Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Why doesn't the MPAA want kids to see "Bully"?

Bullying has existed in different forms for centuries, but the prevalence of such incidences manifesting themselves in new ways over social networking sites and driving kids to suicide in our modern day is what is so alarming. Indeed, recently there have been various meaningful victories for equal rights in America such as gays being able to serve openly in the military. We've even seen celebrities take part in spreading awareness of the seriousness of homophobic hate crimes and bullying in schools while providing an optimistic message for the victims and encouraging them to look to the future.
So in light of how bullying has taken so many different forms, why would the MPAA give the new documentary, "Bully", an R rating?
I understand there will be some violence in there and there will probably be some coarse language used too. But my argument is this: kids in middle school and high school see this every day. Why, when this information could be used for positive change, are we limiting the audience that will be able to view this film?
The idea that the kids over 13 but under 17 will somehow be negatively affected by watching this film, is absolutely ludicrous. At risk of sounding redundant I repeat, the media within this film is nothing short of an exact portrayal of what they already see and deal with every single day at school. The only difference is that in the real world they're watching it without the guidance or commentary of their parents!
I'll be honest, part of my issue with the MPAA's decision to give the doc an R rating is due in part to the fact that they are a completely secretive and privately run organization lacking any reasonable transparency. The very board of individuals who rate these movies remain protected by anonymity.

None of it makes any sense, and after giving it some thought, I realized there's probably an ulterior motive behind this decision to give "Bully" its R rating. Perhaps, those running the MPAA and all their rich buddies, don't want to spread this message of tolerance too widely. Why, you ask? Because if the kids were to become more tolerant of their differences they'd realize the truth about many of America's most influential figures; that they're just a bunch of bullies. Those kids would then become tomorrow's voters, and a tolerant and compassionate generation would never support the radical conservative agenda that seems to be the strong undercurrent driving our policies today. Instances like Republican representative Virgil Peck saying we should shoot immigrants like feral hogs, or when commentator Ann Coulter coldly joked about gay stereotypes saying if she had a gay son she would ask for help redecorating the dining room after telling him he was adopted, would never fly with a compassionate audience let alone have their vote. Would they then not have a much harder time selling their conservative elitist agenda to an informed generation of voters who act on compassion and acceptance of diversity?
I say all this, slightly kidding. I don't really know what the MPAA has to gain from a conservative agenda, even though they've been known to show favoritism to major studios over independent films among other inconsistencies... But the idea's not that far-fetched.
Here's a clip from the documentary, "This Film is Not Yet Rated" which goes into the secretive and unjust nature of the MPAA, and the way that they dictate who should watch what movies.

If you agree that "Bully" will do more GOOD than harm with a PG-13 rating, sign this petition.
The children, who are the victims in all of this, are waiting for society to change their attitude on the issue of bullying, to take it seriously. But how will that ever happen when the first work that could actually provide a basis for that dialogue is rated R?

Now you be the judge. This is the trailer for "Bully", being only a few minutes long there is not a whole lot to go by, but clearly a central point of director Lee Hirsch is that the problem of bullying is often ignored and left unaddressed by teachers and fellow students, who are an essential component in turning this problem around. Hopefully enough people will sign the petition to put the necessary pressure on the MPAA to assign the film a PG-13 rating. Otherwise, a very large part of the target audience may not see this film until they are old enough and by then they'll be graduating from high school.

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Just how bad is poverty, unemployment and debt in America?

The answer is that America is still stuck in an economic rut where the $15 trillion dollars in debt we've accumulated is a very real and heavy burden that does not appear to be going any where any time soon. However, at 8.5% unemployment, the country appears to be on a steady incline in terms of jobs, and that is indeed something to be glad for.  Of course, in order to address the increasingly larger-growing national debt, talks of cutting social welfare programs are also on the incline. In my opinion, we are still looking at major holes in the systems of healthcare and education, places where changes would make a significant impact on our people's high rates of poverty and debt. Cutting funding to such areas, that are already in such desperate need of financial assistance, will only further reinforce the gap that has "more than tripled in the last three decades" between the very rich minority and the much poorer majority. I'll go into what changes in policy I personally believe would best address these issues a little later. 
First, I think its important to examine the hard facts. The statistics show us that the people of the United States of America are in need of unemployment assistance, they're in need of better and more affordable education, the elderly have been proven to be doing relatively well only because social security has yet to be cut. 
Social welfare should be the absolute last resort on the metaphorical budgetary chopping block, and only after all other options have been exhausted.

Poverty Rate (current)
the qualifying income level of someone living under poverty level is below $22,314 a year for a family of four
below $11,139 a year for individuals 

USA- 46.2 Million in poverty, that's 15.1% of Americans (more than 1 in 5 children are currently living in poverty)

CA- higher than the national average, 16.3% of California's population is living in poverty

poverty rates by gender, race

percentage of men living in poverty: 14% women: 16.2%

percentage of single fathers: 15.8% single mothers: 31.6%  

percentage of blacks: 27.4% non-hispanic white: 9.9% hispanic:26.6% asian: 12.1%

People lacking medical benefits (2011)

USA- 49.9 million Americans lacked medical benefits

CA- 6.9 million Californians are uninsured, that's the highest in the nation

Average debt of students leaving a 4 year institution (2010)

US-$25,250 average debt of all students in the US

CA-$18,113 for 48% of graduates

OR-$23,967 for 63% of graduates

IO-$29,598 for 72% of graduates

PA-$28,599 for 70% of graduates

Unemployment rates (current)


US- has recently fallen to 8.5%

CA- at 11.3% unemployment


links to the data
poverty:
#of uninsured:
unemployment:
student loans:

Liberals vs. Conservatives: the basics

 Liberalism, is according to Merriam-Webster by definition "a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil libertiesspecifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)"


Conservatism, is according to Merriam-Webster by definition "a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)"

how do these differing political ideologies fit in to real world economic, social, and defense issues you ask?... 

Liberals, often called "the left", tend to be for...

  • progressive legislation such as healthcare reform to provide everyone with affordable medical care, 
  • they tend to be pro-choice and supportive of women's reproductive rights, 
  • they believe in "green" initiatives being a job creator that can aid in improving our environment as well as addressing our unemployment rate, they are for sustainable energy resources because they respect the advice of the EPA (a group of highly intelligent specialized scientists who have no reason to lie about global warming), 
  • they favor diplomatic approaches over war, they are for providing documentation for illegal immigrants who were raised in the U.S., 
  • they are for raising the capital gains tax (the tax that rich people get on carried interest from large investments) and addressing America's gap of income inequality, 
  • favor some government regulation of large corporations and financial institutions, 
  • for equal marriage rights for the LGBTQ community, 
  • and they believe in social welfare like social security and investing in education.

Conservatives, often called "the right", tend to be for...

  • limited government regulation of businesses and investing (lack of regulation led to the mortgage crisis and the resulting recession and bailout), 
  • for anti gay-rights bills like the Defense of Marriage Act,
  • they favor a strong national defense which means they're willing to invest more money in the military and weapons than in social welfare programs like food stamps for those in need and social security or education, 
  • they're for individual financial responsibility for personal needs which encompasses all needs like paying for your medical bills (which in America can be financially devastating whether you've got insurance or not, check out what Santorum said to the mother of a child whose schizophrenia medicine costs upward of $1 million per year) and paying for your own retirement and paying for your child to get an education even when just trying to afford a house or a car is tougher than ever for the working class poor.