Quantcast

Friday, February 26, 2010

Face Off Friday: Global Warming

Today, David and Austin face off over Global Warming.


Austin:

Instead of telling you why Global Warming is a big pile of crap, I'll let the earth muffins tell you:

Head over to this Wall Street Journal page and read in their own words how they have lied.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574553652849094482.html

See.  There really isn't much more I could add to bury this insane movement.  All it took was one hacker to bring forward all the emails from the internet that Al Gore invented to bring it all down.  So...its all their in their own words.  Now its gettin' hot.

Email Austin
Follow Austin on Twitter!

David:

Scientists tend not to be good at politics -- either personal or public. One can hardly blame many of them for a tendency to be secretive, and to try to stay away from the press: their work is so often misunderstood, misused, misinterpreted, and unfairly ridiculed by and in the media, either by reporters and editors on their own or by advocates who have an agenda to push on an unsuspecting and unsophisticated public.

Recent news stories that researchers into global warming may have fudged figures or committed errors in their mathematical models, and pressured their colleagues to present a united front for the purpose of convincing world governments to set policy, have nonbelievers in global warming crowing and congratulating themselves, thinking they’ve defeated the boogeyman of Al Gore (the man who, let us remember, had the 2000 election for President unfairly stolen from under him). The problem here is that none of these sideshows conclusively destroys the primary working hypothesis that the earth’s climate is rapidly warming due to the activities of humans. The speed with which it is happening, or the direness of the straits we are in, may still be open to debate, but pretending that these recent unsavory reports -- and if scientists purposely altered data or hid conflicting information, that is indeed reprehensible -- necessarily change the general conclusion is like saying, “oh, our good ship Titanic managed to dodge that iceberg, and there probably aren’t any others out there.”

We’ll set aside the hypocritical, non-democratic, and thoroughly non-libertarian fact that opponents of global warming (such as the Wall Street Journal) are blithely retailing e-mails that were obtained by hacking researchers’ computer systems (the equivalent of unlawful breaking and entering), and concentrate on the main issue: that we are wiping out a variety of animal and plant species, year by year, and well on the way to destroying the earth as we know it. Quibbling about which way or how fast is simply trying to ignore the obvious, like denying one’s own mortality. I don’t own or regularly drive a car. I gave up eating meat three years ago because I decided that American meat consumption plays a more-than-negligible role in ravaging the planet. Though the tremendous pain and suffering that will eventually descend on our species due to a combination of the destruction of staple crops such as corn, rice, and other grains, insufficient potable or irrigation water where they’re needed, deadly pollutants, and other disasters may not hit in my lifetime, it’s a dubious consolation that I won’t be around to say “we told you so,” or that I have no children whose lives (or whose childrens’ lives) will be made a living hell by what we’ve chosen to do, and not to do, about global warming.

Humans have a nearly unblemished record of failing to make the right choices until it’s too late, whether one speaks of accumulating personal debt, using tobacco products, staying in a self-destructive romantic relationship, pursuing a wrong-headed and counterproductive war, or turning a blind eye and a deaf ear toward impending doom.

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Honeymoon Ends for Scott Brown

Just one short month after becoming a GOP sensation by winning the Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts Senate seat, Scott Brown is being labeled a turncoat after he voted in favor of the jobs bill endorsed by the Obama administration. Brown critics took to his Facebook page to show their displeasure in his vote, and The Drudge Report website posted a photo of Brown shaded in scarlet.

Today Art and Nikki weigh in on Brown's situation. After reading their thoughts, join the conversation by leaving a comment.

Honeymoon Ends for Scott Brown: David Loftus

Though I lived in Massachusetts for ten years and must have voted in some statewide races (since that was where I came of voting age and I’ve never missed a national election), that was a long time ago and I haven’t paid attention to what has transpired on the political front in the Bay State since. (I find it amusing that the TNT cable show “Leverage,” a comedy thriller that stars Timothy Hutton, is starting to shoot its third season here in Portland, Oregon, and pretends it’s set in Boston; of course I can tell the difference.) Republican Scott Brown’s election to fill the late Edward Kennedy’s old seat last month was a big blip on the national radar, but a blip nevertheless.

Now it would appear that Brown actually has a head on his shoulders and is willing to look at votes and issues on their individual merits . . . and, what do you know, that has enraged conservative pundits and supporters, who seem to think governing should operate on no more complex a basis than junior high school popularity contests and gang membership. Critics have ripped into Brown on Facebook and other Web sites as a traitor. “Republicans from Massachusetts from time to time will disappoint [conservatives], if you thought you were electing somebody from Texas,” snarked conservative activist Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. What Mr. Norquist is saying is that Texas Republicans are lockstep, unreflective, knee-jerk-voting morons, apparently.

Brown has at least enough sense to know that he won’t get re-elected in fairly blue-state Massachusetts (which went for Obama in 2008, Kerry in 2004, Gore in 2000, Clinton in 1996 and 1992, Dukakis in 1988, Carter in 1976, and -- alone among all 50 states -- McGovern in 1972) if he votes the straight conservative Republican line. “I’m willing to work with anybody,” Brown told the press after he voted for a $15 billion jobs bill crafted by Democratic Senate majority leader Harry Reid. Brown said he supported bill because “it’s filled with tax cuts that will create jobs in Massachusetts.” Good for him, I say. That’s kinda almost sorta like . . . what was that principle that everybody talks about but that appears to have gone extinct? You know: bipartisanship.

Honeymoon Ends for Scott Brown: Nikki Lorenzini

I did not follow Brown's campaign before he was voted in. All I know was that he was running against a women, and he was the favorite, and they were vying for the old Kennedy spot. Beyond that, I was not aware of any of his platforms, or where he stood, or who really was.

