “professional sports athlete” means an individual who receives income for playing a sport from a professional sports team located in Indiana.
Sec. 2. As used in this chapter, “professional sports team” means a team that is part of the: (1) National Basketball Association; (2) National Football League; or (3) Women’s National Basketball Association.
Sec. 3. (a) If a person: (1) purchases a ticket to a game; (2) attends the game; and (3) is offended by a professional sports athlete, who is a member of the professional sports team hosting the game, not standing during the national anthem; the person may seek a full refund of the price of the ticket, stated on the ticket, from the professional sports team, within thirty (30) days of the sporting event. (b) A request for a refund described in subsection (a) must be in writing. (c) If the professional sports team does not refund the price of the ticket described under subsection (a) within seven (7) days of the refund request, the person may file an action in any small claims court within the county where the sporting event occurred, within one (1) year of the date of the sporting event. (d) If the court determines the professional sports team did not timely refund the price of a ticket after a person was offended, as described in subsection (c), and the person made a timely refund request, as described in subsection (a), the court shall award the person: (1) reasonable attorney’s fees; (2) court costs; (3) three (3) times the price of the person’s ticket; and (4) other reasonable expenses.
Let’s start with the actual title of the article and chapter of the Indiana Code that this bill would create: “Anti-Patriotic Displays”. Hmm. I don’t know about you, but the whole idea of a free, democratic society with notions like freedom of speech enshrined in foundational documents suggests that the idea of the government deciding what does and does not qualify as an “anti-patriotic display” seems a bit … troubling? Totalitarian, even? It seems that authoring a blatantly unconstitutional bill that proclaims which activity is unpatriotic is far more unpatriotic than kneeling during the National Anthem. This is probably a good place to remind readers (and certain Republican Indiana legislators, in particular) of what the Indiana Constitution says:
No law shall be passed, restraining the free interchange of thought and opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print, freely, on any subject whatever: but for the abuse of that right, every person shall be responsible.
Indiana Constitution, Article 1, Section 9. Read that again and think about HB1011 and the idea that the Indiana General Assembly would legislate which acts are unpatriotic and then punish a business that did not prevent its employees from “unpatriotic” actions.
Ask yourself further why it is only a failure to stand during the National Anthem that qualifies as unpatriotic? In my post To Kneel or Not to Kneel (November 10, 2017), I outlined a whole host of acts (and products) that violate the United States Flag Code, including displaying the flag horizontally as is done before virtually every Indianapolis Colts game. But that conduct isn’t “unpatriotic” in Rep. Smith’s worldview (or at least not unpatriotic enough to warrant a refund). In other words, conduct that Rep. Smith likes (or, I suppose, opinions with which he agrees) are patriotic but those that he dislikes or which challenge his opinions or demand better from our government are disfavored and, thus, unpatriotic. It’s a good thing that our system of government doesn’t allow people to express unpopular ideas. Oh, wait.
It’s also interesting to note that the bill, if passed, would only apply to the Indianapolis Colts, Indiana Pacers, and Indiana Fever (WNBA team). Oddly, the bill would not apply to the Indianapolis Indians or other minor league baseball teams in Indiana, it wouldn’t apply to the Indy Fuel or other minor league hockey teams in Indiana, and it wouldn’t apply to the Indy Eleven (a minor league soccer team), even though their players are individuals who receive income from playing a sport in Indiana. It wouldn’t apply to a Major League Baseball team that relocated to Indiana. It wouldn’t apply to the Indianapolis 500 or Brickyard 400 (or other races at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway) even though the drivers are athletes who receive income for driving in the races. And most importantly, it wouldn’t apply to college or high school teams (and let’s face it, scholarship athletes are receiving “income” for playing sports)! In other words, if you get offended at an NFL game (and you were offended for the “right” reason), your delicate sensitivities are worthy of compensation, but if you are offended by the exact same conduct at an Indianapolis Indians game, Indy Eleven match, Notre Dame football game, or Indiana University basketball game, then I guess you’re just being overly sensitive. Or something. Snowflake. Or, perhaps, Rep. Smith doesn’t want the State of Indiana to have to refund tickets; only teams owned by billionaires should have to do that, right? And if you’re offended, but not for the right reason, then your sensitivities still don’t count.
And what if the reason that an athlete did not stand for the National Anthem had nothing to do with protest or patriotism? What if the athlete (who, according to the bill need only be a “member of the professional sports team hosting the game”) doesn’t stand because of injury? The language of the bill doesn’t even require that the athlete kneel or be on the field! The athlete could still be in the locker room or, for that matter, not even at the stadium! If the athlete is a member of the team and is not standing during the National Anthem, then the offended snowflake person has a right to demand a refund. It’s even crazier than that, though. For example, just imagine an athlete who wants to protest but is aware of this law. Were that athlete to hold up a sign during the National Anthem that said, “Fuck the United States” no right to refund would be created. Nope. Putting on a Nazi or KKK armband during the National Anthem wouldn’t create a right to a refund. Flipping off fans or singing the Soviet anthem wouldn’t create a right to a refund. Nope. Just not standing. So what then? Does the Indiana General Assembly outlaw all unpatriotic displays? Oh, and lest I forget, a spectator wouldn’t be entitled to a refund if a coach or water boy or mascot didn’t stand. Nope. Only a professional athlete is obligated to stand. “Unpatriotic” conduct by others is not sufficient unpatriotic, I suppose.
Seems that Rep. Smith believes that the “value” provided for the price of a ticket is the opportunity to see a semi-famous performer sing the National Anthem and watch athletes stand on the sidelines, rather than watching the athletes, you know, actually play the game itself. After all, HB1011 allows a person who has been “offended” to recover the “full refund of the price of the ticket”. Moreover, there is no obligation for the person to have left the game upon being offended. The person can stay, watch the game (which is, of course, what they actually paid to see), and then ask for a refund anyway. What? I ate the whole meal, but I didn’t like it, so give me back my money.
Furthermore, note that if you are given tickets to the game or win the tickets in a contest, they you don’t have the right to seek a refund because you didn’t purchase your ticket. I guess offense is only meaningful to those who pay, right?
Another minor point I find interesting about the language of HB1011 is that it doesn’t seem to require the “offended” person to actually proving that a player did not stand during the National Anthem; rather, the language requires the person to prove that the team did not refund the ticket price within 7 days of the written request. And then, to add insult to … um … being offended, HB1011 not only allows the poor, offended fan to recover not only attorneys’ fees (thus setting up an entire cottage industry for lawyers) but also entitling the snowflake to recover treble damages, something usually reserved for the worst sorts of civil violations (antitrust and racketeering being the prime examples).
Just think of the slippery slope that this bill creates. How long before other types of “offense” lead to the right to seek refund from other sorts of businesses? Offended by the “unpatriotic” message in a movie or book? Demand a refund. The waiting room at the hospital was airing “fake news” CNN instead of an approved national news source like FOX? Demand a refund! The bar served unpatriotic Mexican tequila instead of good ol’ fashioned Kentucky bourbon? Demand a refund! The school taught your child that independent thought was acceptable? Demand a refund!
The good news is that there are enough decent legislators in the Indiana General Assembly, especially in leadership roles, that HB1011 won’t go anywhere. Chances are that it won’t even be heard in committee (it was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee, most likely to die a quiet death), let alone get a vote for passage. But the mere fact that a bill that is this blatantly unconstitutional would even be offered is a sign of just how little some members of our elected government understand how our government works and just what ideas like “freedom of speech” really mean. That we have elected officials that can’t see the difference between a democracy with freedom of speech and the forced patriotism of totalitarian societies is frightening. Frightening, but sadly, unsurprising.
Finally, query this: If this bill were to become law, how long before Indiana’s “professional sports teams” would be looking for homes in other states? I know that San Diego, St. Louis, and Oakland are looking for football teams. How offended might Hoosiers be at the economic impact to the city and state just so that Rep. Smith doesn’t have his patriotic feelings hurt?
On Friday, February 5, 2016, my wife and I had one of those rare parental opportunities to go out to dinner. Not a long, fancy, dinner, mind you. No. No time for that. But we had time to go and get a burger together before going to our son’s Winter Drumline ensemble percussion performance.
