Red's World

Treating Smokers like Criminals...it's not right to take away rights!

This past Wednesday, September 15, 2010, Mayor Bloomberg of New York City proposed a smoking ban in Parks and Beaches. Are you kidding me?

According to poles most people feel that this is going too far, by taking peoples personal rights and freedoms away. Even Fox News, known to be conservatively bias, did a piece on how ridiculous this new law would be. Also stating how it is unreasonable for the government to determine how people live and what the rights of Americans should be.

  On top of that, to enforce such a law that would include a ban on smoking in the pedestrian plazas some of which are in Time Square - where tourist from all around the world come - is unreasonable. Tourism could suffer from this. Imagine being a smoking tourist and a police men approaches you for smoking on the street and then fines you for it...would you want to come visit such a city again? Plus, it would mean that City Police man hours would be waisted on stopping smokers from smoking, rather than keeping the City safe from real crime.  

As we know, the idea that smoking is bad for your health has been widely accepted as fact. And, though it may have some merit, studies on second-hand smoke are inconclusive, but tend to find minimal health risks associated with second-hand smoke. Be that as it may, in 2003, the Mayor along with The City Council, under the guise of concern for public health, pushed a law through to ban smoking in public places including the workplace. This law was kept under-wraps until it was already in effect, not giving those who may have opposed it an opportunity to suggest other, less extreme, measures of dealing with this issue. It totally abolished the rights of restaurant and bar owners to choose to have their establishment be a smoking or non-smoking business - not to mention that smokers are now openly treated as second-class citizens simply because they exercise their right to choose to smoke.

Now Bloomberg is trying to justify taking rights away even further by again using fear tactics. Armored with unfounded statements from people who are seen as credible, he justifies his proposed law by siting the dangers of second-hand smoke in the great out-of-doors without having any substantial evidence to support that claim. It's frightening that so many people are so easily manipulated by such claims. I believe it's just plain wrong to try to coerce people based on half-truths and to use social pressure to take individual rights away from citizens. And, I wish that as a free country, we and those representing us would act in concert with the spirit of our constitution and protect the rights of everyone, even when we don't agree with them.

This is an issue of individual rights, not the public health issue that it has been touted to be. I hope we can keep our eye on the ball and realize that as more and more freedoms are taken from us - be it the right to marriage whom we choose, the right to eat whatever food we enjoy most, or the right to smoke in public without being treated like a criminal- we run the risk of losing all our rights and freedoms as Americans. To stop this nonsense: Stop this ordinance from being passed. If you are a NYC resident call or email your City Councilman.  

Weather you agree or disagree with the choices people make, if you believe that we all have the right to choose, than please take a stance to protect the rights of every individual to make his or her own choices. If we don't stand up, we could lose the freedom to make any choices at all. 

---

Red's World •  Red's Best • Red Says •  Me • Sex T's Shop • Contact

---

 

NY State Senate made a BIG mistake with the Gays!

It's been 2 week since the decision and I'm still in shock. On December 2nd, 2009 The New York State Senate rejected a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. This is the same bill that had passed the State Assembly repeatedly and that Governor Paterson was ready to sign it into law. The State Senate voted it down: 38-24. 8 of those who voted against it were Democrats along with all the Republican NYS Senators.

So If I do my math right, if the Democrats had voted with the desires of the people they represent in mind (those that got them into office), by all rights, this bill should have passed. But government doesn't work that way. The idea that those in office represent the voters is an urban myth in our culture. And it hurts because good people have trusted it and have been gravely betrayed. It breaks my heart because this decision only continues the gay community's  struggle for acceptance as fellow humans; a struggle, which at this point in history, should be history.

But, maybe I'm confused...I didn't think I lived in one of the Red States (no disrespect to Red's World). I thought New York was pretty hip to human rights and open minded to issues that may push the traditionalist limits. But I guess I was wrong. New York Senate, you should be ashamed of yourself for acting like a frightened child. We were counting on you to stand up and be a man about this issue and protect the rights of all your state residents...not just the straight ones. 