But am I shocked that he is being label a turncoat, and is suddenly changing his stance? No, but I am shocked that he is doing it so suddenly. If he chose to run on the platforms that he did, that's his decision. He probably wanted to make himself look better, the more viable candidate, anything to win. Heck, this was a great spot to fill, following Ted Kennedy. If he planned on running with one intention, assuming he would change it once in the position, wouldn't he want to make it a more smooth, subtle change? Not so abruptly?

Then again, do you think that there is a chance that the media is putting extra scrutiny on him, because he did fill the Kennedy seat? I'm just throwing that one out there. I know that the media can be extra harsh on some subjects, and do you think that this could be one of them? I am not really sure if someone would be foolish enough to suddenly change their positions with in their first month in. Yes, I can understand if things do not happen right away, and for that you need some patience. But to change completely? Makes me think.

Email Nikki

Honeymoon Ends for Scott Brown: Have Your Say

Now that you've read the opinions of our panelists, join the conversation by leaving a comment.

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

The Buzz on Google Buzz

On February 9, Google released “Google Buzz” - a social networking tool that is integrated with Gmail, Google's web-based mail service. Gmail users can “buzz” by sharing links, photos, videos, status messages and comments organized in "conversations" and visible in the user's inbox. Buzz integrates posts on Twitter, Blogger, YouTube, Google Reader, as well as the photo sharing services Picasa and Flickr.

Almost immediately, users began complaining about loss of privacy with the integration of Buzz into the Gmail. For example, user's Buzz profile discloses the list of Gmail contacts most frequently emailed or chatted with, unless the user manually disables that feature.

Today we asked our contributors if they believe Google is at fault for failing to protect the privacy of their Gmail users. After reading their thoughts, have your say by leaving a comment.

The Buzz on Google Buzz: David Loftus

I find it hard to sympathize with users who fault a social networking program for making it easier for them to socialize. It sounds to me like Google Buzz has merely been playing catch-up to Facebook, which admittedly has had its share of complaints about upgrades, missteps, and invasions of privacy over the past few years, but has usually been quick to respond and amend. Like Facebook, Google Buzz has offered an out: users may manually disable the feature -- they just have to take the trouble to learn how and do it, which some people find too onerous.

If you’re paying for a service and that service upgrades its features in an attempt to improve itself, then you don’t have much of a leg to stand on with regard to your privacy. Just discontinue the service if you don’t like the improvements: stop paying for it. But people would rather complain. It’s another symptom of a culture of instantaneous response that email and the Internet has enabled people to make (and abuse) without having time to think or cool down.

More and more, I find Americans misunderstanding and misusing the concept of the “right to privacy.” The funniest one has been the protests against automatic cameras at controlled intersections that catch and photograph vehicles running red lights. What sort of “right to privacy” does one have in breaking the law? Prohibitions against unlawful searches inside a vehicle are well established; a person clearly has some privacy rights there. But for the vehicle as a whole? When a car exceeds the speed limit, or rams another car and drives off, or runs a red light, it’s very clear to anyone who’s even 50 feet away what it has done. There’s no invasion of privacy to assert that vehicle and its presumptive driver have broken the law. Yet people have complained that such cameras “invade their privacy.” That’s a radical misinterpretation of the concept.

As for complaints about the new Google networking service? If you don’t like it, Buzz Off.

The Buzz on Google Buzz: Scott Hinkley

In light of all the areas Google is attempting to add to it's overall branding, I thought the lack of attention to privacy issues relating to the launch of Google's new Buzz service was an a seriously damaging oversight. In my opinion, Google has been the most successful in creating a notion of e-mail as a utility rather than a luxury. There spam filtering is generally very strong, and their interface is reasonably flexible. But perhaps the most important perceived benefit of Google e-mail is the assumption that their motto "do no evil" reflects on their desire to preserve individual freedom and privacy. Overall, I think that assumption about Google as a corporation is sound, and I think this is why their exposing so much gmail related information through their new Buzz service was such a blow to their image. Had they simply defaulted to hiding users information, this would not have mattered, but it appears that in their thirst for content, they crossed some boundaries.

I understand the pressure they must have been feeling to have text and photos appear on their new service quickly, Facebook and Myspace have been soliciting content for their pages for years now, but the fact remains that the personal habits and connections people have through their e-mail is too sacred and personal to publish in such a cavalier manner. I am pleased that they responded quickly to the criticism, and I am also pleased that people are becoming more sensitive about their digital personas, as well as their flesh-and-blood selves, since it is the side of so many people we see most often now.

Email Scott

The Buzz on Google Buzz: Nikki Lorenzini

In one word: Yes, I think that they violated their users. I didn’t even know of this until I got this topic to write on. I have a personal Gmail account, and I don’t get the whole concept of Buzz. Well, I get it in theory. But I don’t use Picasa or Flicker or Twitter or Blogger or Google Reader. So that only leaves me to use YouTube. Yeah, I’m internet lame. I’ll be disabling my Google Buzz.

I wasn’t really paying much attention to buzz around the new “Buzz,” so I was not aware of how long they were planning on launching Buzz. I am not really sure in buzz leading up to it, if they shared what was going to be done to people’s accounts, but from the word on the street that I am hearing, having people’s contacts open to everyone and their mother like that is so not cool. Google should of let their users set their privacy settings before going to their email so they could have been protected. I don’t know why a company as large as Google wouldn’t of thought of putting their users first and protected them and their privacy? Seems kind of silly to me.

Email Nikki

The Buzz on Google Buzz: Have Your Say

Now that you've read the opinions of our contributors, have your say by leaving a comment.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Tiger's Apology

You've probably seen it by now, but for those who haven't seen Tiger Woods' televised statement regarding what has come to light since last November, here it is:



Today we asked our contributors what they thought about Tiger's very public apology. After reading the opinions of David, Sasha, Scott, Ryan, and Jeff, join the conversation by leaving a comment.