A few months ago, a Smashburger restaurant opened near us. My son and I have been once or twice, but my wife hadn’t had an opportunity to go. She knows about Smashburger because we’ve eaten there in Louisville a few times (while attending cheerleading competitions) and so she has wanted to try the one near us. So we decided that would work well for us. Grab a good burger and then go to the percussion performance. What could go wrong with that plan?
When it was our turn to order, my wife, as she usually does, asked whether the burger was seasoned. Why did she ask this? Those of you who are regular readers of this blog are no doubt aware that my wife suffers from a rare illness. The details aren’t worth going into other than to say that certain (many) foods trigger what appears to be an allergic reaction (actually anaphylactic shock of differing severities). Thus, she needs to be aware — very aware — of the ingredients of the food she eats.
In response to her query about seasoning on the hamburger, the cashier said, “Just salt and pepper.” Unfortunately, all too often, we’ve seen restaurants where there were “hidden ingredients” in the food, and so my wife said to the cashier, “I have allergies. Are you sure the seasoning is just salt and pepper?” Often, in response to this sort of query, the restaurant employee will ask something like, “What are you allergic to?” and my wife will usually respond with something like, “Too many things to mention; it’s easier if you just tell me what’s in the food”. This is exactly what happened that night, and the cashier assured my wife that the seasoning was “just salt and pepper and a buttered grill”.
So my wife ordered a burger with goat cheese.
But after three bites she put the burger down and told me that something was wrong. Over time, she’s become hypersensitive to ingredients in her food that trigger an anaphylactic reaction. Within moments she had a massive rash on her chest and neck, her cheeks were flushed and warm, and she was beginning to feel very sick.
I noticed a man whose nametag identified him as the Assistant Manager. I called him over and asked him about the seasonings on the burger and explained that my wife appeared to be having an allergic reaction. I don’t think he was taking me particularly seriously at first. He wasn’t ignoring me, but I didn’t get the impression that he thought the situation was dire, either. He told me that he thought that the seasoning was just salt and pepper. I asked if he could check. I think he finally realized the gravity of the situation when I said that I really needed to know what was in the seasoning so that I could explain to the doctors if I had to take my wife to the emergency room.
The Assistant Manager walked back to the kitchen. When he returned a few minutes later, he told us that the seasoning was mostly salt and pepper with some garlic powder and onion powder, two of my wife’s biggest triggers. He apologized profusely, said that he’d been in the restaurant business for many years, and took allergies very seriously. And he gave me two $5 coupons and said that he hoped we’d try the restaurant again. As my wife got up to get some water, he once again told her how sorry he was and asked if there was anything he could do.
We left to attend the percussion performance. Sadly, we had to leave early. My wife was just too sick to stay, especially in that sort of environment (a high school gym). At least we were able to watch the first of our son’s two performances before we left. The rest of the evening was something that we’ve sadly grown accustomed to over the years, as she took virtually all of the medications that she can to help ward off the sort of severe reaction that would have landed her in an ambulance for a trip to the local hospital. Thankfully, since she’s been on her current drug regimen with the freedom to “double up” her dosing when triggering, we’ve managed to avoid what had, for a while, been annual trips to the emergency room (including emergency rooms in both Disney and Maui!). But it was a long, difficult night, that even included bringing our daughter back from a planned sleepover at around midnight (so that if we did have to go to the ER, our son wouldn’t wake up to find everyone gone).
I guess we should feel fortunate that she has learned how to exert some small degree of control over her illness when she triggers.
During all of this, I took to Twitter to both blast Smashburger (@smashburger) and to tell friends what had happened.
By Saturday morning, my wife felt much better, though the extra medicines that she had to take made her feel like she had a bad hangover.
Late on Saturday afternoon, I did receive a call from Smashburger’s Assistant Manager asking how my wife was, offering his renewed apologies, and explaining that there were discussions being held at the restaurant. I also received an email Saturday evening from a person who I believe is Smarshburger’s General Manager:
I want to personally apologize regarding your experience at Smashburger. Our customer satisfaction and safety is our top priority. I have personally spoken to my staff regarding the incident. I truly hope your wife is ok. I would like to send you coupons and ask you to give us one more opportunity if willing.
If you give me your address I'll be more than happy to mail you coupons.
And, coincidentally, while typing this post (I wrote it last week, but held off publishing so that my wife could review it), I received a response from Smashburger’s Twitter account apologizing and asking me to direct mail them with more information.
But here is the really ironic thing: When I looked at Smashburger’s website, I discovered that they have an entire page dedicated to Nutrition and Allergens, including an interactive allergen menu. When I use that allergen menu and click on a few of my wife’s biggest triggers (onion, garlic, shellfish), the option for a burger tells us “no burger seasoning”! Seriously.
Am I particularly angry that the cashier didn’t know what was in the seasoning? No. I guess not. Though given that the place is called “Smashburger” and hamburgers are their prime focus, you’d think that employees, especially those who deal with customers and orders would know. But the idea that the cashier didn’t know how to handle a customer who made specific reference to allergies is very troubling, especially given that the chain has that interactive allergen menu. How hard would it have been to direct my wife’s attention to that menu (or to read the list of ingredients included in the seasoning that can be found via that interactive menu)? It is also quite troubling that the Assistant Manager didn’t know what ingredients were in the seasoning without having to ask.
I’m also a bit miffed at the notion of trying to apologize via coupons. A coupon is a great way to respond when a customer received poor service or the food isn’t prepared properly. A coupon is a great way to say “sorry” for a minor inconvenience. But when the situation was as serious as this one, when the ingestion of ingredients could have led to hospitalization (or fatality), then a coupon is … um … not the best response. Instead, I’d like to see Smashburger talk more specifically about the sort of training that all employees will receive about allergens and how to deal with customers who inquire about ingredients. I’m glad that the General Manager has “spoken to [his] staff” but I’d like to know what he told them, what he told the higher-ups in the corporate hierarchy (or franchise), and so forth. Perhaps, instead of offering me a coupon, Smashburger could make a contribution to a local hospital to help with treatment of illness caused by allergens (or to The Mastocytosis Society which helps fund research into my wife’s rare illness).
Hopefully some good will come from this. Hopefully, Smashburger’s employees will be more sensitive to allergies and to the problems that exposures to allergens can cause. Hopefully other restaurants and their staff will read about this experience and consider how they handle patrons will allergies. And hopefully, next time my wife — or anyone who suffers from allergies — inquires as to the ingredients in a particular dish, they will get a thorough and complete response.
Why does Starbucks hate Jews? Is anti-Semitism an ingrained part of the Starbucks corporate culture? Given recent events, I’ve been forced to ask these difficult questions.
“What the heck are you talking about?” I hear you ask.
By now I’m sure you seen or read that some Christians are angry at Starbucks because this year, Starbucks has chosen to use red cups with the green Starbucks logo for the holiday season instead of having symbols of the season on the cups.
Apparently, some Christians have taken offense, arguing that Starbucks “hates Jesus” or is trying to take Christ out of Christmas. Even Donald Trump is now suggesting that a boycott of Starbucks might be worth discussing.
Now, to be fair, there are a lot of people who are rightly recognizing that this newest battle in the “War on Christmas” is utter and total bullshit and that the color of a coffee cup has nothing to do with Jesus or Christmas. Some have gone to far as to suggest that if you need your coffee cup to promote your religion, then you have bigger troubles.
But the whole situation did get me thinking and made me ask one important question: Why are the cups red and not blue?
Red is the color of Christmas, but blue is the color of Hanukkah. Starbucks has chosen, year after year, to use red cups instead of blue cups. Why? Why does Starbucks celebrate Christmas and leave out their Jewish customers? Clearly the answer is that Starbucks is hates Jews. That is the only possible explanation, right? The red cups don’t symbolize a War on Christmas; rather, they are a symbol of Starbucks’ Christian values and a weapon in the War on Hanukkah, which is merely the first campaign in the War on Jews. Removing symbols of the season from the red cups merely allows Starbucks to focus its efforts on the color of Christmas without any possibility of any symbol being thought of as generic or having any applicability to Hanukkah or Jews.
And guess what? Starbucks even sells a “Christmas Blend” coffee.
Where is the Hanukkah blend? Where are the potato latkes? Why isn’t anyone else talking about the clear examples of anti-Semitism being exhibited by Starbucks?
Starbucks may be taking the Christ out of Christmas, but it looks like they must be trying to shove it into the coffee served to Jews. That is the only explanation that I can think of.
