On Suffixes and the English Language

Quickie post tonight. (Holy moly, a second post in my 'return' to this particular patch o' the intarwebs.)

The English language is not set up like the Spanish language. In Spanish, how a word ends designates a particular gender role; the most basic explanation is that words ending in 'o' are thought of as 'male', and words ending in 'a' are considered 'female.' English is not like this. Suffixes are gender-neutral. This includes the suffix -man. Oh yes, it does. A word ending in -man does not require the person indicated by the word actually be male. Check out the OED if you don't believe me. The very first entry (and thus the most accepted use of the word) is as follows- I. A human being (irrespective of sex or age). Changing words that normally end in -man to end in -person or -woman is arbitrary and useless. Now we are making up syntax rules to make sure that people don't get their feelings hurt. Bah. Seriously folks, words ending in -person are right up there with 'peeps', 'atm machine', and 'more better' on the list of things people say that make me want to punch them in the face.

On Race and Political Elections

I lapsed on writing this for a while because I jump to conclusions easily and when I saw that I got like no hits during my initial run I decided 'whoa, my blog sucks' and forgot it existed for like a year and a half. But then we as a country elected Barack Obama to the presidency and I remembered that I wrote in this thing for a while, and figured that if anyone stumbled onto it in the near future it would be worthwile to record my thoughts here on the matter.

First off, I will be referring to Obama as 'president-elect', not 'president.' I know it doesn't matter in the end, and that by the time you read this, faithful and/or accidental reader, he'll have probably dropped the 'elect' part. (or maybe added a 'former', I don't know.) But as for my current place in time, he ain't the president yet. Whether you agree or not with what President Bush has done, he still deserves the respect his office deserves. President Clinton stood up and lied outright to Congress and the American people and still has the honorific attached to his name. (I honestly could care less about him getting blown in office. Honestly, my biggest beef is that the woman he picked is so friggin ugly. Seriously. You're the President, surely you can get some decent tail.) Bush hasn't done anything during his 8 years besides do what he thinks was best for the country, and that's deserving of respect in and of itself. So, President Bush and President-Elect Obama. A little respect, please.

Anyway. Back to President-Elect Obama. Good for him for getting elected, seriously. The majority of America thinks he's the best man for the job, and the rules (read: Constitution) say that's the criteria for getting elected, so good for him. I'm a Republican myself, but you know what? In the end, the President is more a figurehead than anything. Maybe not as much so as whoever has the English throne (at least the President gets to command the military) but everything else he does gets checked by Congress. Seriously, really read the Constitution again. There's a reason the Legislative part is Article 1. Congress is where the real power is at, you just never think about it because it's so decentralized.

Wow, tangents. Back to President-Elect Obama (again). What's really interesting to me is that this is being held up as a triumph or whatever for black people. It really isn't. It's a triumph for Barack Obama, and to a slightly lesser extent, the American political left. The ridiculous black people holding this up as a triumph for them, whether it be athletes or rappers or some random gangbanger on the street; seriously dude, you had nothing to do with it. Whether you agree with him or not, Obama gets up in the morning, goes to work, gets shit done, and comes back home to his family. Same as me, and hopefully same as you, whoever's reading this. White, black, yellow, red, green with orange polka-dots, whatever color you are. It has nothing to do with the color of his skin. So he's the first black president. It's a genetic curiosity, not any particular accomplishment. Someone had to be first, and it's not divine influence that it happened now. Come down off the pulpit, if you please.

And another thing. Isn't it interesting how 95% of black people who voted went with Obama? Not like that's any surprise, though you wouldn't think it if you were listening to the news reports. They were all reporting it like it was the most surprising thing to happen since that white stuff that comes out of cows was actually pretty tasty. (And made your teeth shiny white and way strong) So yeah, black people voted Obama. Surprise, surprise. If next election we elect Mr. Chang, I'm sure they'll be all surprised when 95 of Asian people voted for him, regardless of party. But what if next election 95% of white people go out and vote for Mr. Bob 'Whitey' Smith? Oh, the uproar! I giggle to think about it. Or maybe if It's a guy vs. a girl next election, and 95% of males vote for Mr. Mann? Oh my, my. That would be wrooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong.

I am a white male. In a couple years, I'll probably have to be sporting a bumper sticker that says 'White, Male, and Proud.' I'm becoming the new minority. If I'm in a candidate pool right now for 'Job X', and I'm up against a white chick, a black dude, and a hispanic dude, I might as well go ahead and fill out an application at Target right after the interview. It's absolutely ridiculous. And somehow President-Elect Obama getting nominated is supposed to be this great triumph for American Equality. Psssssh.

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.