On Virginia Tech and Video Games

First off, my thoughts are with the affected students, faculty, and families impacted by the incident at Virginia Tech. This is a pretty scary thing, guys. Particularly so for me, VT was among the schools I applied to. (as a safety) If things hadn't gone the way they did with the application process, I could be there instead of freezing my ass of in Rochester, NY. I'm still kind of trying to swallow that.

In any case. Here's the article for today, faithful readers. I seem to be deviating from my original intent when I first started this blog, but I figure I can weasel it in. Now usually, I'm all for being able to say what you want without fear of 'insulting' people. However, what we need to remember is that there are limits to can can and can't and should and shouldn't be said. Which brings me to Jack Thompson.

If you don't know, Jack Thompson is a lawyer from Florida who has recently been getting a good amount of media time attempting to get the government to place harsher restrictions on video games. Well, that's probably putting it a bit too lightly. The man is insane. He seems to be convinced that video games are the cause of everything bad that's happened over the last decade. From Columbine to bank robberies to rape, the man is convinced that games are the cause. Now, I like video games. A lot. I'm pretty busy with school work lately so I can't play as much as I like, but if I am able I tend to get in an hour or so of gaming a day. It's an escape, you know? I prefer sports and strategy games myself, but I'm not afraid to admit that some of my favorite games are the Resident Evil series, Goldeneye, Mortal Kombat, and the mother of all evil, Grand Theft Auto.

And, surprise surprise, I have yet to (in order) run through a remote village blasting everything I see with a shotgun, run through any buildings killing people 007 style, rip someones spine out, or beat anyone to death with a baseball bat. The very idea is simply ludicrous to me. However, we've got people like Jack Thompson whose mission in life is to be offended by as many things as possible, then complain as loudly as they can. Then they have to go a thing like demean something like what happened at Virginia Tech with spiteful, ignorant drivel. Tell me why we need to be giving this hate-filled man airtime, when we should be focused of grieving for and supporting the people at that campus. I just don't understand it. It's times like this where I wonder if there are some times that we should be allowed to censor people, just because they are negatively affecting the situation. But then I think, 'where would it stop?' So I just have to sit and accept that people have their own opinions and their own agendas, just like me. I just wish the media would do a better job picking which opinions to present to the public.

On baseball and marketing

Howdy all. Hope you had a better weekend than I did.

In any case, check this out. This is a very interesting story to me, and hopefully to you all too. From a historical perspective, it's almost like there's two ends of the prejudicial spectrum: the way things were when Jackie Robinson first came up, and now. we're currently going through a kind of anti-racism, where we do our best to, I don't know, 'make up' for the things that happened decades ago. As far as I'm concerned, this is as bad as racism. Through things like affirmative action, we tell the world that people of different races or creeds need to be coddled. This sets them apart from others, which is exactly why there's so much tension. I'm reminded of a South Park episode, where Chef tried to get the South Park flag (which portrayed a black stick figure being hung while white stick figures danced around) changed. In the end, everything was made better when he realized that people (the main children in particular) were arguing for it because they didn't see it as white people hanging a black person, just some people hanging someone else, which I guess is part of the history of the town. While the example is a little off (due to the nature of the show, naturally) the feeling is a good one. People of different colors are just that: people. Why do we insist of reminding people of our differences?

Woo, tangent. Back to baseball. I personally don't think that the teams mentioned in the article that didn't have any ties to Robinson (St. Louis, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Houston and Philadephia) but decked the whole team out in 42 should have done so. I think all that it does is turn a pivital event in American cultural history into nothing more than an opportunity for some feel-good PR. I wonder how players who were the only people on their teams to wear the number felt about seeing dozens of 42s on the field for other teams. At the same time, how can it be justified to say to these teams that they can't honor the occasion in the way that they want? How how about people like Arizona's Eric Byrnes, a particularly white person, who wanted to wear 42 as well? The D-Backs had 5 players and a coach wear 42, and Byrnes was the only caucasion one. Does a white man wearing 42 change the emotion behind it at all? It's a tricky situation, to be sure.

As far as I'm concerned, in the end it was a classy move by (I think) the classiest of the major sports. Kudos for Ken Griffey, Jr. for the good idea. The silly social questions that came up in the end don't take away much from the gesture, but we should still think a little bit on whether or not the feeling behind it would have been the same if just one player for each team was chosen for the honor. Just a thought.

On Vonnegut and the Future

Hmm... so many interesting topics (well, 3) and so little time to write. Well, let's see. Imus can probably wait another day, as can Nifong.

Ok, so anyway. Yesterday we lost one of the great novelists of our time, one Kurt Vonnegut. But why am I mentioning this in a political correctness blog? Well, besides the fact that it's nice to remember those who have passed, I wanted to write for a bit about one of his works, Harrison Bergeron. This short story is probably the most influential to me in terms of the way I view society and in a larger part the way I think in general. It can be read here, so go read that before continuing if you haven't before, or even if you have. It's a quick read. I can wait.

...