So stand with me. Stand up to the corporate juggernaut of anti-Semitic coffee. Take a stand and make Starbucks end their War on Hanukkah! Do it now, before it’s too late! Do it now before we have to eat fruitcakes instead of latkes and replace Hanukkah gelt with over-priced, fair trade, non-GMO chocolate.
-----
Any of you who weren’t able to tell that this post was entirely sarcastic should probably seek help. But, for the record (because I’m sure that someone somewhere will try to claim that I was serious): I do not believe that Starbucks hates Jews, is anti-Semitic, or is waging a War on Hanukkah. But you know what else? I also don’t believe that Starbucks hates Jesus, is trying to take the Christ out of Christmas, or is part of the so-called (bullshit) “War on Christmas”. It’s just a damn coffee cup.
Movie Theater Checking Bags for “Security” of Patrons Looks More Like a Cheap Ploy to Sell More Overpriced Candy
When our family went to see “Fantastic Four” last week (don’t bother…), the teenage girl taking tickets asked to search my wife’s purse. When we asked her why, she explained that it was for “security”. Oddly, while she searched my wife’s purse, the rent-a-cop (actually, an off duty police officer from a small town nearby) stood nearby and looked on, but didn’t offer the teenage employee any assistance in her search of the purse.
Subsequent to this episode, we learned that Regal Entertainment Group (owner of Regal Cinemas) had enacted a security policy:
Backpacks/Packages/Bags:
Security issues have become a daily part of our lives in America. Regal Entertainment Group wants our customers and staff to feel comfortable and safe when visiting or working in our theatres. To ensure the safety of our guests and employees, backpacks and bags of any kind are subject to inspection prior to admission. We acknowledge that this procedure can cause some inconvenience and that it is not without flaws, but hope these are minor in comparison to increased safety.
Now, I have no problem with reasonable enhanced security. In part as a result of the massive quantity of guns in our society, we now live in a country where any place can become a scene of mass carnage at virtually any time. So if a brief check of bags and backpacks will help keep me and my family safe, then I’m all for it.
However, when it comes to this new policy enacted by Regal Entertainment Group (hereafter referred to just as “Regal”), I have only one response: Bullshit.
This policy has nothing to do with real security. Rather, it is either a cynical way to exploit fears of violence in theaters (“Look, we’re doing something about it!”) or, more likely, a subterfuge for enforcing a different policy altogether:
Outside Food or Drink:
No outside food or drink is permitted in the theatre.
What leads me to these conclusions? Let’s consider the policy and its implementation. I think that it’s fairly safe to presume that the “[s]ecurity issues” that “have become a daily part of our lives” is a reference to the 2012 Aurora, Colorado, theater shooting and the two theater shootings (or attempted shootings) this year in Lafayette, Louisiana, and Nashville, Tennessee.
So, my first question is whether a search of patrons’ bags and backpacks would have stopped any of these incidents? In the case of the shooting in Aurora, the shooter left the theater via an emergency exit which he propped open in order to retrieve his guns from his car. So obviously, a bag search would not have turned up anything, would it? In the Lafayette shooting, the shooter was armed with a handgun. I have been unable to determine whether it was in a bag or just in his pocket, a holster, or otherwise concealed on his body. In the case of the Nashville attempted shooting, the shooter did have two bags. One had an Airsoft BB gun and a hatchet; the other bag had what appeared to be an explosive device. And that leads inevitably to the next question: What would have happened had a teenage employee (especially a very slight girl, like the one who searched my wife’s purse) asked to open one of those bags?
Thus, consider the efficacy of a bag search by a teenager (or any employee not given appropriate training). Will that deter someone intent on committing mass violence? And ask what sort of training that teenage employee has taken. What are they told to do if a patron refuses a bag search or gets belligerent? What are they told to do if the patron claims that they are being discriminated against? What are they to do with a backpack that appears to contain jackets or sweatshirts? Are they expected to pull those out to be sure that no weapons are hidden in or below them? What are they told to do if they find a gun or knife, let alone an explosive device? Run screaming? Calmly tell the patron that they can’t bring the gun into the theater?* Go ahead, roll that scenario through your mind and tell me how it ends. Oh, and ask yourself why Regal is entrusting this sort of “security” to its teenage employees instead of to (hopefully trained) security guards or off-duty police officers?
*By the way, I read through Regal’s Admittance Procedures (so you don’t have to). There is the aforementioned prohibition on outside food and drink. And there are prohibitions on smoking and on the use of recording devices.There is even a request for patrons to avoid using their cellphones. But guess what? There is no prohibition on bringing firearms, knives, or any other sort of weapon into a Regal theater. So even if that employee finds a gun in a woman’s purse, the woman can argue that she should be entitled to admission to the theater because there is no prohibition against bringing a gun.
But that isn’t the end of the problems with the security policy; far from it.
Consider this: Who is most likely to carry a bag into a theater? The answer to that would seem to be women with their purses. How many men carry a bag, even a backpack, into a theater? Not many, I’d wager. Yet the one factor that all of the theater shootings (and most of the mass shootings, no matter where committed) have in common is that they were committed by men. Thus, by limiting searches to backpacks and bags, Regal is selectively targeting for inspection those who seem least likely to constitute security threats. Will men with bulky jackets be searched to see if they have a gun secreted on their person? Will men with cargo pants be asked to empty their pockets to be sure that they don’t have a gun or knife? Will men be asked to raise their shirts to allow the theater employee to see if they are wearing a holster or have a gun stuffed into the waistband of their pants? Of course not.
And think about this: There is no attempt to profile the type of person who might be likely to commit an act of mass violence. I’m not talking about racial profiling; rather, how about profiling people who come into the theater by themselves, especially if they look … oh, I don’t know … crazy? Or maybe single people who come into the theater after the movie has begun. Perhaps groups of young people who appear to be part of a gang or anyone who appears to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Compare that sort of profiling to the search conducted of my wife’s purse; is there really a suspicion that a family of four, including two children, intends to commit an act of violence or threaten the safety and security of other patrons?
Oh, and one Indiana-specific side note: As a result of some of the NRA-inspired idiocy from our General Assembly, Regal is allowed to prohibit patrons from bringing guns into the theater (even if they don’t appear to have adopted such a policy) but cannot prohibit employees from having guns in their cars in the parking lot. In fact, Regal cannot even ask employees about possession of a gun. I wonder whether Regal is searching its employees when they come to work to be sure that they left their guns in their cars. And if not, why not? That’s a good question to ask a manager at Regal.
If a bag search isn’t likely to deter someone intent on mass violence and isn’t aimed at those most likely to commit mass violence, then what is its real purpose?
Perhaps Regal just wants people to think that Regal takes security seriously. Perhaps the thinking in the Regal boardroom went like this: “Hey, if people think that they are safer in our theaters, then maybe they’ll come to our theaters instead of those owned by our competitors where they don’t check bags. Who cares if our safety is bullshit, so long as it helps us sell more tickets!” Yeah, I know that sounds unfair. But if that isn’t the explanation, and if Regal really cared about safety, then wouldn’t the security policy be designed so as to be effective and be implemented in a way that might work without putting teenage employees at risk? For that matter, wouldn’t Regal have also enacted a “no weapons” policy?
Which brings me to what I believe is the real intent of the security policy: Regal wants to make more money by selling more candy and drinks and the best way to do that is to search bags and backpacks to be sure that people aren’t bringing contraband food and beverages into the theater. It’s hard to hide an AR-15 in a backpack or purse, but it’s easy to hide a box of Sno-Caps and a bottle of Coke; similarly, it’s easy to hide a handgun in a pocket or the waistband of a pair of pants, but it’s not as easy to conceal that same bottle of Coke.
I don’t think the security policy is really designed to keep anyone safe; if that is the intent of the policy, then someone really didn’t think it through very well (I wonder if Regal purchased extra insurance for the employees tasked with searching bags). Instead, I think that the intent is to be sure that patrons don’t try to sneak candy or drinks into the theater in hopes that Regal can sell a few more boxes of horribly overpriced goodies.
Incidentally, I’m not the only one to reach these conclusions. I came across the following after I’d written the bulk of this post (while I was checking some of the information related to the prior theater shootings):
Jeff Bock, box office analyst for theater-industry research firm Exhibitor Relations, predicted the policy will lower the anxiety of theatergoers but could pose other problems.