Tiger's Apology: Sasha Smith

I have the same opinion of Tiger Woods as I did when his first affair became public. It's not my business and it's nothing new in American culture. Why do we care so much what an athlete is doing on his own personal time? It clearly wasn't affecting his golf game, but if anything making his affairs public would probably hurt his game.

Americans are fascinated with flaws. Tiger was simply too perfect for everyone. To find out that he was a man who had no self control when it came to being committed and being  monogamous to his wife. How many Americans does this involve? The last I found out that was 50% Americans aren't able to stay married to their spouses. They end up getting divorced. In the Black community the divorce rate is even higher at 60%. And since Tiger is Black (even if he doesn't admit it,) why are we so surprised?

What would be really surprising is if someone took the time to realize that there are a lot of issues that citizens have to deal with and that we should try to work on solutions to fixing them. For instance, let's get everyone health care so if the have a need to talk to a shrink for some mental health issues such as stress, depression or any other disorder they can talk to someone and figure out a life plan versus using sex, drugs and alcohol to fix their problems.

Email Sasha
Follow Sasha on Twitter!

Tiger's Apology: Scott Hinkley

Tiger Woods certainly took his sweet time facing the music. I was pleased to see how much responsibility he is taking for his choices. I was also pleased to hear him express his regret for such a long list of his transgressions. I hope for his sake, his family's sake, and for the sake of his sport, that most people choose to move on from this tragic headline-orgy. I just worry that his comments are just too little too late. I understand that he felt a great deal of pressure to make the changes in his life before he had to discuss them publicly, but I think that the impact of his repentance is muted by the time he waited.

I think it would have been a much more powerful apology if it had come in the initial aftermath, rather than in such a calm, and delayed, response. I hope that the things he says are as true as he would like us to believe. Ultimately, until someone is better at gold than he is, Tiger will probably find absolution without much trouble no matter how he handles the juicy details.

Email Scott

Tiger's Apology: Ryan John

I’m glad Tiger held the press conference the way he did without any room for questions and answers.  I can only imagine some of the ridiculously personal, “gossipy” questions that would be posed.  Surely they’d be irrelevant and only serve our tendency for the titillating details of a sexual affair to prove that he is a human being and not an athletic machine.   It frustrates me that Tiger is expected to speak publicly in such a formal way on a matter that is so very personal for his family.  I know he has commitments to corporations that sponsor him, but even those apologies could be done behind closed doors in a boardroom. 
 
I’m not a big fan of anyone speaking almost entirely off note cards in a rehearsed fashion.  It comes off robotic and insincere.  I much prefer addressing an issue like this from the heart, with maybe a little assistance from an outline to make sure you hit all the main points.  If he spoke openly and honestly, filling twelve minutes of time shouldn’t have been a problem for Woods.  Although I didn’t care for his delivery style, I agreed with the message.  The invasive paparazzi have no place involving themselves in Woods family and their findings will only instigate tabloid-esque conversations.  Although many people probably would watch and listen, it’s the kind of junk that only contaminants us.
 
Personally, I’m more of a private person and feel like celebrity personal issues are easily exploited for the sake of filling up empty air time on TV and radio.  Indeed the subject does produce salacious conversation; it gets too scandalous when you start revealing actual text messages and statements from his mistress for example.  I wouldn’t want that for me and my family if I were Woods.  Of course all the people who love to judge, will judge.  But in the end, I’m sure the main thing Tiger feels sorry about it is the hurt, disappointment and embarrassment he inflicted on his family.  For that, we are owed no apology.

Tiger's Apology: Jeff Weiss

Tiger Woods' public apology has been scrutinized and analyzed ad nauseum. I believe Woods is sorry for his actions – and I also believe he is sorry that he was caught. I found the delivery of his apology to be a bit robotic, but I'm sure he was aware of the amount of people who were watching him across the globe. It wasn't the most compelling thing I saw on television last week, but it was interesting.

Some have criticized Woods for not including his mistresses in his apology, but disagree. I don't think they are owed an apology as they all knew he was a married man before they became involved with him. I doubt any of them thought he was going to leave his family to run off with them. Woods' apologies should be reserved for his wife and children - but I'm not sure those apologies needed to be done in front of a television audience.

Only time will tell if Woods can rebound from this situation. I have a feeling that if he can save his marriage, his career will follow suit.

Email Jeff

Tiger's Apology: David Loftus

That’s right, Bob, there have been rumors that Tiger has been in secret training for this competition for the entire past two and a half months. It’s not an event he’s shown any strength in before, so there’s been a lot of anticipation and some bets that he’ll fall flat on the course. In any case, we’re finally going to see the results of all that prepping. We haven’t heard whether he designed his entire routine himself or had the assistance of a past pro, but there’s no doubt he wants to make a bold statement, score high, and not just win a place on the winners’ stand but go for the gold.

Well, I have to say he did not come out of the gate fast. Tiger seems to be pacing himself for a long run. We’ve also heard rumors he could break 10 minutes, possibly even 12. Okay, he’s apologized to the journalists gathered in the room as well as his wife, family, and fans, which is not something we heard from Sanford, Edwards, Clinton, or -- going back a few Games -- even Gary Hart, so that should be worth extra points. On the other hand, he’s repeating himself and drawing it out, which could cost him, especially with the German and Russian judges, though this tends to go over well with the Japanese.