Ok, everyone back? Good. I think Bergeron as well as Richard Bachman's (AKA Stephen King's) The Running Man, and to a lesser extent, Bachman/King's The Long Walk are perhaps the most poignant reading out there, in terms of the way our society is headed. Obviously, Bergeron is a worst-case scenario type book, and even I have my doubts that we'll get that far. But, think about it. Isn't that kind of where we are headed? People (*cough*dems*cough*) are tripping over themselves trying to make everyone 'equal', when any fool can see that people are NOT equal in all respects. Yes, people should be equal in terms of rights, but in terms of ability and status, no. That's kind of what our entire social system is based on. But more an more, we see things like 'No Child Left Behind,' where we can at ourselves on the back because the stupid kids are keeping up better, but nobody thinks about the smart ones, the ones that should be leading the country someday, and how they aren't given the opportunity to live up to their potential. What's worse, realizing that some kids aren't going to go to college and get skilled positions even if we pander to them, or stunting the growth of the best and brightest?

Which brings me back to Bergeron. Once we start pandering to one group, where does it end? Do we start making allowances for, say, weak people, as in the story? Do we say, these stronger people are leaving these weaker ones behind, we should hamper the strong so that the weak can keep up and feel better about themselves? Or how about the rich? Do we punish them for being more successful than a person who lives on the street? Is this a direction we as a people want our society to take? The basis of economy is based on skill and social structure. Some people are smarter than others, they get better jobs. Some people are richer than others, they own businesses and employ those from lower classes. It's the way capitalism works. But for some reason, it seems that some parties in the government *cough* are taking the curious approach of shifting us ever so slightly towards communism. And we all know how that turns out.

On Doctors and Apologies

Check this out, faithful(?) readers.

This highlights an issue plaguing our medical system that I've been wondering about for some time now. Malpractice suits are just through the roof nowadays, which makes it tough for some doctors to keep their practice going, due to insurance costs. (As an aside, isn't it interesting how most of America 'works', but doctors and lawyers 'practice'?) Apparently, even an apology is grounds for a suit.

Now, I understand if a surgeon accidentally sews his keys up in you, or maybe sets your liver on fire. By all means, he should be better than that. It's just the little things that people seem to hang on to; if a family member dies, they immediately think the doctor did something, complications after surgery that are unavoidable.

As far as that link goes, I guess it's good that a doctor can apologize now without immediately being sued. That's a step in the right direction, but I for one wish it was a step we didn't have to take. Lawsuits, lawsuits everywhere. It's like America's favorite 'get rich quick' scheme. Don't you think things are getting a little out of hand if people can't even apologize any more?

On deaf students and comedy

While many of the posts in this blog are going to be about subjects you've already heard about (that's kind of the point, after all), I'll do my best to come up with the occasional regional topic, to kind of change things up a bit. I figured now would be a good time to do that, as we wait on the verdict to be passed on Mr. Imus.

In any case, I currently attend the Rochester Institute of Technology in Rochester, NY. (A very good school, by the way.) RIT houses the largest deaf technical institute in the country, nearly a tenth of RIT's 15,000 total student population is hard-of-hearing or deaf. Props to RIT, sure; but it also creates a very unique social situation for all students who attend, hearing or no. They are two very, very different cultures; with different desires, ideas, and personalities.

Recently, the activities board here managed to get Lisa Lampanelli to come to campus. For those of you who might not know, she is a comedian in the same vein as Carlos Mencia; her comedy is based of insulting different nationalities and persuasions. Apparently (I've never seen her perform and I wasn't able to attend the show itself as I was way too busy at the time) a solid part of her shtick is bashing deaf people; I guess one of her jokes is 'maybe deaf people are really just retarded, and just fake being deaf to slip by.'

Alright. I can see how this kind of thing would offend someone. Sure, especially in a campus with so many deaf students. Understandably, there was a big outcry from the deaf community, as well as your usual liberal student activists-in-training. However, the student body president (who is hard-of-hearing herself) and President Al Simone let Ms. Lampanelli's show remain on the schedule, wisely in my opinion.

Cue more agonized whining, but let's take a moment to think about this. Needless to say it's another example of selective offended-ness. I don't remember anyone standing up for the Mexican, Arabic, or Handicapped communities when Mencia came here and talked about 'beaners standing in front of Home Depot', or Arabs deserving to get checked out more often in airports because it's 'their turn', or even the physically/mentally retarded part of his shtick. Nah, no one made a sound. But when you are the one under the gun, hoo boy, watch out.

President Simone wrote the following on his 'Ask the President' page after Lampanelli's show:

'Free speech does not come without consequences or without certain constraints. One constraint is to not use free speech unnecessarily in a fashion that would disrespect, embarrass, humiliate or offend others. On the other hand, when a large number of students on this campus choose to bring someone like Ms. Lampanelli to the campus, knowing the nature of her humor, to deny them this right when they have followed the campus rules with regard to selecting outside speakers violates their freedom and our willingness to allow them to make decisions and learn from the consequences.