“Implementing this is probably a good idea,” he said. “But it seems undercooked. How is this going to work? The protocol needs to be defined. Exactly what are they doing and what kind of training are you giving to employees?
“It’s a pretty big thing to ask for 16-year-old employees to search through bags for possible firearms. This kind of changes the duties of a theater employee from making popcorn and sweeping floors to basically being a low-rent security guard. Maybe this falls to the manager of the theater to search … We now have to deal with the consequences of what if they find something in the bag.
“Obviously, all the people who sneak in Subway sandwiches are going to be mortified,” Bock added. “Maybe that’s the Regal ulterior motive. Stopping illegal Milk Duds from getting into theaters.”
One more quick point: If you are a woman going to a movie at a Regal theater and an employee asks to search your purse, I’d ask for the manager and then ask why only women (seemingly, at least) are being subjected to the policy. Ask why your husband or boyfriend isn’t being frisked or made to empty his pockets. Put the onus on Regal to explain why they’ve implemented a policy which, in effect, discriminates against women (especially women with children!) and subjects them to a heightened degree of scrutiny and an invasion of privacy to which men are not subject. Yes, Regal may claim that it wants to keep its patrons safe, but I doubt very much that it will relish a backlash from angry women who have had their purses ransacked by teenagers.
Republicans want President Obama to authorize construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. Many (though not all) Democrats and President Obama are opposed to the pipeline. Unfortunately, like most issues, reasonable debate on the merits (or lack thereof) and risks of the project have been largely drowned out by basic talking points, some of which have little or no basis in reality.
The point of this post isn’t to address the issue of whether the pipeline should be given the green light; rather, I’d like to look at an alternate way to address the politics of the issue (and of similar issues): Let’s make a deal.
Supporters of the Keystone XL Pipeline argue that it will create 20,000-40,000 jobs. Some go even further and say permanent jobs (not just construction jobs). They also say that the pipeline will be good for the American economy and that the environmental risks are minimal. Opponents argue that very few jobs will be created (and that few of those will be permanent), that the environmental risks are great, and that the economic impact to the US will be negligible. Who is right? Who cares. Rather than worry about stupid things like facts and risk analysis (which seem to be anathema to some…), let’s just take each side’s views and see what kind of deal we can make.
For example, supporters believe that the pipeline will create jobs. OK. We should all be thrilled if the pipeline were to, indeed, create those jobs. But what if the jobs don’t materialize or don’t materialize to the extent promised by supporters? So here is my idea: Opponents of the pipeline should agree to construction of the pipeline but with caveats. Come up with a standard by which jobs will be measured; if the jobs are created and meet that standard, then things are good. But if not enough jobs are created, then the minimum wage automatically increases by 25%. If supporters of the pipeline are so sure that the jobs will be created, then this should be an easy deal to make, right? And opponents, who are equally sure that the jobs won’t be created, will be getting something that they want when those jobs don’t materialize, right? Win win, no?
Similarly, opponents could suggest that the authorization law include a provision that automatically increases EPA funding or imposes some sort of strict liability and penalty in the event of a spill from the pipeline. Again, if supporters are so sure that the environmental risks of a spill are so low, then they should be willing to jump on this sort of deal, right?
And this sort of model could be applied to all manner of different issues. For example, think about proposed bans on fracking in certain locales. Would supporters of fracking be willing to accept the right to obtain their oil (which they say doesn’t lead to environmental issues) if, in exchange for drilling rights, the CEO and board of directors of the drilling companies had to agree to drink water taken from wells in and around where the fracking is being done? If fracking really is so safe, then there shouldn’t be any harm in drinking water from those wells, right? Similarly, would supporters of fracking be willing to waive being shielded from personal liability by the corporate shield if fracking is demonstrated to be a cause of earthquakes?
What about school vouchers? I suspect that we could devise standards to measure whether students making use of the vouchers are being well-served. If so, then great. But if not, then perhaps more money could be allocated to public schools.
I’m not sure that this model for legislation is really how our system is supposed to work. But right now, our system isn’t working. So maybe a high-risk game of “let’s make a deal” would be a way forward, at least temporarily. And, if one side isn’t willing to make a deal, then that might prompt voters to look at the facts behind that side’s assertions and ask whether the assertions might be unsupported by facts.
Oh, and if you want to know my thoughts about the Keystone XL Pipeline: I’m opposed for several reasons. First, I don’t think it will create that many jobs. The numbers that I’ve seen (sorry, but I don’t have the time to find links right now…) suggest a far lower number of jobs and that few of them will be permanent. When you compare that to the potential risk of building a massive pipeline over wilderness and above aquifers, then I don’t see the gain as being worthwhile. Furthermore, why does the pipeline need to cross the US at all? This is for a Canadian company selling Canadian oil. Why can’t the pipeline go to Vancouver or the Canadian east coast (or even north toward the Arctic Circle)? If the oil was to be used in the US, I might agree, but it’s my understanding that the oil will be refined in the US but be exported for sale abroad. How exactly does that help our economy? And how does that offset the risk of environmental catastrophe (remember that the sort of oil we’re talking about is widely considered to be the “dirtiest” form of oil)? But if supporters wanted to make a deal to get my support in exchange for something that I favor…
An Open Letter to Jimmy John’s (and Other Bicycle Delivery Operations)
Dear Jimmy John’s (in particular the store at 1 North Meridian Street in Indianapolis) and other Bicycle Delivery Operations:
This letter is not about the fact that I don’t like your sandwiches (which I don’t, but both my father and daughter do, so…). No, that’s not why I’m writing to you. Rather, I’m writing to you for a much simpler, much more fundamental reason: I don’t want to die or get injured while walking around downtown Indianapolis. For that matter, I doubt many other pedestrians out for a casual stroll on a downtown sidewalk really expect that they are putting themselves at risk of injury because of you.
Yes, I understand that part of your shtick is to promise that your food will be delivered really quickly. It’s catchy and your commercials are funny-ish. But you know what? I shouldn’t have to walk in fear of injury because you have a reputation to uphold. Neither I nor any other pedestrian should ever have to jump out of the way as one of your bike delivery people flies by weaving in and out of pedestrians on crowded sidewalks. Nor should we have to nurse bruised elbows or hips that are bumped by a bicycle racing as if it was in the Tour de France rather than delivering a sandwich. And cars shouldn’t have to slam on their brakes to avoid a bicycle that darts out in front of them. Your bicycle delivery people wear helmets; pedestrians shouldn’t need helmets and elbow guards.
Perhaps you should reflect on the old Domino’s promise of free pizza if it took more than 30 minutes for delivery. The company had to abandon that policy in 1993, in part due to a $79 million judgment against the pizza maker. Google it.
Look, I don’t know how things work in other cities. But in downtown Indianapolis, your store is just a half-block south of Monument Circle, a prominent and popular lunchtime gathering spot, especially on nice summer days. People walk around the circle, they eat at one of several restaurants with outdoor dining, and they congregate to talk to friends. Yet even on the most congested days (like today), delivery guys (well, the occasional girl, but not many) race through the crowds, seemingly heedless of the pedestrians scampering to avoid being run over. Those “Yield” signs on the Cultural Trail? Yeah, I’m not sure that your bicycle delivery guys are familiar with them. Today, I walked to the Circle, walked two laps around the Circle, grabbed some lunch, and walked back to my office. And I had to dodge three bikes. Note: I dodged the bikes; they didn’t dodge me. Some other bikes did swerve to avoid me and other pedestrians; but even then, I and others had to worry until the last moment as to whether the bike was going to manage to avoid hitting us. Should I really have to worry as each bike approaches as to whether it will avoid me or whether I need to take evasive action?
Indianapolis is working hard to become a bicycle friendly city. I think that’s a great idea and I’m in favor of bike lanes and efforts to make drivers more aware of bicycles. But you know what? If bicyclists don’t want to be hit by cars, they should probably think about showing similar considerations for pedestrians. We expect cars to yield to pedestrians and bicycles; so too should we expect bicycles to yield to pedestrians.
Now perhaps the bikes that nearly hit me today weren’t being ridden on your behalf; I didn’t stop to ask (though I’m pretty sure that I saw a Jimmy John’s delivery sack carried by at least one of the riders). But you are the most prominent user of bicycles for delivery in downtown Indianapolis. And to quote a friend of mine after I tweeted about the subject (without mentioning your company at all): “A lot of those Jimmy Johns [sic] guys are a-holes.” He made the connection to your business all on his own.