Wow, he held off on “I need help and am in therapy” until after the 7-minute mark! A lot of politicians tend to make that move much sooner, following the lead of televangelists and movie actors, so that’s a classy decision on Tiger’s part. And, more amazingly, he didn’t mention his religious faith until after 10 elapsed minutes, which may be a reflection on the sect -- Christians tend to flash their spirituality much sooner in a routine like this. On the other hand, Buddhism also tends to be regarded with suspicion as “trendy” and “not really a religion” among some judges and with the greater sports-watching public, so that makes it a dicey move on the star athlete’s part.

And that’s it! Tiger came in at almost 13:30, which has to be a new record in the sport. Gotta give him points just for endurance. It looks like most of the judges are awarding 8s and 8.5s, which is a pretty good performance in a new event for the longtime golfer, but we’re still waiting for the numbers from the Swedish judge. There seems to be a glitch in her scoring mechanism. We’ll send it back to Bob Costas while we await the final results.

Tiger's Apology: Have Your Say

Now that you've read the opinions of our contributors, have your say by leaving a comment.

Monday, February 22, 2010

Spy School

In a lawsuit seeking class action status filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Michael and Holly Robbins of Penn Valley are suing the school district, its board of directors and the superintendent for unlawfully using its ability to remotely access a webcam on their son's laptop computer, which was issued by the school district.

According the lawsuit, on November 11, 2009, Mr. and Mrs. Robbins' son was informed by the assistant principal at Harriton High School that he was caught engaging in "improper behavior" in his home which was captured in an image via the webcam. Neither Mr. or Mrs. Robbins nor their son were ever informed of the school's ability to remotely access the webcam that was built into the laptop their son was using in their home. The boy's family members have told reporters that a school official mistook a piece of candy for a pill and thought he was selling drugs. It is unknown if the school issued any punishment.

The Lower Merion School District has acknowledged that the cameras that are built into the laptops were remotely activated 42 times in the past 14 months, but only to find missing, lost or stolen laptops; as well as noting that security-tracking software has been completely disabled.

Today we asked our panel if they feel the Lower Merion School District was wrong in not informing students and their families that the laptops that were issued contained webcams that could be remotely controlled, or if they believe the tracking software was an innocent method of finding potential lost laptops. After reading how Shaun, Ryan, Jeff, Sasha, and Art weigh in, have your say by leaving a comment.

Spy School: Shaun Hautly

This is a great place for a contract. When a student attains possession of a school computer, they should sign out the device and note it's number, etc. Then, in that contract, shove all the news about the computers, their security, tracking features, and voyeuristic capabilities into the small print. Then they have it. As it stands, I side with the family, a little heads up would have been nice. To help the school avoid this in the future, I offer the following advice.

Use your security-tracking features for just that. Monitoring suspicious behavior is too time-consuming for a school to be engaged in perpetually. If they were going to hide the fact that they can monitor, that's fine, but they better monitor only for the sake of their equipment, not for general crime-fighting reasons. Besides, checking the web cams of high-school students seems dangerous. If you snap a shot of a boy selling drugs, you have a lawsuit. Snap one of a 16 year old girl changing clothes, and you've got a whole new set of problems.

If you ARE going to use them for security, they should only be activated if a student reports it missing. If you entrust these devices to your students, you shouldn't waste time tracking them until you're notified. Handy technology, but seeing as there's enough gray area for a lawsuit, next time you should just leave a paper trail.

Email Shaun
Follow Shaun on Twitter!

Spy School: Ryan John

If I were a parent, and my teenage son or daughter was given a computer from school, the first thing I would ask is, what happens if it's lost or stolen.  Who is responsible in this very likely occurrence?   That would illicit a response for the school explaining that ideally neither the school nor the parents would incur any financial obligation because of a web camera device built into the laptop in case of the event.  So, I'm very curious as to why this conversation wasn't had in one way or another before the students first took possession.
 
Even if the principle did honestly think Blake Robbins' Mike and Ike's were actually pills and the student was engaging in inappropriate drug related behavior, why was he so oblivious to the students rights regarding privacy? The web cam feature and random activation ability should have been clearly stated in the disclosure the parents signed prior to assignment.  Furthermore, I can't think of another disclosure more important than that one.  It serves as both a warning and consolation.  A warning which will discourage would be thievery, as well as the consolation to students and parents that lost laptops will hopefully be found.  It has proven to be a successfully implemented lost prevention measure, so I can't imagine its usage wasn't foreseen when school officials trust 2,300 students with these expensive devices. 
 
 
So, If the web cam feature is only supposed to be used to for recovery, when an accidental activation produces false suspicion, it is totally ignorable.  I sympathize with the vice principal's decision if he genuinely thought they were drugs and intervention for the boy was needed.  But assuming he had good intentions, he should have just kept a watchful eye on the student while advising teachers to the same without any word of the web cam findings.   Although I think it was an innocent addition to the computers, I do feel like the school district should have warned parents of it's capabilities. 

Spy School: Jeff Weiss

I suspect there is a lot more to this story. I can understand why the Lower Merion School District would have security software installed that would allow them to remotely access webcams in the event that a school-issued laptop were to be reported stolen. What I do not understand is why the school district did not inform the students and their parents that the cameras could be remotely accessed. Why were the cameras were accessed when laptops were not reported stolen. Was one specific person accessing the cameras? And if a laptop was indeed stolen, how would viewing a camera help to find it? Would they take an image of the person using it and go door to door until they found him or her?

I would consider this an invasion of privacy if the school had done this during school hours, but to do it while the children were at home is completely improper. The Lower Merion School District has a lot of explaining to do – and I have a feeling there will be a lot more lawsuits to follow in light of the Robbins' case.

Email Jeff

Spy School: Sasha Smith

 My professional degree is in social work not a the law. I have no idea what or who are in legal rights in this case. Morally, it is common sense for the school to notify the students and the parents of what the school's rights are when issuing the school laptops. I have a cell phone that my employer pays a part of. I could not image my horror if I found out that they were taping my phone and listening to all my conversations. The phone naturally serves as my work phone but personal phone. I would be highly upset and consider a law myself if the same thing happened to me.

