Bakery Run

Introduction

Shoebat has posted a video that consists of 13 hone calls. These phone calls are to pro-gay bakeries. The caller asks for a cake stating that "Gay marriage is wrong." Why is this even a post? Isn't this an open/shut case? No. Not at all.

Because Reasons

The caller is trying to prove a point that I agree with: if an establishment wants to refuse to violate their morals, as long is demonstrable, it should be allowed. Gay, straight, Jewish, Hindu, fill in the blank. Whereas supply and demand function in economics in terms of product and money (to simplify), the ethics of economics are the same. So long as there is a demand for a particular kind of provider, it will exist.

So where does Shoebat go wrong? He trolls. Instead of leaving his point where the bakery refuses to make the cake with his statement, he starts asking "Why is this fair?" and then descends into more trolling. This is bad for various reasons. Besides his point already being made, two points come to mind.

First, what do the employees he called have invested in such cases of Christian bakeries being sued? Assuming that someone is invested like that is assuming. ASS-U-ME. That's a no-no in logic and discourse. If you want to prove a point, don't tick off the opposition just because.

Second, even if the employees admitted that it was wrong for pro-gays to be able to refuse service, but not Christian bakeries, what does that prove? It would prove that they're invested in their beliefs. If I, for whatever reason, was working at a pro-Christian bakery and Shoebat did this, what would the result be? So he's asking just to confirm that I think bakeries should be able to refuse service. I say yes. Result? The obvious! My investment in my belief shows. Nothing else is accomplished, certainly nothing worth noting, unless of course you have a website to get views for. That's why I'm shamelessly using it to gain blog posts.

Conclusion

Be smart. Don't go for the echo chamber, or in this case the inverted echo chamber. Just stick with proving the point and move on. Heck, this goes for anyone of any belief. 

Expanding on the UVa Incident

Introduction

I have many choices when it comes to false rape allegations. There's Lena Dunham and her crap book and claims, which as a side note, Game Informer recommends in its gifts section of issue 260. The urge to burn that magazine aside, there's also the UVa case that I mentioned previously and here in the title. Whichever I choose, I have come to realize that there are no penalties for false claims. Worse, the new definition of rape excludes some cases of men being raped. Due to the nature of this subject, I urge sensitive readers to turn away now. I use explicit language where necessary.
Penalties

It's pretty clear that the grand majority of the human race thinks rape is wrong. Still, here is the obligatory line saying that my intention is not to take away from rape victims, but to increase awareness and expose faults in the system.

As far as I can find, the only penalty for false accusations is for the falsely accused to sue the accuser. This is to say nothing of the stigma that will be attached to the falsely accused, at least until (if) he succeeds in suing the accuser.
Definition


The newest definition of rape is:

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

according to justice.gov.

So what's the problem? Well, there's the ambiguous area about consent. If one or two people get drunk and have sex, can the penetrator be accused of rape? Per the definition, yes. The abuse this allows is appalling.

That aside, what about rape that isn't penetrative? For this example, I will be using Francis Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula. Technically the scene is alluded to in the novel, but it demonstrates my point less.

After being warned not to wander around the castle, Jonathan Harker does so anyways. He finds a room with a chest full of vials. While investigating, he hears the voice of a woman. Beckoned, he ends up surrounded by Dracula's three brides.

Once seduced there is obvious allusion to Harker getting an erection and subsequently having his blood drained in a sort of oral sex/vampirism combination. This does not fit the new rape definition, though I'm sure few would argue that it is, aside from assault, fiction as it is. In other words, a guy under the new definition receives oral sex against his will is not raped, even if it is against his consent. This is the same for a man who does not or cannot consent to conventional sex.

My Point

What I think is being overlooked in these situations is that sexual violation, being of sexual origin, is universal and thus requires universal definition. Man or woman, no one should have the law excluding them in these cases. While the cases I've made are few, that does not mean they should not be taken seriously. False allegations should carry a harsh penalty. As I see it, rape claims made on regret/revenge/lack of original self-control are too powerful, no matter their number. By accommodating those mentioned, real victims will not be disenfranchised.