So which is it that you want? The reputation for providing good food quickly … or the reputation for employing reckless “a-holes” to provide that food. It’s your choice.
And a little (snarky) food for thought: Indiana’s “stand your ground” law allows a person to use deadly force “if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony”. Now I’m certainly not suggesting that anyone kill your bicycle delivery guys, but it would seem that a pre-emptive well-placed elbow or kick to a wheel, if delivered for the purpose of preventing a bicycle from hitting someone just might be justified. I mean, if I’m a pedestrian, shouldn’t I have the right to stand my ground before I or another pedestrian is run over by your bicycle? Note: I’m not advocating violence and I don’t really think that hitting or kicking a passing bike rider is acceptable; rather, I’m making a point (related to several issues, actually…) by going way, way over the top. Snark, people. Snark.
Anyway, perhaps it is time to re-think your delivery strategy or at least re-think how it’s implemented. Maybe a little more training for your delivery people? Maybe instructions to stay off crowded sidewalks? Maybe just telling them to slow down when pedestrians are around. Because, you know, the headline in the newspaper that Jimmy John’s has to pay a massive punitive damages judgment because one of its bicycle delivery people ran over a little old lady walking out of the Hilbert Circle Theater won’t really be good for business. And that would be a shame because both my daughter and father like your sandwiches, even if I don’t.
This graphic has been making the rounds on Facebook and the Web over the last few days:
I don’t know about you, but I’m troubled by the exclusionary attitude expressed by Abercrombie & Fitch’s CEO Mike Jeffries.* “A lot of people don’t belong in our clothes, and they can’t belong.” Seriously? A&F is only going after the “cool kids” and the “attractive all-American kid”? And just what does that mean?
Let’s imagine that, instead of talking about “cool kids” or “all-American kids”, Jeffries spoke instead of “white kids”. Would you be troubled then? Or if his quotation had been that “black people don’t belong in our clothes, and they can’t belong”… Would that trouble you? Of course it would. So query just what an “attractive all-American kid” is? Is that sort of like Sarah Palin’s “real America” where certain categories of people are excluded?
When I do a Google image search for Abercrombie Fitch Models (models are what the retailer calls their in-store employees), I don’t see many African Americans, Latinos, or Asians. But I do see a lot of white guys and girls. Is that what Jeffries means when he talks about an “attractive all-American kid”? Just look at the plastic surgery that he’s had; the “ideal” into which he’s tried to transform himself…
And even if he’s not talking race or ethnicity, he is talking weight and appearance. Can an unattractive kid also be “all-American” or is that reserved for the attractive kids? Perhaps even more importantly, can someone who isn’t a muscle-bound guy or a size 2 girl be considered attractive? Or, in the Abercrombie & Fitch world, do a few extra pounds or the type of body that isn’t found outside the pages of a fashion magazine disqualify someone from being “attractive” or “all-American”?
Now, I do recognize that one aspect of this argument can break down if taken too far. For example, I don’t think that we would be dismayed by a sporting goods retailer saying that they were targeting athletes; then again, I don’t think a store like Dick’s Sporting Goods would say that non-athletes “can’t belong”. Rather, I suspect that a store like Dick’s would welcome to opportunity to help transform a non-athlete into an athlete.
I guess the real problem that I have here is that we know that we live in a society that is overly image conscious. And who is most impacted by that? I’d guess teens — the very clientele attracted to Abercrombie, some of who are being told that they “can’t belong”. Should a girl with a few extra pounds develop an eating disorder in order to dress like the “cool kids”? Or should a boy who is more of an academic and less of a jock, perhaps with a little teen acne, just resolve to live a life where he knows that he “can’t belong” because he can’t press 250 pounds?
Are those the sorts of messages that we want to send to our kids?
It’s bad enough that Abercrombie & Fitch’s adds are almost soft core porn. But when you add to the images of those bare-chested models the suggestion that only people who look like those models are “worthy” of shopping at the store, then we’ve crossed over a line into something … well, dangerous to our kids.
It’s not just bullying that leads teens to depression and suicide. Being on “the outside” can be devastating to a teen’s developing persona. And here we have a multi-billion dollar company not just perpetuating body image stereotypes but going further and saying that those who can’t meet certain standards “can’t belong”. If you’re fat, go to Dress Barn and live your life as an unpopular cow. If you’re not “cool”, go shop at Walmart or Goodwill. Abercrombie & Fitch doesn’t think that you’re a part of the “all-American” society.
I don’t think that a boycott of Abercrombie will do much good. Their marketing is tied directly to their products and business plan. So what can people do? Well, I suppose that “ugly” people who might not match the “all-American” ideal could start hanging out in Abercrombie stores or “proudly” wearing Abercrombie apparel in an effort to make it “not cool”. But that doesn’t seem like a winning strategy. But I think that I have a three-step idea that just might put some pressure on the company:
When you see an Abercrombie & Fitch add in a newspaper or magazine, write to the editor and suggest that they not accept ads from Abercrombie & Fitch anymore. Ask the editor if they’d accept advertising from a company that espoused open racism or sexism and suggest that advertising from a company that says that certain people “can’t belong” is equally damaging to our society.
Shop at other stores … but do something else, too. When you buy something at one of those other stores, be sure to tell the employees that you’ve purposefully made the decision to shop at that store instead of Abercrombie because of its exclusionary worldview. If stores start to hear that inclusion is valuable it will become something to strive for and Abercrombie will be left out.
Finally, ask the owners of the malls in which Abercrombie’s stores are located why they continue to permit that sort of company in their buildings. Again, would they allow a store that espoused racism or some other form of bigotry? Tell the mall owners that you might choose to boycott, not Abercrombie, but the mall itself. Or, if you’re feeling particularly confrontational, get some of your unattractive non-all-American friends together and try picketing on the outside of the mall. Those sorts of activities will make the mall owners very uncomfortable.
If you do find yourself at an Abercrombie & Fitch store, don’t remain silent. Tell the “models” what you think of their CEO’s exclusionary comments. Be sure that they know that it’s not acceptable. Be polite. But be firm. And leave. Without spending your money.
We can’t make everyone feel good about themselves. But we don’t need to tolerate a business that chooses to succeed by making some people feel bad about themselves, especially teens and especially teens who may already have low self-confidence or image issues.
We strive to live by the notion that “all men are created equal”; so do we really want to reward a store that thinks only “attractive all-American” kids belong?
*And yes, I know that at least part of this quotation was from back in 2006, but that it's just now gone viral.
Last week, in the closing hours of the 2013 Indiana General Assembly session, one the bills being hotly debated was the so-called “ag-gag” bill (Senate Bill 373) that, as originally written, was intended to stop people from taking secret photos or videos of farms or industrial operations that might prove damaging or embarrassing to the owners of those operations. It appears that the principal motivation behind the bill was the concern expressed by some large-scale farming operations that animal rights activists were finding their way onto the farms (including by “fraudulently” applying for jobs) and then taking photos of inhumane treatment of animals. Similarly, within the industrial community, there is apparently concern about photos of poor working conditions being taken by whistleblowers.
As the legislative sessions progressed, the bill was expanded and restricted, modified and un-modified, and subject to all sorts of changes. It was the subject of fairly intensive debate. At one point, reporters began briefly referring to the bill not as the “ag-gag” bill but as the “gag all” bill after it was expanded to cover far, far more situations and to remove some of the safe harbors. In the end, the bill died because the House and Senate weren’t able (at least not within the fixed time available before the session was scheduled to end) to agree upon compromise language (though Speaker Brian Bosma today told reporters that it wasn’t his intent for the bill to die; he’d hoped that the Senate would approve the House version). I suspect, however, that this bill will be resurrected for the 2014 session.
However, it’s not the actual content of the “ag-gag” bill that I want to discuss. Rather, I want to look at this bill as a concrete example of a simple difference between Republicans and Democrats. In case you can’t guess, Republicans supported the bill (with a handful of defections) while Democrats opposed it. I followed the debate about the “ag-gag” bill via Twitter (largely based on the excellent Twitter reporting of Mary Beth Schneider of The Indianapolis Star, who is able to tweet at a speed that rivals the texting skills of a teenage girl). It was this tweet that really caught my attention and got me thinking of how this bill fit into the proverbial “big picture”:
Text of the tweet (in case the embedding fails):
2:41pm 26 Apr 2013: Holdman says the bill has always been about protecting business in Indiana from people who secretively take video solely to do harm to biz.