In this day age, technology has taken over and we must continue to carve the way to still maintain citizen's personal rights and privacy. I am all for making strides in technology but there have been too many instances where it crosses the line. If the school suspected that the student was taking some type of "pill," they should have talked to his parents and maybe they would have assisted the school by getting to the bottom of it. I think the school also are intervening with the family and home by making assumptions that the parents would not have handled the situation. 

As Americans we need to find a balance of when we should be getting involved and when we shouldn't be getting involved. Looking at the young student that was beat up in front of three security guards in Seattle, I wonder why those officials didn't get more involved and in comparison to this case the officials initiated their own investigation. If we could find the perfect balance, I guess we would all be in a better place.

Email Sasha
Follow Sasha on Twitter!

Spy School: David Loftus

The school district was absolutely wrong not to have notified students and parents that the webcams on the laptops it lent out to them could be remotely operated. Superintendent Christopher McGinley has already admitted as much in a letter released Friday: “There was no explicit notification that the laptop contained the security software," he said in his letter of Friday. "This notice should have been given and we regret that was not done.”

I think somebody in the administration must have gotten a little overzealous about keeping an eye on the kids in a fairly affluent suburb of Philadelphia, and took a step or two too far. Sure, the school district is responsible for the safety and behavior of students on school grounds, but when they are home, kids return to the responsibility of their parents. Trying to protect school property is no justification for invading the privacy of citizens in their homes.

There are a couple of other things in this story that don’t add up. One, why did someone turn on the webcam in the Robbins’ home if the laptop had not been reported stolen or missing (which I presume must have been the case, since I haven’t seen it reported anywhere)? Two, why did the assistant principal go to the kid about his supposed drug-related activities, unless the grownup wasn’t sure what he’d seen? If he had actually thought the boy was dealing drugs, he should have gone to the parents or directly to law enforcement.

It sounds to me as if the school district dropped the ball in any number of ways (in not informing students and parents that the webcams could be activated and used remotely, in overextending its control over the students) and it is in very hot water now -- deservedly so. The district is now looking at a federal class-action lawsuit, an FBI investigation, and a grand jury subpoena.

Spy School: Have Your Say

Now that you've read the opinions of our panel, have your say by leaving a comment.

Friday, February 19, 2010

Face Off: College Ghetto Party

Last weekend fraternity students at the University of California, San Diego threw a “ghetto-themed” party to mock Black History Month. The school's administration has spoken out to condemn the party, which was called the "Compton Cookout" and encouraged participants to dress and act in a stereotypical fashion. Today Art and Austin weigh in on the subject. After reading their opinions, join the conversation by leaving a comment.

Austin:
It is no longer amusing that the news media screams for freedom of the press to print their news and then castigates individual citizens that happen to have views they do not agree with.  In this edition of hypocrisy there were a group of young people that decided to throw a theme party and decided that this party's theme should be "Compton Cookout".  Participants were asked to come dressed in gold chains, "ghetto" clothes, and girls were asked to come as "ghetto chicks".  The newspaper indicated that this party was thrown by a group of students from the University of California San Diego and the school presented the requisite condemning press release.

I agree that the party was in poor taste, however, the school should not have had an opinion because the party was not thrown by a student group and did not take place on school grounds.  Should Home Depot pass out apologies when their employees make these kind of errors in judgement?  The school is also trampling the first amendment in this case.

One thing I wonder is where Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are this week?  Are they on vacation?  This should be something right up their alley.  (Remember the Duke lacrosse incident?)  Well, the truth is that since this happened in California it won't elicit the same reaction from the race baiters that it would have had this happened in Tuscaloosa, AL or Athens, GA.  Had this happened in Alabama or Georgia we would be hearing about it for the next 3 months.

My main concern is what would have happened if this was a group of African-American students having a "Red-Neck" party.  My guess: Nothing.  No one would have said a word about a group of black students mocking a group of poorly educated white people.  No one would have rushed to apologize for the theme and whatever offense may have taken place.

I personally think the party was in poor taste, but I stand by the participants right to host the party and their right to express their opinion.  I am saddened at the double standard that exists when people hear things they don't agree with.  This was not news and it didn't need a press release from the university.  The least we should expect is some consistency from the news media and the race baiters: Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

Email Austin
Follow Austin on Twitter!

Art:
I am not aware that anyone in the news media or the administration at University of California/San Diego has called for censorship or punishment of these bozos. The media have been doing what they love to do, with is report the gory details of a tempest in a teapot. The university’s administration (not wishing to offend a tiny minority of its student body or a larger group of liberal-minded alumni, and hoping to avoid a national firestorm that would make the school look bad), issued a disclaimer from the office of chancellor Marye Anne Fox that said, on the one hand, “We were distressed” to learn of an “offensively themed student party” and “strongly condemn” it, but on the other, the party was not a student organization-sponsored event, so the school will take no action other than holding a “teach-in” to “discuss the importance of mutual respect and civility on our campus.”

The only official call for punishment came from the president of Pi Kappa Alpha, a fraternity implicated because some of its members were organizers of the party. Garron Engstrom promised “appropriate disciplinary actions” would be taken for this “violation of Pike’s code of conduct,” which the fraternity is within its rights to do.

Do I think the dopes who thought they were being funny by designing the “Compton Cookout” should be punished? Not particularly. If everyone who has responded with outrage could learn to laugh at these displays of ignorance and stupidity, that would cure the participants of it much faster. Jesse Jackson, not one of my favorite fellows, actually had a good excuse for his absence: he’s up here in Portland this week, calling for a Justice Department investigation of a police officer who shot an unarmed black man, Aaron Campbell, in the back and was cleared by a grand jury. I happen to agree with him on that one, since too many recent deaths of unarmed folks, blacks and whites, have occurred at the hands of Portland Police in recent years.