As you should know by now, I have a great fondness for the Gay community. I feel for them because, like them, I live a lifestyle that is often misunderstood and judged by others. And as a result, I have had to endure scorn, unprovoked ridicule and rejection from people who consider themselves "good people". I've had people express concern about the kind of example I'm setting. I've had people have ask me to change or feel wary about associating with me. Others simply feel sorry for me, assuming that there is something wrong with me; that I'm abnormal or unhappy. And I've definitely been described as sinful. But even with all those who disagree with my way of life and my philosophy - even with all the discomfort I've had to endure for living in a way that is outside accepted social norms - no one has taken my rights away, or said that I cannot marry if I choose. 

We all judge others based on our experience, beliefs or our fears, even I've done it - but I've never felt I had the right to tell others how to live. Discrimination of this kind makes no sense to me. What are people so afraid of? I mean really? Why do they feel that others need to be like them in order to be accepted and appreciated? 

And why do they care who someone is attracted to? I may not be attracted to a certain type of person but I don't feel compelled to belittle someone who is. Why would anyone feel compelled to control who marries who? No one would tell a man and woman they couldn't marry, even if we can see that it's not the best pairing. So why do people feel that they have the right to make that decision for gays? Why is this such a charged issue? Who are we in this country that we feel that we have the right to disallow people that love one another from getting legally married? What kind of arrogance is driving this crusade?

Laws are made to protect people and their rights. We Americans pride ourselves in being able to live in a country where we are able to pursue happiness; where we are free to express who we are in a nation that is safe. Gays marrying doesn't harm anyone and it provides happiness to those who want to marry a member of the same sex. So why would is that right not afforded to 10% of our population? 

The only thing I can figure out is that people are desperately afraid of those that are different. I know that's part of why I'm often disrespected and not accepted. We need to stop the fear and move forward. We need to act like we are human beings, and stop the judgement. We need to be what we claim we are: The home of the free.  

Top Ten ways to tell that "His Mama didn't raise him right!"

1. He takes you out to a restaurant but he eats before he gets there so he doesn't have to buy dinner.
2. He buys the first round of drinks then asks you to get the next round and wonders why you don't consider him a gentleman.
3. He asks if you'll be offended if he invites you to go Dutch to a movie, and then gets angry with you when you are... offended.
4. He goes on and on about how many dates he's paid for, with no appreciation for the fact that you've held up your end of the deal by putting out on every date.
5. He kisses you goodnight but he's a sloppy kisser and he wonders why you don't answer his calls.
6. His way to end an argument is to tell you to get out of the cab while he pays and once your out, he takes off in the cab without you.
7. He claims to respect you too much to have sex with you. Ah...What?
8. He asks you to come to the Jersey Shore with him, then expects you to take a train to get there to meet him.
9. He has a car but doesn't give you a ride home after you spend the night at his place because he's "tired."
10. He doesn't call you the next day after a full service date to tell you what a nice time he had but facebooks you 2 weeks later saying he wants to see you, asking you to call him (like that's going to happen).

*** list is base on actual Red events (pretty unbelievable -- right?)

SAG Strike Scare: What's going on?

SAG (Screen Actors Guild) may go on strike and everyone in the film and television industry is up in arms about it. SAG says that AMPTP (Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers) won’t give them fair terms on a new contract; and AMPTP says that SAG’s demands are unrealistic. Eveyone in the film/television industry including writers, directors, and crewmembers worry about weather they will have jobs to go to if things aren’t resolved for SAG.

To get you up to speed, here’s a quick overview of course of events that led up to the current SAG strike scare. I also suggest you go to the above links in the first paragraph, for more background.

SAG’s contract with AMPTP expired on July 1, 2008. And AMPTP made it’s last and final offer, with terms that were unacceptable, to SAG. Everyone was reluctant to consider a strike only a few months after the WGA’s strike ended.