Holdman is Sen. Travis Holdman (R-Northeast Indiana).
Go back and read that tweet again. Do you see why it caught my eye? Essentially, as I read it, Sen. Holdman was saying that it is the responsibility of the Indiana General Assembly to protect businesses from people. Sure, he couches it in terms of people who act “to do harm to biz”. But is that really (a) how people act and (b) why they act? I mean, do people take photos of farms being cruel to animals because they want to hurt the business or because they want people to know how the animals are being treated so that, perhaps, the animals might be treated more humanely? Does a whistleblower take a photo of poor (or even illegal work conditions) in order to harm the business or in order to force corrections and improvements? Or maybe you can turn it around backwards to think about it. Shouldn’t it, for example, be the job of government to protect people from businesses? Shouldn’t we be rewarding whistleblowers for alerting the public to unsafe working conditions?
I just don’t see people acting in a way with a primary focus or intent of doing harm to businesses; rather, I perceive the primary intent to be to inform people of how businesses are acting or to try to get businesses to change how they operate. But a change in operation is different than “harming” a business, isn’t it? If my friend has a poor diet and I try to get him to change his diet so that his kids will have a parent for a longer time, is my principal goal to “harm” my friend by making him eat more of things he doesn’t want to? Think of it in terms of the fertilizer plant that exploded a few weeks ago in Texas; a plant that apparently hadn’t reported having 1300 times the allowable limit of ammonium nitrate, didn’t have standard safety features (like sprinklers), and hadn’t been inspected by OHSA since 1985. Is it the job of government to protect that business from people who might have wanted to improve working conditions or to protect the neighbors from the possible bad results of a business handling dangerous materials?
When I read this tweet, I started thinking more broadly about the distinction between Republicans and Democrats. Let me ask this: If I told you that a legislator suggested that it was the job of government to pass laws to protect businesses from people, would you presume, knowing nothing else, that the speaker was a Republican or a Democrat? And if I told you that a legislator said, instead, that it was the job of government to protect people from businesses, would you presume that the speaker was a Republican or a Democrat? The answer to both hypothetical queries seems pretty easy to me. Republicans are constantly bemoaning “excess regulations” that “hinder business growth” or some other similar concepts, as if the purpose of those regulations was to prevent businesses from succeeding. By contrast, Democrats seek to impose regulations in order, not to restrict business growth, but to protect people from the unchecked activity of businesses.
Would we have things like the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act if it was the job of government to protect businesses from people? Rather, those sorts of laws are designed to restrict businesses in order to protect people. Today, it’s Democrats who want to talk about climate change and how to take steps to mitigate against its possible ramifications on people while Republicans refuse to even believe that it might be real. It’s Republicans who want to build an oil tar pipeline from Canada to Texas (where the oil can then be sold, not in America, but shipped overseas) and Democrats who are concerned about the possible environmental impact, such as damage to aquifers that supply drinking water to people. It’s Republicans who want to continue to allow gun manufacturers to sell their products with limited regulation while Democrats want to restrict the sale of weapons and high capacity magazines and such in order to protect people.
I don’t think that he really intended to do so, but Sen. Holdman quite succinctly summed up the governing philosophy of Republicans and put it in stark contrast to Democrats. One party believes that it is the role of government to protect businesses from people while the other views its responsibility as helping to protect people from businesses. What do you think the proper role of government should be with regard to the relationship of businesses and people?
A Missed Opportunity? Indianapolis and the Zipline
One of the most talked about attractions during the recent Super Bowl festivities in Indianapolis was the zipline that ran for several blocks down the center of Capitol Avenue. People waited in line for hours to pay $10 for the brief thrill. Thousands had the opportunity (I, unfortunately, never managed to…). It was featured on TV coverage and provided an exciting backdrop to much of the anchor coverage from Super Bowl Village.
But then the game was played, the crowds went home, Super Bowl Village was dismantled, and down came the zipline.
Shortly thereafter, the Indianapolis Motor Speedway talked about possibly installing a zipline for the Indianapolis 500. Ultimately, they chose not to do so. But I think the idea of a zipline at the Speedway missed the point. You see, I don’t think that people were so excited about the zipline per se; after all, there are ziplines that can be found all over (this website lists five in Indiana). Instead, I think that there was something special about the location of Super Bowl zipline … and I think that the City of Indianapolis will miss an opportunity if it doesn’t recognize that uniqueness and capitalize upon it.
So what do I think made the zipline unique? Simple: It’s location. It wasn’t in a remote state park; it wasn’t at an amusement park; it wasn’t at a venue known for sports or other activities. It was in the heart of a vibrant, active downtown. And it went right down the center of the street. I think that made it special and memorable and an activity for which people were willing to wait and pay.
So why not recapture that?
Obviously, it’s not possible to permanently close a street for the purpose of installing a zipline. I get that. But there are a number of other places within downtown Indianapolis that an urban zipline could be installed:
From the top of the Emmis Building, across the Soldiers & Sailors monument, to the area by Christ Church Cathedral or Bank One.
From the west side of the Soldiers & Sailors monument, along and over the sidewalk, toward the Statehouse.
Down the center of the new pedestrian mall on George Street.
From the Indiana Historical Society along the canal.
In or along one of the parks that make up the American Legion mall.
In or around the NCAA Hall of Champions or Eiteljorg Museum.
Military Park.
Sure, there would be obstacles to overcome. What activity doesn’t have obstacles? But think of the benefit to the City. Think of the stories that visitors will tell about their visit to Indianapolis, with the zipline ride in the heart of the City. Think of the families from central Indiana who might choose to come downtown on a weekend for that activity … and while downtown, what else might they choose to do?
Maybe I’m off base, but I think that something cool and exciting like an urban zipline could become one of those permanent fixtures that a city becomes known for as well as another thing to draw local residents to downtown and all of the other activities to be found. I can see a family coming down on a Saturday afternoon to ride the zipline … and then taking the kids to one of the museums. Or how about this? Offer a discount (or even a free ride) with a museum admission?
We saw something that people loved, that they were willing to wait in line and pay for. So why let it just fade away to a nice memory? Capitalize on its success and find a way to incorporate it into the life of the city.
The where are the how are mere details. If a permanent urban attraction is a good idea, Indianapolis has shown time and time again that where there is a will, there is a way.
So what do you think? Would a downtown zipline be cool? Would you pay a few bucks to give it a try? Do you think it would be an attraction that tourists would take note of? If a downtown zipline sounds like a good idea, let me know. More importantly, let others — and the City — know too!
I have pre-teens. Two of ’em. And every now and then, one of them will say something to the other (or to me or my wife) that is inappropriate. When that happens, we ask the child to apologize. Often the apology will be offered in a surly tone; we try to calmly explain that to be meaningful, an apology must at least sound sincere. Sometimes the apology will be followed by a “But…” and we try to calmly explain that an apology is not the time for excuses. An explanation is fine, but not if the purpose is to excuse or even justify the conduct. Other times, the apology will be followed with an effort to blame the bad act on someone else (“She made me!”), to deflect attention from the act itself (“The other day when…”), or to create some form of equivalency (“But he didn’t get in trouble when he …”). And again, we try to calmly explain that these sorts of defensive postures are not properly a part of an apology.
I’m not sure that my kids have really absorbed all of that yet…
But Rush Limbaugh isn’t a 12-year-old kid.
I want to take some time to examine Limbaugh’s so-called apology to Sandra Fluke, issued Saturday afternoon. For, while it has been referred to as an apology — and even includes the word “apologize” — I think a careful reading of Limbaugh’s statement will reveal that it may be a lot of things, but a true apology is not one of them.
Let’s start by reading the text Limbaugh’s “apology”:
For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.
I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.
My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.