True, some black people in San Diego probably do behave in the irritating ways described in the party invitation -- I’ve seen them up here, too. But to mimic them instead of devising a more imaginative party theme was as contemptuous as when Marie Antoinette, the Queen of France in the 1780s, and her attendants dressed up as shepherdesses and milkmaids and hung out at “Hameau de la Reine,” a fake farmhouse, dairy, and mill on the royal grounds at Versailles. If the “Ghetto Party” participants had studied history with as much gusto as they party, they’d know what happened to the Queen partly because of behavior like this: the commoners cut off her head.

Email Art

Thursday, February 18, 2010

"Family Guy" & Palin

Sarah Palin is angry again. This time, the former vice presidential candidate is voicing her displeasure at Family Guy, an animated comedy series on the FOX network. The episode that aired on Sunday night featured a character on a date with a girl with Down Syndrome. When asked about her family, the girl said her mother is “the former Governor of Alaska.” Palin's son Trig has Down Syndrome. Palin stated the show was a “kick in the gut.” Palin's daughter Bristol stated on her Facebook page, “If the writers of a particularly pathetic cartoon show thought they were being clever in mocking my brother and my family, they failed.”

Today our panel discusses if the writers and producers of Family Guy went too far in their attempt at satire. After reading the opinions of Jeff, Nikki, Roseanne, and Art, join the conversation by leaving a comment.

"Family Guy" & Palin: Jeff Weiss

I am not a member of the Sarah Palin fan club, nor do I expect to be joining it anytime soon – or if ever. However, I agree with her comments as well as the comments of her daughter Bristol about Sunday's episode of Family Guy. While anyone who's ever seen Family Guy knows that they no one is off limits for their razor sharp satire, the “Down Syndrome Girl” episode was an epic failure – not just because it was tasteless but because it didn't even come close to being funny.

Family Guy has fans because they don't pick and choose who they mock. They are an equal opportunity offender. Even Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh have voiced cameos on the animated series because they “get” the show and feel as if they are “in” on the joke. However, the episode in question wasn't witty, funny, or clever. It actually felt as if they entire character was based around the one line joke of being the daughter of the former Governor of Alaska. Any episode built around one joke is destined to fail, and that's exactly what happened on Sunday night.

Palin would probably speak at the commencement of a graduating class of one student if she thought it would be covered by the media, so it doesn't surprise me that she was quick to comment about the episode of Family Guy – but this time she actually had a point. The show wasn't funny and should never have made it air.

Email Jeff

"Family Guy" & Palin: Nikki Lorenzini

Sarah Palin makes me angry - very angry. Yes, I understand why she would be upset. I have a close friend who has Down Syndrome. Would I be offended by this comment? Probably. But I have a question to throw out there: Does Palin really watch Family Guy? If she does, she would know that these types of jokes (whether she enjoys it or not) is what the show consists of.

I occasionally watch Family Guy. Last night I saw the show and they made fun of Colin Farrell, Jesus and Judas. I know this show has targeted just about everyone and anyone possible. Personally, I have been offended by how they treat Christianity and everything that it stands for. I know that Palin is a Christian, however I consider myself more liberal than she is. If I am offended by Family Guy's Jesus jokes, I am surprised that Palin failed to even mention them when she complained about the show, although I am sure the Down Syndrome jokes are really hitting home.

On a positive note, I know how to use my remote. Yes, even though I watch it occasionally, I know how to turn the show off when I get offended. I know people that have stopped watching it because the were offended. Why can’t Palin keep quiet and keep some of her opinions to herself?

Personally, I think Palin is opening herself up to be made fun of by shows like Family Guy. It appears as if she needs to have a public opinion on everything. Don’t people usually fade into obscurity after they loose an election? Why can’t she take that queue? Yes, it would be grand if she would stay in Alaska and do some type of charitable work, but she insists on being prominent even when she has nothing important to add. If she wants people to take her seriously, I think she needs to learn how to keep quiet.

Email Nikki

"Family Guy" & Palin: Roseanne Frangione

Once again the left wing media is sending subliminal messages against honest America-loving family values by mocking Sarah Palin. This time they went a bit too far by Palin's own mentally challenged baby as the target of their smear campaign. It disgusts me that someone could actually find humor in the challenges faced by others. It disgusts me further to think that network executives would see fit to green-light a disgusting show such as Family Guy.

Sarah Palin had every right to condemn the sick low-brow humor that mocked her own child's developmental disability. In fact, anyone who doesn't condemn this kind of attack on the morality of America needs to take a long look in the mirror. I realize that former Governor Palin has had her share of public gaffes, and I know that many television series such as Saturday Night Live, The Daily Show, and most late night talk shows will always find humor in public servants, but to use an innocent child as the butt of a joke has taken “bad taste” to a new level.

There are often calls to end partisanship in our country. May I suggest that we all come together: the Red States and Blue States, the Republicans and the Democrats, and unite in boycotting the trash known as Family Guy.

Email Roseanne

"Family Guy" & Palin: David Loftus

Lemme see if I have this straight. When Rahm Emanuel refers to someone as “retarded” (in a private meeting, behind closed doors), it’s despicable and he should be fired. When Rush Limbaugh refers to someone as “retarded” (in public, on a nationally-broadcast radio show) it’s “satire.” And when a humorous cartoon depicts a girl who has Down syndrome, shows her living a normal life, doesn’t make any particular fun of her but has her state that her mother is “the former Governor of Alaska” (in public, on a nationally-broadcast television show), it’s not satire but a “kick in the gut”???

