Tag: rant

Nixed nudity

The Daily Beast reports on a change in policy in France, where the topless beaches made legendary there are about to be the sign of a bygone era, due to a shift in women’s swimsuit fashions back to covering up the upper body.

The most telling quote in the entire article is:

“Nothing is more ringard (tacky, or out of date) in 2009 than strolling around on the beach without a bathing-suit top.”

My reaction to this is somewhat mixed. I am of the impression that France is somewhat the exception to the rule, that there are few, if any, other places in the world that allow(ed) topless women on the beach.

Nevertheless, it’s kind of hard for me to not see the sexism in a policy requiring full-body swimwear for women and only for women, while at the same time making it appear rather, shall we say, hors de l’ordinare (unusual, or out of the ordinary) for men to show up in swimwear covering anything above the waist.

As a more voluminous male, I personally would feel more comfortable in something that would, in the US, be considered on the verge of gender inappropriate. Of course, maybe it shouldn’t be. I’ll probably draw my share of criticism for asserting that; rarely is a truly enlightening opinion met with open arms.

Permit first, food later

The Hartford Courant reports on a conflict between the local government and a charitable organization known as Food Not Bombs. For those not familiar with the organization, Food Not Bombs was founded in 1989 by anti-nuclear activists, and aims to serve fresh vegetarian meals to anyone, in public spaces, without restriction.

The squabble centers around a permit requirement from the city of Middletown (among others) stating that the kitchens used by the group need to be properly licensed for compliance with the cities’ health codes.

I understand the concerns of the cities in question. It is a great show of goodwill by Middletown’s chief public health sanitarian Salvatore Nesci to recognize the work of the group as “admirable.”

I believe in the overall goodwill of humanity, and that some kind of arrangement can be worked out to solve this conflict.

The disturbing part, however, is according to this article on wesleying.org, it’s not just the small towns in New England; the war on Food Not Bombs and organizations like it is actually a national trend.

Is this what we have really come to as a society? That simple, grassroots efforts of charity are shut down because of government red tape?

I’d like to think we, the human race, are better than that as a whole.

This is justice? For who?

WCPO-TV in Cleveland, Ohio, reports on what can only be described as a sad case for everyone.

Eric Cropp, a pharmacist at the time of the incident, gave an overdose of saline to a two-year-old cancer patient, resulting in her death. His sentence: six months in jail, six months house arrest, and three years probation including 400 hours of community service. (The article does not mention a fine.)

It’s sad for the family, who saw their young daughter almost make it through cancer treatments, only to perish in a truly unbecoming fashion.

And it’s sad for Cropp, who is not only facing a forced career change after losing his license, but now has to deal with what will now be uncomfortable questions about criminal background when applying for other jobs.

Now, some of you out there will go on about how he only got three years probation, so he got off easy, etc. But the true sentence here is not the three years’ probation and the jail time.

Even if not actually convicted (it does not state whether he has gotten some kind of sentence that is not supposed to result in an actual conviction, such as deferred adjudication like we have in Texas), Cropp is getting what is in effect a life sentence. Even after having completed his probation it is likely that despite anything his lawyer told him, he’ll still have a record. If Ohio’s public records system is anything like the one in Texas, the average person unwilling to actually chase down the details will not even know that the record for Cropp is a “not-a-conviction-that-looks-like-one.”

The really sad part? According to a USA Today story from 2008 February, Cropp isn’t even the one that actually made the fatal mistake of substituting a 23.4% saline solution bag for a 0.9% bag. The error was actually made by Katherine Dudash, the pharmacy technician. But Cropp bears the full brunt of responsibility because he missed the error and because Ohio does not regulate pharmacy technicians.

I don’t excuse the mistakes that Cropp did make, or to say it’s okay for anyone to make the kind of mistake that results in loss of life. But neither do I excuse the unfairness towards Eric Cropp and the completely backwards laws that let Katherine Dudash get off scot free.

