03.10.07

the blockbuster phenom

Posted in culture, pet peeves at 2:24 pm by Brandon

***Disclaimer: The below represents my opinion, nothing more.***

Almost 2 years ago, I wrote a post about what I perceived to be racist practices at Blockbuster. It’s still my opinion that Blockbuster engages in racist practices, specifically their posting of a theft deterrent message in English and Spanish but not providing any other Spanish language translations on any other materials for their customers. But there’ve been quite a few folks who have wished ill on me for daring to speak my opinion about Blockbuster, others still think my understanding of the facts is incorrect. Fair enough, I have my opinion, they can certainly have theirs. The latest opinion, however, really struck me as, well, a bit amazing. Here it is:

Ok listen….i am a store manager at BBV. We put the signs up in both languages because it is required by law…ok BY LAW. So dont think BBV is racist, it is our government. I think you all should realize really quick that the same thing goes for all businesses with a safe on the grounds. I have to agree with our government. The statistics do show that most roberies are done by some sort of ethnic group other than white. Im not racist but if a bunch of mexicans looking suspisious walks into my store i will follow them and make sure my presence is known. This world is ran on diversity, just deal with the racism.

So here we have someone claiming to be a Blockbuster Video store manager. Interestingly, this person claims that signs are posted in both English and Spanish because the law requires this of places of business with safes on the grounds. I find this claim to be curious on a number of levels. First, I’ve noticed that there are video stores, some larger and likely have a greater daily fiscal income per store who are also likely have safes on the premises, but do not post this legally required sign. Second, if what this self-proclaimed blockbuster video store manager says is true, one should notice these signs ALL over the place. In Grand Rapids, Michigan, this is not the case. Now, I don’t know where this person claiming to be a store manager is from but I highly doubt that Grand Rapids, Michigan requires that all businesses with safes on their premises require theft deterrent signs to be printed in English and Spanish.

The statistics do show that most roberies are done by some sort of ethnic group other than white.

I’m curious to know which statistics you’re citing. Where can I find them? What organization or academic completed the research? In which peer reviewed journal did this work appear? What specifically are you interpreting as evidence that people of color commit more crimes than white people?

To me the most disturbing claim is this:

Im not racist but if a bunch of mexicans looking suspisious walks into my store i will follow them and make sure my presence is known.

Wow. I didn’t really expect to have my point made so well. Now, I must reiterate, I have no other evidence that this person actually works for Blockbuster other than their own admission that they do. However, if what they say is true, you’ve just witnessed a Blockbuster employee openly praising the practice of violating the civil rights of hispanic patrons.

I’d be curious to hear an official Blockbuster statement. Furthermore, if any Blockbuster representative would like to do a bit of fact checking about the rogue employee who posted on this blog, I’d be more than happy to turn over any information about this individual (i.e. IP address, email, etc).

Tags: ,

05.11.06

conversations

Posted in faith, pet peeves at 8:34 am by Brandon

Since I wrote my Christian t-shirt post, a number of you have voiced the concern that if you’re causing people to have conversations with you about God, it’s okay to wear “Witness wear.” My response follows.

Everybody seems pretty fucking wound up about the notion that they should get to wear what they want, don’t they? I’m starting to think that this is more about freedom of speech than anything else. Perhaps it is. Rest assured violent, militant, and defensive Christian T-Shirt wearers that I have no desire to infringe on your RIGHT to wear a stupid t-shirt. It’s written into the constitution, you can–as long as it’s decent–wear whatever the hell you’d like.

Everybody also seems pretty fucking wound up with the idea that if their shirt causes a conversation about God to happen, then their brave attempts at evangelizing the godless bastards–you know, non-evangelicals–should be sung from the mountain tops. (Screw those yodelers, anyway.)

Let me say this directly. Perhaps (and that’s a big fucking perhaps) the conversations that are spurred from the wearing of these “Christian-hip” duds, are helpful. Maybe, but I’m not so concerned with the one conversation that DOES happen.

For me, what’s more concerning are the FIFTEEN or so conversations that DON’T happen because you’ve got to exercize your motherfucking right to have the words “Prayer Warrior” emblazoned across your chest.

Rest assured tacky-shirt-wearers, the vast majority of the world is no longer intrigued by your sometimes-insightful-most-times-idiotic textiles. No the rest of the world sees them and you as a stupid, ignorant fool. The God Hates Fags people use the same tactic, you know. Sure, they craft messages that are intended to catch your eye in order to spur on a conversation. (Side note: Josh and Steve interviewed Shirley Phelps Roper over at Stupid Church People, it’s actually pretty fascinating–give it a listen.)

My suggestion to all of you who desperately feel the need to be identified publicly as a Christian is this: Instead of wearing a shirt that essentially says, “I’m saved”, live a life that practices your ressurection. You shouldn’t need to don a piece of cloth for people to know your faith. And, frankly, I’d bet good money that if you practiced your ressurection on your sleeve rather than a tacky-ass message, a whole lot less people would write you off as a blow hard hypocrite.

Tags:

01.19.06

dear god…

Posted in faith, pet peeves at 12:09 am by Brandon

Dear God,

Brandon here.

Please have mercy on us for this “Christian-wear”:

And this:

Not to mention this:

Or this:

And who could forget this:

Or this:

Oh heavens there’s more, here:

And here:

Or here:

Or even here:

I’d like to make a joke here, but this shit’s got me so positively depressed that I don’t know if I can bring myself to make the appropriate “sackcloth and ashes” joke. What a sad display.