Maybe someone can explain the fine distinctions here, because I’m not seeing them. Emanuel probably spoke in anger and intended to disparage -- but outside the hearing of either his targets or the public at large. Limbaugh probably spoke disparagingly, too, knowing he would be heard by his targets but that they probably wouldn’t take it too hard, if at all. While I probably would have laughed if I’d seen the “Family Guy” episode (I don’t watch the show and -- here it comes again -- have never in fact seen an episode, ever), I’m not sure what could be construed as disparaging about it, or even what makes it funny. That Bristol Palin might actually date someone, now that she’s a single mom? That she would need a date? That the show slipped up and said it’s the daughter who has Down syndrome, not a son? (It’s my understanding that no one on the show says she is Bristol Palin, or that her mom is Sarah Palin; it could be some other governor of Alaska, or a fictitious one, technically speaking.)

Sarah Palin seemed to love the fact that Tina Fey made fun of her, repeatedly, on a nationally-broadcast television show. But her daughter or son is out of bounds? That Sarah Palin chose to rear a child with Down syndrome ought to be regarded by all as an admirable thing. One would surely think the Palins would say so. And yet they’re acting as if they have something to be ashamed of. (As an aside, though, I’m curious to know how much time Sarah Palin actually spends with Trig, and who is actually doing most of the childcare while she’s out hawking her book and drawing a $100,000 speaking fee at a Teabaggers convention.)

I just don’t get it.

"Family Guy" & Palin: Have Your Say

Now that you've read the opinions of our contributors, join the conversation by leaving a comment.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Olympic Tragedy

Twenty-one year old Nodar Kumaritashvili of the nation of Georgia's Olympic luge team was killed on Friday during training just hours before the opening ceremony of the Winter Games in Vancouver. Kumaritashvili lost control of his sled while traveling nearly 90 miles per hour. As with most Olympic training events, the entire incident was videotaped. While Kumaritashvili's death is certainly newsworthy, many are questioning how network news covered the tragedy – especially the repeated airing of the video. Kumaritashvili's accident was the lead story on both CBS and NBC's evening newscasts on Friday. NBC aired the video without sound. Diane Sawyer of ABC News cautioned viewers that the video may be “difficult to watch” before it aired on the network newscast. CBS aired the video three times during the CBS Evening News – once in slow motion. On Saturday, NBC made the decision not to air the video again.

Today we asked our panel if they believe it was poor taste to repeatedly air the footage of the fatal accident on network television, or if they feel that when something is newsworthy it deserves full news coverage. After reading what Scott, Austin, Art, and Nikki think about this topic, join the conversation by leaving a comment.

Olympic Tragedy: Scott Hinkley

It saddens me that a seemingly avoidable accident like this had to overshadow the opening of the Vancouver games. It would seem that the news media, desperate for something to cover during the otherwise underwhelming first day of the Olympics, were somewhat overjoyed to visit and revisit the footage they had gotten, showing the horrifying end of a young life. Needless to say, I was very disappointed by their decisions to air the footage. I felt it was callous and careless. I am repeatedly upset by the absence of disturbing images from the countless conflicts and atrocities. The sterility of our info-tainment. I think the fact that this clip was deemed acceptable makes is a telling example of our hypocritical standards within mass media.

Furthermore, the fact that once the networks decided it was a mistake to continue airing the footage, they were swift in removing all copies of it from internet video sites. This seems to demonstrate clearly the goldfish-memory Americans willingly adopt in light of controversy. Alas, it is all about the money. Again.

Email Scott

Olympic Tragedy: Scott Hinkley

It saddens me that a seemingly avoidable accident like this had to overshadow the opening of the Vancouver games. It would seem that the news media, desperate for something to cover during the otherwise underwhelming first day of the Olympics, were somewhat overjoyed to visit and revisit the footage they had gotten, showing the horrifying end of a young life. Needless to say, I was very disappointed by their decisions to air the footage. I felt it was callous and careless. I am repeatedly upset by the absence of disturbing images from the countless conflicts and atrocities. The sterility of our info-tainment. I think the fact that this clip was deemed acceptable makes is a telling example of our hypocritical standards within mass media.

Furthermore, the fact that once the networks decided it was a mistake to continue airing the footage, they were swift in removing all copies of it from internet video sites. This seems to demonstrate clearly the goldfish-memory Americans willingly adopt in light of controversy. Alas, it is all about the money. Again.

Email Scott

Olympic Tragedy: Austin Lee

I find it humorous that television broadcasters went to such great length to warn viewers that this video would be difficult to watch.  Not 2 hours later most of these stations were probably airing television shows showing more violent and bloody scenes than the luge accident.  Their "concern" for us seems a bit disingenuous because of the old maxim, "If it bleeds, it leads."  The truth is that none of these broadcasters really cared about whether it was difficult.  Behind the scenes I am quite certain they couldn't get this footage on fast enough.

Of course this was in poor taste.  But, what else should we expect from the news media?  They cover celebrities more thoroughly than politics and have yet to sufficiently raise the alarm about the climate change debacle on going in Europe.  This was simply par for the course.

Yes, newsworthy items deserve full coverage, however, full coverage does not have to include video.  Especially if that video doesn't add value to the story.  Let's try some investigative reporting and shove a camera into the face of some of these climate change "scientists".  The facial expressions these guys show as they try to dodge and weave tough questions will add value.  (But that won't happen...the media is in on the scam.)

Email Austin
Follow Austin on Twitter!

Olympic Tragedy: David Loftus

I am happy to say I have never seen one second of this footage. I didn’t even know it existed until “American Currents” asked me to comment. I hope I never see it.