The only happy ending to this, is apparently Dudash also now holds a non-pharmacy job (she went back to work at CVS after the incident and changed careers some time later). But she’s not going to have to deal with having to check yes to job applications that ask “have you ever pleaded guilty or no contest to a felony?” or similar questions. That’s unfair and thoughtless towards someone who spent years training to become a pharmacist. That’s what makes me sick.

Do we really need a blogger badge for integrity?

A recent post on Neil Kramer’s blog, Citizen of the Month discusses the rather controversial Blog With Integrity group/movement and its associated badge.

While obviously sparked by the FTC ethics edict requiring full disclosure of paid or sponsored articles. The mainstream press appears to describe Blog With Integrity (henceforth referred to as BWI to save wear on my fingers) as a “mommy blogger” group. Given my previous rant on sexism, and how anti-male sexism is not only ignored but in some cases accepted and praised, this is the first reason I have for distancing myself from the current Blog With Integrity group. And I will admit it is not a reason I am particularly proud of.

The second issue has to do with the use of the loaded phrase “intellectual property” as quoted here:

I believe in intellectual property rights, providing links, citing sources, and crediting inspiration where appropriate.

A clearer explanation of exactly which laws are being referred to would make this portion of the pledge much easier to understand and not play quite as neatly into the hands of those who are trying to turn things like copyright into perpetual ownership instead of a time-limited grant of exclusivity as was originally intended. I am guessing the BWI pledge mainly refers to copyright and trademark, as I don’t see how a blog post could infringe a patent. I wrote to the contact e-mail given for BWI on 2009-07-23, even citing the Free Software Foundation’s “words to avoid” page and have received no response so far.

Finally, the third issue is with these words in the pledge:

I always present my honest opinions to the best of my ability.

On its face this doesn’t seem evil, but do we really need to pledge to be honest? How much trust do I really gain by actually taking this pledge? Either people believe I am honest person or they don’t. And I must admit that my situation is a bit different: some are willing to say I am dishonest simply because of certain events in my distant past, that speak much more of who I was then versus who I am now.

I agree with the essence of Neil’s arguments, and in particular, this paragraph which I quote here (slightly edited for language):

As much as I respect the sentiments, I hope this badge doesn’t become too popular. I would hate to see a two tier system on the blogosphere, where one person displays a badge of integrity, like a preacher carrying the Holy Book for all to see, while the rest of us are branded as lying heathens in Sodom, [getting intimate with] goats. Isn’t the logical conclusion — the hope of the promoters — that marketers will notice this badge and work with those displaying it? Do we really want that to happen? Ask Sophia’s parents about life in the Soviet Union, when people had to take pledges before getting jobs and apartments.

Indeed, the thought that one segment of bloggers is “holier” than the rest of us for taking the pledge doesn’t sit well with me. Like Neil, I think it is enough that I earn the trust of my readers by my words, not by taking a pledge.

I have always welcomed civil feedback on what I write, on both of my blogs (soon to become “all three of my blogs” in the next month or so). I will usually even publish comments from those that disagree with me.

Ethics tests and public relations professionals

Stumbled across this little gem today, and the cynic in me got a good chuckle or three out of it, so I had to share.

Bulldog Reporter’s Daily Dog reports that according to a study conducted by Penn State led by Renita Coleman, professionals in public relations (PR) do not deserve their often questionable reputation and actually score higher on ethics test than those in certain other professions.

As much as I’d like to believe this, the research is based on performance on a test which poses a set of situations that require the use of ethical judgment. The test shows that PR people did comparatively well on a test. But we all know the final exam is not given in a sterile classroom and proctored by a teaching assistant. No, the final exam is given in real life. Not only in the PR professional’s interactions with clients, but also in interactions with others outside of working hours.

Sometimes the most accurate exams, especially regarding ethics, are pop quizzes. I’ve learned that one from personal experience. The story itself could even be considered a good “garden variety” example of PR spin, for PR people, by PR people. But I think it’s ultimately up to my readers to answer that for themselves.