This was a close call. My personal preference would have been to never invite her in the first place - not only because of what she has to say about deaf people but because of the disrespect she shows every racial and ethnic minority in her brand of humor. However, we do allow the student body, through the Campus Activities Board, to bring in provocative and controversial speakers so that the campus as a whole can make up its own mind. If I draw the line on Ms. Lampanelli, what speaker do I draw the line on next? Do I become a speech policeman? Is that what the campus wants from its president?

I think not. From the point of view of RIT as a whole, I believe it was best to bring Ms. Lampanelli in and then have a campus wide forum afterwards to discuss the proper expression of free speech, especially on a campus which prides itself on its commitment to diversity.'

Millions of kudos to Simone. I think he put the situation into words far classier than I could hope to do. The student body president has said much the same thing in the aftermath of the show. This is the type of stance I wish more people would take; people in power are not put in to power to police what is said and done, and in the end, if you don't want to hear what someone has to say, don''t listen. Especially if its a comedy show you have to pay to see. Just don't buy tickets. Protest peacefully, but don't do it in a way that hampers the rights and desires of the majority. This is what this country is based on, but people seem to forget that. Rule by the majority, with an eye to maintaining the rights and privileges of the minority. If you don't like something, fine, no one is making you. But don't ruin it for everybody else.

Initial postings of doom!

Hello world.

After keeping up with the news the past few years, I find myself getting more and more frustrated with growing trend of political correctness that is sweeping the country. It takes form in countless ways, and now we as a people have to watch what we say and do like never before. This blog is simply meant as a way for me to chronicle the latest uproars caused by whatever careless remark has been made, and hopefully to encourage discussion on what is and isn't 'right' in America.

I'm going to say things that are going to rub some people the wrong way. Fortunately for me, chances are those kinds of people aren't going to be frequenting a blog bashing political correctness. If something I say offends you, please feel free to respond so I can feature it in my next post and further prove my points.

In any case, it would seem that a good way to start this blog off is a look at the latest offense du jour, Don Imus. For those who don't follow the news, (hopefully none of you, soon-to-be faithful readers) he's under fire for this exchange on his nationally syndicated radio talk show:

"That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos ..." -Imus

"Some hardcore hos," -Bernard McGuirk (Imus' producer)

"That's some nappy headed hos there, I'm going to tell you that," -Imus

Imus was referring to the Rutgers Womens Basketball team, that had lost in the NCAA finals the day before. The team contains 8 black players.

So obviously there's been a whole big uproar, led by (guess who) Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Imus isn't a stupid man, and apologized two days later on the air, saying repeatedly that he isn't racist, and that the joke was inappropriate and went way too far. The radio station that he is based on has suspended him for 2 weeks, which I think is a fair punishment. Far more so than, say, the whole Rush Limbaugh on ESPN fiasco; the comments in this case are deserving of the punishment. Imus has also been very classy since, apologizing pretty much every 15 minutes, he's been in contact with the team and will be physically meeting with them soon, and he even went as far as to appear on Sharpton's radio show. Sharpton used the opportunity to repeatedly tell Imus that he should be fired, and also used the time to bash on the media in general. (the same media that bends over itself to make sure that he has the airtime he so craves)

However, there are still cries for Imus' termination, primarily from the Sharpton/Jackson camps. It's important to remember that this is a man who on his show has called Colin Powell a "weasel" and other times referring to New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson as a "fat sissy" and former Colorado Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, an American Indian, as "the guy from `F Troop.' However, as is common today, a joke at African-Americans' expense is front page news. I'll readily admit that a race joke is on a different level that, say, a fat joke. A person who calls a black man a 'nigger' with the intent on belittling him for his skin color is wrong. Period. I just don't understand why there are people who will jump on the soapbox the second they feel the least bit slighted, but are suspiciously absent when the content changes. For example, it's worth noting that you never hear about how Jesse Jackson called New York City 'Hymie Town' during his 1984 presidential run. Or how about Carlos Mencia, who makes his living insulting people based on race? Would he be as successful if he was white? No. (Not that I'm complaining. Mencia is my favorite currently active comedian; he is a funny, funny man.)

It's also interesting about how we don't hear anything about McGuirk, who was the one who brought out the 'ho' first. If I was was a part of the team, I think that would be the part that would insult me the most, because he's referring to the team as a whole, and kind of belittling the women's basketball sport in general. But nope, it's all about race. I wonder if any of the white players have anything to say about it, but you'll never know, because all that's being reported is quotes like the one from team member Matee Ajavon: 'It kind of scars us. We grew up in a world where racism exists, and there’s nothing we can do to change that. I think that this has scarred me for life.'
<(Edit)> After a little more reading, it seems that there are women's rights groups moving in. They only seem to warrant a line or two deep within the articles, so don't for a second think that this is becoming anything more than a race issue.

Imus' comment was wrong. However, I think its also wrong that certain people are after his head for a comment that, in the end, was said spur-of-the-moment in jest. I'll be watching very closely as to what's reported after he meets with the team later on. I don't believe that he'll be fired in the end, and that's good. But you can bet your ass that we'll be hearing about it for some time after the station passes its final word.