The first thing worth noting is that the “apology” was written. You’d think that a man who makes his living via voicing his thoughts on the radio could offer an apology in the same medium. But I recognize that the “apology” came over the weekend. Thus,I was curious to see what, if anything, Limbaugh might say on his radio program on Monday. And sure enough, he did discuss and expound upon his “apology” with a lengthy discussion about why he apologized:
While I have your attention, give me 30 minutes here. It's all I ask and then you can do what you want. I want to explain why I apologized to Sandra Fluke in the statement that was released on Saturday. I've read all the theories from all sides, and, frankly, they are all wrong. I don't expect — and I know you don't, either — morality or intellectual honesty from the left. They've demonstrated over and over a willingness to say or do anything to advance their agenda. It's what they do. It's what we fight against here every day. But this is the mistake I made. In fighting them on this issue last week, I became like them.
Against my own instincts, against my own knowledge, against everything I know to be right and wrong I descended to their level when I used those two words to describe Sandra Fluke. That was my error. I became like them, and I feel very badly about that. I've always tried to maintain a very high degree of integrity and independence on this program. Nevertheless, those two words were inappropriate. They were uncalled for.They distracted from the point that I was actually trying to make, and I again sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for using those two words to describe her. I do not think she is either of those two words. I did not think last week that she is either of those two words.
The apology to her over the weekend was sincere. It was simply for using inappropriate words in a way I never do, and in so doing, I became like the people we oppose. I ended up descending to their level. It's important not to be like them, ever, particularly in fighting them. The old saw, you never descend to the level of your opponent or they win. That was my error last week. But the apology was heartfelt. The apology was sincere. And as you will hear as I go on here, it was not about anything else. No ulterior motive. No speaking in code. No double entendre or intention. Pure, simple heartfelt. That's why I apologized to Sandra Fluke on Saturday, 'cause all the theories, all the experts are wrong.
…
But the point here is that this was an issue that represents a tiny, tiny slice of what the Democrats really want here. They use Sandra Fluke to create a controversy. Sandra Fluke used them to advance her agenda, which is to force a religious institution to abandon their principles in order to meet hers. Now, all of this is what I should have told you last week, 'cause this is what happened. I use satire. I use absurdity to illustrate the absurd. The story at the Cybercast News Service characterized a portion of her testimony as sounding like (based on her own financial figures) she was engaging in sexual activity so often she couldn't afford it. I focused on that because it was simple trying to persuade people, change people's minds.
I am huge on personal responsibility and accountability, people providing for themselves when they're totally able to. The government has no business doing any of this, getting in people's bedrooms and mandating that other citizens pay for other citizens' social activities and so forth. That was the wrong one to focus on. I acted too much like the leftists who despise me. I descended to their level, using names and exaggerations to describe Sandra Fluke. It's what we have come to know and expect of them, but it's way beneath me. And it's way beneath you. It was wrong, and that's why I've apologized, 'cause I succumbed. I descended to their level. Don't be mad at them or mad at her. Everybody here was being true to their nature except me. I'm the one who had the falling on this, and for that I genuinely apologized for using those words to describe Ms. Fluke.
The portion that I omitted was another 13 paragraphs criticizing President Obama in particular (“Barack Obama, has a socialist agenda when it comes to health care” etc.) and Democrats in general. In those paragraphs he discusses the issues, the “facts”, and so forth.
So let’s take Limbaugh at his word that the “apology” was sincere. And heartfelt. But was it an apology for three days of ridicule, scorn, name-calling, and — most importantly — bald-faced lies?
Let’s go back and see what, precisely, Limbaugh apologizes for (and what “mistakes” he owns up to):
I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.
My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.
But this is the mistake I made. In fighting them on this issue last week, I became like them.
[A]gainst everything I know to be right and wrong I descended to their level when I used those two words to describe Sandra Fluke. That was my error. I became like them, and I feel very badly about that.
[T]hose two words were inappropriate. They were uncalled for.They distracted from the point that I was actually trying to make, and I again sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for using those two words to describe her. I do not think she is either of those two words. I did not think last week that she is either of those two words.
The apology to her over the weekend was sincere. It was simply for using inappropriate words in a way I never do, and in so doing, I became like the people we oppose. I ended up descending to their level.
[Y]ou never descend to the level of your opponent or they win. That was my error last week.
I acted too much like the leftists who despise me. I descended to their level, using names and exaggerations to describe Sandra Fluke. It's what we have come to know and expect of them, but it's way beneath me…. It was wrong, and that's why I've apologized, 'cause I succumbed. I descended to their level.
I'm the one who had the falling on this, and for that I genuinely apologized for using those words to describe Ms. Fluke.
I think that the last bulleted point sums things up reasonably well. Limbaugh is apologizing for using “those words” to describe Sandra Fluke, What words, in particular, is he referencing? Well, if you look up just a few bullet points, you’ll find your answer: “[T]hose two words were inappropriate.” (Emphasis added.) Two words. Slut and prostitute. Those are the words that Limbaugh is sincerely apologizing for using. OK. Like I said, I’m willing to take him at his word that his apology for using those two words is sincere and heartfelt. But here’s the problem: He said a lot more than those two words. He lied about Fluke and about what she said. He used lots more words than just slut and prostitute. Those two words were part of the context of a discussion of her sex life. And it wasn’t just an off-hand comment made on the spur of the moment. Rather, he repeated the comments for three days. Even after he’d been called out for the “inappropriate words” he kept at it and kept repeating those words. And then he went even further, even suggesting that Fluke send him a tape of her performing sex acts. And yet Limbaugh expects us to accept that three days of vitriol and lies was not meant to be “a personal attack on Ms. Fluke”? What then was it?
So perhaps, with Limbaugh’s “apology” in mind, it is worth turning to what he actually said about Fluke for those three days. Blogger JohnKWilson, writing for DailyKos, has conveniently compiled Rush’s 53 Smears Against Sandra Fluke (with bonus video!). Note that Limbaugh’s website has now apparently been purged of the transcripts for those days (as originally linked to by JohnKWilson’s post):
So what do you think? Did Limbaugh’s apology cover all of what he actually said? But wait! Before you answer that question, it is also worth noting just how much of what Limbaugh said was an outright lie. You see, much of what Limbaugh said he took from Cybercast News Service. But many of the “facts” that Limbaugh pulled from that article were bald-faced lies. By way of simple example, at no point in her testimony did Fluke ever talk about her own sex life. Don’t believe me? Here’s Sandra Fluke’s testimony (with a transcript):
Leader Pelosi, members of Congress, good morning, and thank you for calling this hearing on women's health and for allowing me to testify on behalf of the women who will benefit from the Affordable Care Act contraceptive coverage regulation.
My name is Sandra Fluke, and I'm a third-year student at Georgetown Law School. I'm also a past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice, or LSRJ. And I'd like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies, and all of the student activists with us, and thank them so much for being here today.
We, as Georgetown LSRJ, are here today because we're so grateful that this regulation implements the nonpartisan medical advice of the Institute of Medicine. I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraceptive coverage in its student health plan. And just as we students have faced financial, emotional and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously affiliated hospitals and institutions and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens. We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women. Simultaneously, the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic and Jesuit institutions.
When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected by this lack of contraceptive coverage. And especially in the last week, I have heard more and more of their stories. On a daily basis, I hear from yet another woman from Georgetown or from another school or who works for a religiously affiliated employer, and they tell me that they have suffered financially, emotionally and medically, because of this lack of coverage. And so I'm here today to share their voices, and I want to thank you for allowing them — them, not me — to be heard.
Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that's practically an entire summer's salary. Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they've struggled financially as a result of this policy.
One told us of how embarrassed and just powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter and learned for the first time that contraception was not covered on her insurance, and she had to turn and walk away because she couldn't afford that prescription. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception.
Just last week, a married female student told me that she had to stop using contraception because she and her husband just couldn't fit it into their budget any more. Women employed in low-wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face this same choice.
And some might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that's just not true. Women's health clinics provide a vital medical service, but, as the Guttmacher Institute has definitively documented, these clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services. Clinics are closing, and women are being forced to go without the medical care they need.
How can Congress consider the Fortenberry, Rubio and Blunt legislation, that would allow even more employers and institutions to refuse contraception coverage, and then respond that the nonprofit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis; particularly when so many legislators are attempting to defund those very same clinics?
These denials of contraceptive coverage impact real people. In the worst cases, women who need this medication for other medical reasons suffer very dire consequences. A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown's insurance, because it's not intended to prevent pregnancy. Unfortunately, under many religious institutions' insurance plans, it wouldn't be. There would be no exception for other medical needs. And under Senator Blunt's amendment, Senator Rubio's bill or Representative Fortenberry's bill, there's no requirement that such an exception be made for these medical needs.