10.24.05

at least she spelled my name right

Posted in pet peeves at 9:59 pm by

From time to time I check to see who’s been linking here. And, from time to very rare time, someone does link here. This evening, I made one of these little journeys and, much to my surprise, I found that a blog called Salt Sister gave me a little press. This is what she had to say about a bad christian blog:

A Bad Christian Blog

This is worth a read, not because he has anything wholesome to say and not because his reasonings are based on anything solid. They aren’t, but his rumblings are a great example of what happens when someone receives his entire paradigm about Christianity straight out of The Matrix. The way it works is that the victim knows he has been victimized but he knows not what has victimized him. The paradigm pushes on him and he pushes back without the foggiest notion of what he is pushing.

Geez. I’m flattered.

Perhaps, the young salt sister wanted a little free press and the quickest way to do that in the blogosphere is to defame something you haven’t taken the time to understand. Hell, I should know.

But, seriously, it is absolutely a pet peeve of mine when people read about 3 words of one post and think they’ve got a firmer understanding of a person’s self (via their blog) than the person has of their own selves.

I guess what gets my WonderWomans in a wad about this post is the cruel insinuation that I’m some moron who forgot to put on his helmet before he stumbled down off the short bus (please forgive the crude analogy–I’m pissed.) Ms. SaltSister, I’ve been called dumb many times in my life…but it hasn’t happened much lately. Largely, that’s because I’m not.

The next time you get it in your head to run around making insinuations that people don’t have a fucking clue, perhaps you’d do well to ACTUALLY READ AND EXPERIENCE WHAT THEY’RE SAYING. Become a part of their community of origin, dialogue with them, argue with them; learn who they are, from where they’ve come, and discover where they’re going. Standing on a mountaintop, divining who the ‘thinking Christians’ are, and from your holy pinnacle declaring them fools that aren’t–that’s not likely to win you any friends. Again, I should know.

SaltSister, I doubt you’ll read this. Frankly, that’s just my luck. But if you do, know that you’re welcome to hang around these parts. I just don’t need to hear about how dumb I am, or how wrong I am, or why I’ve got it wrong and you’ve got it right. That’s exactly the paradigm that I’m proported not to know about even though I fight against it daily.

10.21.05

a weekend trip

Posted in pet peeves at 9:26 am by

I’ll file this one under:

I’d rather drink my own urine.

That is all.

05.09.05

on balls and uteruses

Posted in pet peeves at 1:23 pm by

I think I’ve been in a ‘blog-rut’ lately. Anytime I get into one of these ruts, I find that it’s time to go back to my bread and butter topics. One that I love the most is semantic derogation. Honestly, until a month or two ago after a comment I made over at Kristen and Micah’s blog, I was somehow remembering that I had previously written on this particular topic. The fact that I haven’t is truly a shame.

First of all, for the record I looked it up and the plural form of uterus can be expressed as either ‘uteri’ or ‘uteruses’. So, I’m not wrong in using uteruses rather than the more correct and intelligent sounding uteri.

Here’s my pet peeve: I hate it when people semantically appropriate power to something by inferring that that object or action ‘has balls’ or ‘takes balls’. For example: “My truck kicks ass–it’s got some balls.” Or, “That’s a ballsy move.” Or the negative, “You need to ’sack up’.” Or, “You need to grow a pair.”

The appropriation of power to something by saying that it has balls–in addition to being patently sexist–is just stupid. It’s like saying that I’m cool because I have to wax my back hair. It just doesn’t make sense. Testicles are one of the weakest part of the human anatomy. Perhaps some examples would prove helpful. Here’s one for all you guys out there–and you’ll need to answer honestly here… What part of your anatomy did you cover when you played dodgeball?

Be honest. You covered your package. But, why?

You covered your ‘area’ because if you were to suffer a blow to the genital region you’d be doubled over in pain. Your testicles are tender, weak, and not well protected.

Here’s another sports example: What piece of protective wear is common to most every athlete’s wardrobe? I mean, for crying out loud not even every contact sport player protects their head–but I defy you to find a male professional athlete (excluding, perhaps, golfers and NASCAR drivers) that doesn’t wear a jockstrap. Why? Because your testicals are exceptionally weak organs.

America’s Funniest Home Videos has made millions on the weakness of testicles. I mean, really, what’s funnier than the obligatory muscle bound young father playing tee ball (pun slightly intended) with their son when in the twinkling of an eye a baseball flies into the father’s crotch. The father doubles over in pain, and the camera starts to bounce around a bit (no doubt, because Mom, the one operating the camera, is laughing at her writhing husband).

You get the idea. Testicles are fragile little beings.

Uteruses, on the other hand, are the most powerful muscular organ in the human body. This organ is amazingly flexible and it has the strength required to push something the size of a watermelon out a hole the size of a lemon (if not smaller). Now that’s friggin’ amazing.

But one thing that’s puzzled me is this: why, if testicles are so weak, should people use testicles or balls to give things power? When you think about it, it’s pretty stupid. The only thing I can figure about this is that it’s a case of semantic derogation against women. That is, what is male is good and powerful, while what is female is bad and weak. Being less than male (or minus-male) is bad.

Such a reference is clearly wrong, as I’ve demonstrated. Thus, I posit that humans should no longer use the terms ‘balls’ to relate strength to an object or a person. From now on, humans should use the term ‘uterus’ to offer strength or courage to something. Here are some examples:

“Man that car has got one hell of a uterus.”
“Stop being such a chicken–you need to grow a uterus.”
“That took uterus, man.”

You get the idea.