Rather than calling for it’s members to vote for strike authorization at that time, SAG continued to work under the expired contract while SAG union leaders continued to try creative ways to keep the negotiations with AMPTP going; including getting a third party federal mediator. Still with no resolution in sight at the end of the mediation process, SAG announced that it would be sending out a strike referendum ballot to SAG members in December.

What this means is that if 75% of SAG voting members vote “Yes”, SAG will have the authorization to strike. It does not mean that SAG will, but it does mean that SAG can strike if no agreement is reached.

The contract is complicated so (to the best of my understanding) I’ve attempted to provide brief, simplified outlines of only 3 of many the issues that remain unresolved at this juncture:

1. AMPTP wants SAG to eliminate force majeure protections from the contract. This protects Actors when production stops as the result of an “act of God” has been and is one of the most basic protections of a union contract, which has existed since the first SAG contract in 1937.


2. DVDs: Residuals and benefits have not been improved for Actors for 22 years. Because in 1986 video was considered “experimental,” AMPTP only agreed to give Actors 1% of the revenue generated through Video (now DVD) sales with promises to review it once it became a valid vertical for film. DVD sales are currently the biggest revenue source for film/television products. Yet, AMPTA has never increased the Actors’ DVD residuals and benefits. And refuses to do so now.


3. New Media: Over the past few years the use of Internet to watch movies and TV (weather on your computer or on your phone), has become another vital revenue source for these products. SAG wants to get paid and receive residuals for work in this medium.  AMPTP says that it’s still an “experiment,” so they want to keep Internet projects non-union and without residual compensation. AMPTP is ignoring that as technology had improved, how and where we watch our shows has changed. Clearly, this is an issue that SAG cannot ignore. It is not a potential medium for the film industry (as AMPTP argues) but a very current one.

An aside: New Media compensation was also an issue in the WGA (Writers Guild of America) negotiations, one that continues to be problematic. In fact on November 20, 2008, the WGA filed for arbitration against AMPTP for non-compliance with the terms of the contract. AMPTP is not making new media payment to writers or paying the agreed upon residuals for the on-line streaming of television shows.

Because I make my living in the film and television industry, these issues are near and dear to me. But beyond that, I believe that people should be treated fairly in the workplace and receive fair compensation for work performed. I have faith that these are values that most people share and would be willing to fight for. And, I believe that unions are there for a reason, to protect its members from being taken advantage of.

I believe that voting “YES” on the SAG strike authorization referendum will give SAG an advantage by creating a stronger base from which to approach AMPTP for a fair contract. For this, power in numbers count.

* BTW, I’ve invited AMPTP and SAG members and IA film crewmembers to join in the discussion here…let’s see who shows up.

I heart America and I love the gays! (11/15/08)

So I had to sing a song...

Here I am standing with the Gays for equality, love and the right to be who you are without limits.

Sour APPLE

Within the last 2 years, I became a Mac convert (100%, BTW) and have been extremely pleased, not only with the products, but with the exemplary customer service... until yesterday when AppleCare didn't seem to Care (sigh). Here's the deal:

After a call to AppleCare Tech Support. I received an email from Apple to fill out a customer satisfaction survey:
The first question:
"Was your issue resolved?"
The answer (surprisingly):
A resounding "NO!"

I love Apple and have always been more than satisfied with the care with which they treat their customers. So I was shocked, to say the least, that my concern was not addressed at all. . . This is the polar opposite of the experience I had when I went to the Apple Store and talk to a Mac Genius,  Ryan, at The Genius Bar at the Fifth Avenue Store in NYC. He not only took extra time and special care to insure that he answered all my questions and concerns but did so with every other customer who came in during his shift. And he insured that all my concerns were addressed before he ended our session (I observed this same care by other Mac Geniuses with their customers as well.)