When this exception does exist, these exceptions don't accomplish their well-intended goals, because when you let university administrators or other employers, rather than women and their doctors, dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose are not, a woman's health takes a backseat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body. In 65 percent of the cases at our school, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed prescriptions and whether they were lying about their symptoms. For my friend, and 20 percent of the women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription. Despite verification of her illness from her doctor, her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy. She's gay — so clearly, polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy for her.
After months of paying over $100 out of pocket, she just couldn't afford her medication anymore, and she had to stop taking it. I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that, in the middle of the night in her final-exam period, she'd been in the emergency room. She'd been there all night in just terrible, excruciating pain. She wrote to me: "It was so painful I woke up thinking I'd been shot." Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary as a result. On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she was sitting in a doctor's office trying to cope with the consequences of this medical catastrophe.
Since last year's surgery, she's been experiencing night sweats and awaking and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She's 32 years old. As she put it: If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no choice at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies, simply because the insurance policy — that I paid for, totally unsubsidized by my school — wouldn't cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it. Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at such an early age — increased risk of cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis — she may never be able to conceive a child.
Some may say that my friend's tragic story is rare. It's not. I wish it were. One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but that can't be proven without surgery. So the insurance has not been willing to cover her medication, the contraception she needs to treat her endometriosis. Recently, another woman told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she's struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified not to have access to it. Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown's policy, she hasn't been reimbursed for her medication since last August. I sincerely pray that we don't have to wait until she loses an ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these women are taken seriously, because this is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends: A woman's reproductive health care isn't a necessity, isn't a priority.
One woman told us that she knew birth control wasn't covered on the insurance, and she assumed that that's how Georgetown's insurance handled all of women's reproductive and sexual health care. So when she was raped, she didn't go to the doctor, even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections, because she thought insurance wasn't going to cover something like that, something that was related to a woman's reproductive health.
As one other student put it, this policy communicates to female students that our school doesn't understand our needs. These are not feelings that male fellow students experience, and they're not burdens that male students must shoulder.
In the media lately, some conservative Catholic organizations have been asking, what did we expect when we enrolled at a Catholic school? We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success. We expected that our schools would live up the Jesuit creed of "cura personalis," to care for the whole person by meeting all of our medical needs. We expected that when we told our universities of the problems this policy created for us as students, they would help us. We expected that when 94 percent of students opposed the policy, the university would respect our choices regarding insurance students pay for completely unsubsidized by the university.
We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that we should have gone to school elsewhere and — even if that meant going to a less prestigious university. We refuse to pick between a quality education and our health, and we resent that in the 21st century anyone thinks it's acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women.
Many of the women whose stories I've shared today are Catholic women. So ours is not a war against the church. It is a struggle for access to the health care we need. The president of the Association of Jesuit Colleges has shared that Jesuit colleges and universities appreciate the modification to the rule announced recently. Religious concerns are addressed, and women get the health care they need. And I sincerely hope that that is something we can all agree upon.
Thank you very much.
So now that you know both what Fluke really said, what Limbaugh really said, and the content of Limbaugh’s faux apology, I think you’ll have to agree that the “apology” was far from all-encompassing. Limbaugh apologized for those “two words”; but did he apologize for the sentiments behind those words? Did he really mean “tramp” and “harlot” but mistakenly said “slut” and “prostitute”? His apology doesn’t seem to show remorse for impugning Fluke’s sex-life at all. He certainly doesn’t apologize for saying, over and over, that she has too much sex. And his apology doesn’t retract the suggestion that she send him a sex tape.
Add to all of that the fact that Limbaugh’s apology is weighted down with excuse and explanation innuendo and, most importantly, that rather than just accept responsibility, he tried to blame liberals and Democrats by suggesting that he became like them. What? What does that have to do with an apology? What do the actual issues that he may have been trying to discuss have to do with an apology? What does the alleged way in which Democrats argue (and I would of course take issue with Limbaugh’s “down to their level” suggestion) have to do with his apology? (It sounds like a child: “I’m sorry for hitting you Johnny, but I only did it because your friend Pete pushed my friend Tommy one day.”) What does any of that have to do with lying about what Fluke actually said in her testimony and then criticizing her on the basis of things that she didn’t say?
A few final points on Limbaugh’s “apology”. Some have tried to analogize Limbaugh’s comments to Ed Schultz calling Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut” and a “talk slut”. But here are a few very important differences to note. First, the reference was singular. Schultz didn’t repeat the comment for three days. Nor was his comment embedded in a longer series of highly personal attacks against Ingraham. For that matter, it doesn’t appear that the comment was even sexual, but that point isn’t worth debating. Second, Schultz apologized quite promptly and was suspended from his program for the comments. I don’t think that Schultz’s comments come anywhere close to being as offensive as Limbaugh’s. But if people really want to compare the incidents, then it is certainly worth comparing Schultz’s apology to the faux apology offered by Limbaugh:
Good evening, Americans and welcome to The Ed Show from New York tonight. Thomas Roberts will be here tonight anchoring the program, but first I want to take some time to offer an apology. On my radio show yesterday I used vile and inappropriate language when talking about talk show host Laura Ingraham. I am deeply sorry, and I apologize. It was wrong, uncalled for and I recognize the severity of what I said. I apologize to you, Laura, and ask for your forgiveness.
It doesn't matter what the circumstances were. It doesn't matter that it was on radio and I was ad-libbing. None of that matters. None of that matters. What matters is what I said was terribly vile and not of the standards that I or any other person should adhere to. I want all of you to know tonight that I did call Laura Ingraham today and did not make contact with her and I will apologize to her as I did in the message that I left her today.
I also met with management here at MSNBC, and understanding the severity of the situation and what I said on the radio and how it reflected terribly on this company, I have offered to take myself off the air for an indefinite period of time with no pay. I want to apologize to Laura Ingraham. I want to apologize to my family, my wife. I have embarrassed my family. I have embarrassed this company.
And I have been in this business since 1978, and I have made a lot of mistakes. This is the lowest of low for me. I stand before you tonight in front of this camera in this studio in an environment that I absolutely love. I love working here. I love communicating with all of you on the radio and the communication that I have with you when I go out and do town hall meetings and meet the people that actually watch. I stand before you tonight to take full responsibility for what I said and how I said it, and I am deeply sorry.
My wife is a wonderful woman. We have a wonderful family. And with six kids and eight grandkids, I try to set an example. In this moment, I have failed. And I want you to know that I talked to my sons especially about character and about dignity and about the truth. And I tell you the truth tonight that I am deeply sorry and I tell them every day that they have to live up to standards if they want to be a successful human being in life. And I have let them down. I have never been in this position before to the point where it has affected so many people. And I know that I have let a lot of people down.
To the staff here at MSNBC, I apologize for embarrassing the company and the only way that I can really make restitution for you is to give you a guarantee, and the only way that I can prove my sincerity in all of this is if I never use those words again. Tonight, you have my word that I won't. Laura Ingraham, I am sorry. Very sorry. I'll be back with you in the coming days.
I think it’s also worth noting that Schultz made the effort to speak directly to Ingraham to apologize. And he didn’t try to place his statement within some sort of context; in fact, he noted specifically that the circumstances didn’t matter; the only thing that mattered was what he said.
Limbaugh apologized for a very small part of what he did wrong. He made that apology “contextual” and he sought to try to divert some of the attention from his own misconduct and poor choices to others. If it weren’t for the nature of the what Limbaugh was apologizing for, this might be the perfect way to show my children precisely how not to offer an apology (I think I’ll wait a bit longer before discussing birth control, sluts, and prostitution, let alone sex tapes, with my kids).
Given the exodus of Limbaugh’s sponsors, even after the faux “apology” was offered, it seems clear that I’m not the only one who doesn’t put much value in Limbaugh’s apology. He’s made a career of insulting people. (Does anyone remember the things he said about Amy Carter or Hillary Clinton when they were both children? If not, Google it…) But finally it appears that his big mouth has gotten him into the trouble that he has managed to elude for so long. I can’t wait to hear Limbaugh’s apology to the radio stations that carry his show as they begin to complain about lost ad revenues.
