Thursday, March 27, 2014
Here is where my question comes in. It is 2014 and I still see many reviews where the answer to the accessibility question is a resounding ...NO! Why is this OK? I understand that The Americans with Disabilities Act as many exceptions and loopholes that allow places of business to operate without actually being accessible. These include the size of the business, number of employees, historical impact of the building and even the cost of the renovations themselves. All these exceptions aside, what this comes down to is a basic case of discrimination. A business choosing not to serve people with disabilities, whatever the reason, simply boils down to discrimination.
Imagine a restaurant refusing to serve any other group. Would that be acceptable? Obviously not! A Steakhouse not serving Asians. A Sushi Bar not serving women. A Tapas place refusing to seat Black people. None of these would fly in the face of public opinion. I also doubt that these policies would be allowed to continue for very long. A restaurant that chooses to be inaccessible, faces very little public criticism and is usually allowed to continue this policy indefinitely.
Along the same line, would newspapers publish a review of a restaurant that refused to serve Black people? Not only would they refuse to do this, but they would probably write an expose' of the situation that would put the place out of business.
We don't have the power to change the ADA, but Newspapers, Magazines and Websites like yelp.com could help the situation by refusing to publish reviews of restaurants that are not accessible to people with disabilities. Lets see if it ever happens.
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Saturday, September 29, 2012
I feel bad for the players, but really, there was no other choice but to penalize the football team. If there ever was a Textbook example of "Lack of Institutional Control" this was it. I was actually surprised the NCAA wasn't tougher on them.
This Presidential election is a quandary for me. In 2008 I enthusiastically supported Obama and was eagerly awaiting a strong liberal voice that would stand up to the Republican Party and lead us into a new age of opportunity for all. What I got was a leader who at times seemed afraid to stand up to the obstructionist right wing leadership of the Republican Party. Obama could actually have learned a lesson from his predecessor. Did I actually just say that??? Yep! I mean Bush used the "mandate from the people" thing when he actually lost the popular vote! Obama should've used the same argument to push his agenda more forcefully!
If there ever was a time that the Republicans could have stolen my vote this was the year, but what do they offer me? An out of touch millionaire corporate raider who dismantled American companies and shipped jobs overseas. Worse than that, his economic policies are nothing more than retreads of the old trickle down policies that were proven ineffective and unfair in the past. His social policies would take the country back to the 1950's. I find it hilarious that a Party that is so against Government regulation of business and the Economy, is so gung ho about the Government regulating women's uterus's and who free citizen's can marry.
SIKH TEMPLE SHOOTING
It is almost surreal to think that such a senseless act of violence could take place so close to home. My heart goes out to the Sikh community. My only hope is that somehow this tragedy will teach us the value of acceptance and respect of different cultures.
Friday, June 17, 2011
A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
A system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
Of these three definitions I find the least troubling to be that of Socialism. I also feel that it fits in best with the basic beliefs that all men are created equal and that we should provide for the weakest most downtrodden of our brothers.
In my view, Communism and Capitalism (at least our current corruption of it in the US) are actually much more closely compared than people would like to admit. At least Communism admits that all economic activity is controlled by Politicians. In the US, the most Capitalist of all societies, all social and economic decisions are controlled by politicians and the Corporations and Billionaires that control them through power of the Almighty Dollar. This is illustrated by the fact that the richest 400 individuals in America now control more wealth than a full 50 per cent of our population! How can a gross inequity like this come about, or be allowed to perpetuate itself? Worse yet, the"powers that be", have convinced us that this ok, even desirable! In a truly just society, this would not be allowed to happen.
The most astonishing aspect of this is that most of those in power in our country profess to be extremely religious, yet avarice (greed) is considered one of the Seven Deadly Sins. In my opinion, greed is one of driving forces behind the whole philosophy of Capitalism.
I know I have rambled on a bit here, but I encourage all of you to think outside the box, question everything and never just accept what they try to shove down your throat!