But, because it's not always convenient (quite often not) for me to drag my computer, my hard drive(s), cables etc. down to the Genius Bar AND I do have AppleCare coverage. I thought that my needs would be better served by calling Apple Tech Support. . . how wrong I was. I spoke with "Alex" who told me he was in the Philippines and had to repeatedly explain my issues for which I never got any help.

My issue was not resolved during the call because the AppleCare Tech Representative never answered my question before the call ABRUPTLY ended at 9pm EST (the exact moment when Apple Support hours stop). I felt that he should have completed the call -- even if that meant calling me back to insure that the issue was resolved before the call was considered finished. I'm very disappointed in Apple's customer support and appalled that Apple would allow their customers to be treated with such disregard.

My Question to you, APPLE, is: "Are you going to get back to me in order to resolve this issue?" I hope so, but I shouldn't -- nor do I have the time -- to wait and see.

So now -- at 4am -- because AppleCare telephone support so failed me, I'm packing up all my stuff up to drag down to the store to get the help I pay Apple to recieve in the convenience  of my own home.

THAT'S JUST NOT RIGHT.

I don't like that one bad experience is making my Apple SOUR. Suggestions?

Mind your manners . . . I'm smoking here!

People will believe anything, no mater how outlandish it is.

I've alway said, if you say something (anything) loud enough and long enough, with enough conviction, people will believe it. Especially if there has been scientific research on the subject.

This tendency to believe a strongly sent message is why Ad campaigns work so well. It's also how cultural trends are set; presidents are elected; and social standards are established.

It's even determines how people behave.

This is not the bad news (it's just the news).
The bad news is:  Certain ideas in our culture -- ideas which people take as truths -- have given people license to be rude to others and not take responsibility for it. And they seem to be blind to this. A condition I refer to as: "ruditude" (a self-righteous, demeaning attitude).

In certain instances they don't even think about their behavior as bad-mannered. As I've toured the country, lived in numerous states and lived bi-coastally, I've noticed this especially in the case of non-smokers towards smokers. This is not true of every individual, but it has become general practice to feel justified in scorning those that partake in a pleasure that really doesn't impact the scorner to any great extent. Not only have cigarette smokers been treated with disdain they are being banished as if they are criminals. ("Smokers are not allowed here").

I don't know how many times people use "the research" as an argument to support their case against any particular issue (be it smoking, eating fat, consuming salt, drinking alcohol, prostitution or whatever the market deems an important issue).

We all know, or should know, that research results are never objective. (Actually nothing is objective -- except that everyone has a subjective experience -- but that's a topic in itself and will be addressed on some other post). Results on any research can be skewed to favor any idea. Those of us who know this make great debaters.

But when people use research results to justify their beliefs, my response is: "I don't believe that myth, it's all in how it's marketed."

Case and point: The anti-smoking movement has put a bad spin on smoking. It has done so to the extent that people actually feel that they have a right to be offensive toward smokers. Behaviors like defaming and ostracizing smokers or making make out and out derogatory remarks become common place. This is conduct that the culprits teach their children is unacceptable behavior. Yet they do it to smokers. . . even in front of their kids. Great role modeling -- huh?!?

In what other circumstance would someone, without thinking, come up to a total stranger and speak this way or tell them how to behave? Yet in any public place you can be sure someone will approach a smoker and do exactly that: "You're disgusting! You shouldn't smoke! Smoking is bad for you. You stink!" Who are you people? Did your Mama not teach you manners? Unfortunately, these people are representative.

They often use "the research" to say they have a right to do so "because second-hand smoke kills."  Actually, the research on second-hand smoke does not indicate that people are dying from someone else smoking, but that is the common belief.  In reality, it's no longer a health issue, it's a crusade to control others. Needless to say, I was pleased to see that 20/20 just did a segment on this myth and how out of hand it's become.

Irregardless, does anything you've read or heard really give you reason to be mean to someone else? Please, people deal with your anger and righteousness in a more constructive way.

And lets try to have common courtesy be more common, no matter what the "research" says.

Anyone got a light?