A rant on discrimination

So anyone who's even remotely plugged into the news has likely heard of the Kevin Smith/Southwest debacle at this point, but just in case it has somehow passed under your radar, the gist of it is this; Smith, who is portly at best, was tossed off a Southwest flight because his girth was apparently posing a safety hazard and making the other passengers uncomfortable, despite the fact that he was not given a chance to prove that he wasn't too fat, and the other passengers around him didn't actually complain about his presence.

I had to opportunity today to hear Smith's side of the story in detail today, and really, what it boils down to is discrimination. Someone, at some point, looked at Kevin Smith and profiled him. This someone then proceeded to act on his or her prejudiced notions via other employees. That's really what it does boil down to, as is proven by what happened with another passenger on the very next Southwest flight Smith was on, where, despite sitting on an aisle seat where nobody was guaranteed to be sitting next to her, this passenger was told by the flight crew in no uncertain terms that she was too fat to fly and should buy another seat lest she inconvenience the passenger sitting next to her. Let me reiterate; the seat next to her was empty and was guaranteed to never be full. Smith, who was sitting on the other end of the three-seat aisle, had purchased the middle seat as well initially, because he liked to stretch out during flights. Mind you, this was after said passenger was ordered to sit in Smith's aisle.

As to Smith himself, well, not only did they toss him off the plane for being fat, they did so after the plane was full, and then they proceeded to dance around the reason they tossed him, saying that they weren't calling him fat, but he was "taking more than the space allotted to a single passenger."

Listening to this case, there's something to be said for the shockingly poor customer service values Southwest airlines displayed, but that's almost expected at this point. I could start telling you all the times I was chewed out at my old job for trying to help a customer, but that'd take a few weeks just for the abridged version, so I can't really blame the employees for that. No, what really got me about this case is that, as I mentioned earlier, it really was a case of profiling and discrimination, plain and simple.

What stuns me the most about hearing this whole story is that a collection of people thought this was perfectly acceptable. Somehow, the idea that they're treating a person adversely due to their physical appearance either did not register with these people, or they brushed it aside.

Let's be honest, fat passengers are not a threat to airline safety like the companies claim. If that were the case, they wouldn't be allowed on if they bought two seats, they would just be banned, period. You never see a sign on a carnival ride that says "if you're not this tall, you have to pay extra to ride", and there's a good reason for that. So not only are people gouged out of their money, but then they're publicly humiliated as part of company policy.

It really is not much more different than the discrimination of years past. It used to be women, then people of colour, and most recently it has been homosexuals. But the basic concept is the same across the board, even in regards to fat people; you'll be treated differently because of how you look and act.

And to those who say "fat people can control being fat", that's not an excuse. You can control being a douche too, can't you?

Now, I'm not saying we need to exist in an Orwellian society where thought is suppressed; you're perfectly free to dislike a person based on their appearance. That's something that occurs naturally, and nobody can control that, or should be forced to. Where I draw the line is when people act on their unfounded reactions to treat others in an inferior manner. Regardless of what you think, nobody has the right to treat anybody else in a derogatory manner due to factors and practices that are essentially harmless. It's true for gay people, it's true for fat people. Women don't hurt anyone by being women, so why treat them like they do? I'm not saying you have to like fat people, but you can't treat them like they're scum. That's crossing a line, and crossing this line under various pretenses has to end. Otherwise, we might as well just extinguish ourselves as a species now.

On the marriage status of politicians

So recently, the mayoral campaign of Toronto Councillor Adam Giambrone was cut short when the press leaked news of his affair with a college student, adding his name to the long and ever-growing list of politicians who prove the high aphrodisiac component that power brings.

Frankly, no matter how scandalous the media tries to make it sound, the fact of the matter is, politicians getting caught cheating is nothing new or even particularly shocking anymore. What I've found very interesting, however, in the case of Adam Giambrone, is how it has affected him. See, Mr. Giambrone, before his mayoral aspirations, was the head of the city's transit authority, essentially in charge of it, a position he has held for years now. During his tenure, several employees have been caught sleeping or worse on the job, rats have been seen running around in bakeries within subway stations, and fares have gone up while overall coverage has remained the same; and that's just in the past 6 months. Throughout his tenure, Mr. Giambrone has not shown a shred of competence in his current job, yet when he decided to run for mayor, nobody really questioned how he'd take on a much bigger responsibility when he was unable to fulfill the requirements of a smaller job. The odd thing is, all the mishaps that occurred under his watch to the city's transit did him less damage than news of one affair.

This leads to an interesting point; does the public value relationship sanctity more than job performance? I mean, what happened to Giambrone was essentially the equivalent of an office worker who never gets projects in on time and doesn't contribute to groups get considered for a promotion, then refused because the boss found out he was two-timing his girlfriend. The oddest thing is that it doesn't even seem to be the straw that broke the camel's back, but rather the log that single-handedly broke the camel's back, independent of every other weight on it.

But like I said earlier, politicians having affairs is nothing new, and every time, the same reaction occurs; the public sees this as an indication of the politician's dishonesty, and they're forced to quit, despite great hopes for their future prior to the scandal.

However, despite it all, single politicians are hard to find, and do not hold significant positions of power anywhere. This strikes me as very curious; after all, if all the politicians who did cheat on their partners had been honest and not gotten involved in relationships in the first place, then voters would've known where they stand, and there would've been no betrayal. So by this logic, single politicians should automatically be seen as more honest, right? Isn't it better to not commit rather than commit and then break that commitment?

The prevailing consensus on single politicians seems to be that the public cannot trust them because they haven't proven themselves capable of handling large responsibilities, which is an idea that holds true, seeing as how politicians are run out of office once their affairs are discovered. But then again, how many people do you know who are single because they're workaholics? How many people are so happy with what they do that they prefer not to be in relationships? Don't these people deserve a chance to hold power? After all, I can't believe that such personalities do not exist in the political realm, and it does seem unfair that they're being judged and deemed unfit for positions based on something that only tangentially relates to their job.

Which is the other point; why does a politician's relationship status matter? Shouldn't decisions be made on the basis of their ability to do the job at hand, rather than how they handle their home life? I mean, asking job applicants about their marital status is unethical (and if I recall correctly, illegal) precisely because it has no bearing on their ability to to the job they're being interviewed for. So why is it different for politicians (running with the analogy that the election process is like filling a vacancy, with the public being the hiring boss in this instance) ? Why is cheating on your spouse (in the case of Mr. Giambrone written above, he was simply in a relationship with his girlfriend; they hadn't even gotten engaged yet) the one inexcusable sin, but poor job performance is acceptable? Why are unfaithful politicians not tolerated but single politicians not given a chance?

The mind boggles. The three of you who accidentally stumbled across this blog have any thoughts?

In light of the Grammys last weekend, here's some unrecognised talent

There's a person who goes by the name of DJ Earworm, who has taken the top selling 25 songs of 2009 (as declared by Billboard) and made a rather fantastic mashup of them.

Here's the artist's website

http://www.djearworm.com/

And here's a youtube link to the accompanying video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNzrwh2Z2hQ

It's brilliantly done, and frankly, better than a lot of the songs involved in the mashup. DJ Earworm even manages to infuse the theme of hope and picking yourself up after you fall (which he claims was a theme he found in the songs, so he doesn't take credit for it).

I don't know if DJ Earworm will ever win a Grammy or be a household name (he has had some success with these mashup series, which he has done since 2007). What I do know is that the level of sheer effort that goes into making something like this, and the sheer talent that goes into making something like this so immensely entertaining, is astronomical. He deserves recognition for that from sources far more accredited than me, but until then, I'll do my part.