Samuel L. Jackson and Eric Garner

Introduction

This post was originally going to be a short list of what needs to really be talked about in terms of Eric Garner's arrest and death. Before I had completed my first draft, it was brought to my attention that Samuel L. Jackson had made a video on the matter. It can be found on his Facebook page. 

My Gut Reaction

I have a confession to make before I continue. I have little faith in what Mr. Jackson says in racial matters. In 2012 he admitted to voting for President Obama simply because he is black. To be fair, he has replied to comments on his video stating that he's referring to any racist police. This encouraged me so I stepped back for a moment.

Where we this takes us

After talking with one of my friends last night, we came to a conclusion on the matter of cases like Brown and Garner's. First, before we get into claims of race we need to know what we're talking about. We need to look at crimes, who commits them, and against who. Likewise, we should do the same in terms of police action. 

According to census.gov, for 2013, Blacks/African Americans were about 13% of the population. According to fbi.gov, in 2013, states that Blacks/African Americans constituted about 28% of arrests. Whites/Caucasians were about 78% of the population with about 69% of the arrests in 2013. Proportionally, this means that Blacks were arrested about twice as often as Whites. See here for the breakdown of what the arrest was for and ethnicity of each. My point is that with few exceptions, whites were responsible for crime relative to their population. This is not the case for blacks, who remain about twice as likely to commit a crime.

What this doesn't tell us is if the arrest was made due to racism or not, as numbers are impartial. The best number that can be used is the one for violent crime. I say this because if violence is not vague. We're not talking about cases like Garner's. With about 39% of arrests for violent crime being made of blacks, this is means blacks are three times more likely to be arrested for violent crime. Unless there are a large number of arrests for violent crime that end up being false, I will use this rate to make a point. If blacks are three times as likely to commit violent crime, it makes sense that any profiling be done. 

Racism

I am not trying to disprove racism by my last section. What I'm saying is that the overtly racist cases among the police are like the overtly racist cases in any profession. We should not be surprised that they occur. They are outliers. 

What Mr. Jackson does is call out all racist cops. He doesn't disparage all cops, and for this I'm grateful. He doesn't make himself or his ethnicity a victim, something I've seen from the likes of Al Sharpton his sort, the race hustlers.

Where I'm Hesitant

I'm hesitant for one big reason: Eric Garner, regardless of police conduct, could have saved his own life. If he had complied, despite the silly law, he'd be alive. If he had taken responsibility for his actions there would be no outrage. I do not want to put words in the mouth of Mr. Jackson, as in this alternate reality, he may have made a video anyway.

Another point that comes up between me and my friend is, why aren't police equipped for these situations. Chokehold aside, where was a taser? I get that pepper spray was avoided due to the area. I'm not faulting the officers for not having equipment they didn't have. What I'm saying is that if we want to prevent such a scenario from repeating, we need cops equipped for neutralizing non-violent people. Unless we are willing, as a people, to support the police we cannot expect them to suddenly make up for situations they cannot control.

In terms of Mr. Jackson's video, I hesitate to endorse it because I cannot find racism in his arrest. I see a sloppy takedown and a man resisting, but no racism. The context doesn't work for me, but I agree with the message that we should all be against racism.

Conclusion

Even though I disagree with the context of his song, I'm glad that Samuel L. Jackson is speaking up. He skips the blaming and divisive tactics of figures in the media. Also, his message gives me a chance to get my points across, that even though racism still exists we mustn't blame whole groups. As a side point, with a wider range of equipment police will be able to incapacitate suspects that are not dangerous.

Down Time

Brief Introduction, in case you scroll right passed it

Due to the end of the semester and potential health issues, I have been forced to take a hiatus from this blog. Since I do have time now, I'll give my quick thoughts on some recent stories.

Michael Brown