I don’t think the actual method of anyone’s dying deserves “full coverage.” What makes a death newsworthy is the mere fact that it has happened -- which can simply be stated verbally -- and its context: who the person was, what he or she was up to at the time, what sort of professional life the deceased led, what might have been expected of the person had his or her life not been cut short, etc., etc.

If the method of death involves questionable circumstances (possible homicide, design or on-site safety negligence, etc.), all that can again be described verbally. Seeing the actual process will rarely if ever tell the average person anything useful; the facts of the matter should be left to law enforcement, the medical examiner, a grand jury, or whatever other official body or investigative official can do the job properly. To dwell on the process of death itself is invasive of privacy (that of the victim and of his or her family) and just plain ghoulish.

Olympic Tragedy: Nikki Lorenzini

I remember learning about issues such as this in my communications law class. Basically it all comes down to ethics. Do I believe that the networks had every right to air the video of his death? Yes. Stuff like this is free reign of being showed on air. It is newsworthy and the Olympics are being shown world wide.

The real question is was it in good taste to air the video, and which I don’t think it was. It’s the Olympics. I believe that the Olympics are on par with the regular sports, that the people who are participating are thrown into the spotlight. So it only makes sense to have their death, if any, to be thrown into the spotlight. But to have your actual death to be shown on the media? It's disturbing on so many levels. The accident happened during training, not a live competition. I am sure the media had enough footage of him practicing to air as opposed to the actual accident. I would understand if it happened during the actual games, heck, I’m sure things like that happened during NASCAR or something like that. But to actually show a death during trials? I remember when Michael Jackson died (yes, I am dragging him into this!), they brought out a boat load of pictures of him dying. Lets put aside the whole money idea (trust me, I am sure the Jacksons/paramedics did it all for the money), does is still seem right?

Yes, I believe that this is newsworthy. But not newsworthy enough to get a boat load of coverage. Then again, I am not big into sports. I don’t even think I watched more than 10 minutes of the Olympics in my whole life. Since it is such a big thing, and if they are so instant about showing video of him, why not dig in stock videos?

Email Nikki

Olympic Tragedy: Have Your Say

Now that you've read the opinions of the members of our panel, join the conversation by leaving a comment.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

When Kids Kill

Last February Kenzie Houk, a 26 year old pregnant woman from Wampum, PA, was found dead in her bed. She had been shot in the head. Jordan Brown, the son of her fiance, has been charged with two counts of murder (one for the fetus Houk was carrying). Jordan Brown was 11 years old at the time of the murder. He has been described as an All-American boy who was well liked and known for his big smile. While he had no disciplinary problems prior to the murder, prosecutors say Brown was jealous of his father's fiancee and her two young daughters. Since Pennsylvania has no lower limit for the age someone can be charged as an adult with criminal homicide, the now 12 year old suspect can be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole if convicted. The boy's attorneys are currently petitioning to have the case moved to juvenile court. A decision is expected in March.

Today we asked our panel if they think an 11 year old boy – even if convicted of two murders – should be sentenced to life in prison, and if Jordan Brown were to be found guilty, they believe is a suitable punishment for him. After reading the opinions of Art, Ryan, and Roseanne, join the conversation by leaving a comment.

When Kids Kill: Ryan John

When you have the desire to do something that involves giving your opinion, its because you feel people will enjoy hearing your perspective.   Weather the reading audience agrees or disagrees, the fun is in the research, critical thought and conclusion you find yourself at when thinking about a particular subject.   But, I can't possibly give my opinion on the fate of a twelve year boy who did something I can only hope, but don't know, one day he will wholeheartedly regret. 
 
I watch that jail show on MSNBC called "Locked-Up."  Honestly, it seems like a lot of those guys just need a hug and some sort of self esteem booster.  I appears to be troubled personality's surrounded by other troubled personalities in an environment where those troubled personality traits are earning respect among other inmates, or adding to your social functionality.  Either way, you're wasting life away when you're behind bars.  I really don't think I'd feel comfortable committing an eleven year old boy to that destiny.  I would say in some situations its appropriate to put aside the generalized rigidness of the law to consider a case on an individual basis.  Obviously I would think both sides of the law should take a close look at his personality (with the understanding that his behavior maybe distorted and vulnerable to the constant scrutiny he's subjected to).  I think I'd be in favor of putting him into a juvenile detention center with social rehab, education and other life skills training so he can live the next sixty or so years of his life as a normal citizen.  However, he didn't kill anyone I know, and if he did, the pain I feel could override any ounce of compassion I might have. 
 
I still tend to think that the still very much developing mind of an eleven year boy who competitively kills animals for sport was confused in his understanding of human life versus animal life and thought the art of killing was universally consequential. Who knows, maybe he thought the pride he felt and adulation from others in the woods after he skillfully shot an animal would carry over into real life.  He sounds like he maintained an above average status among his peers, so maybe he had a narcissistic personality and thought he could do no wrong, even if it was killing his step-mother.  I don't know.  Worst case scenario, he is tried as a juvenile, has a true sociopath personality, and any shot at rehabilitation will only temporarily stunt his inclination towards violence.   Like most things we write about, we don't really know.
 
I'm inclined to say, Pennsylvania should and will try him as a juvenile.

When Kids Kill: David Loftus

It is important to maintain the distinction between adults who can be tried for murder and children who should not be, because of diminished judgment and lack of capacity for consent. Otherwise, it would not be any more of a crime to have sex with a “willing” 14-year-old than an adult woman, and insurance rates for teen drivers would be the same as for the rest of us.

The problem with the current justice system is that it offers no more than an almost all-or-nothing choice between trying a child for murder and imprisoning him for life -- without giving him the opportunity to grow up, to complete an education, and have a shot at becoming a law-abiding member of society -- versus convicting him as a juvenile and turning him loose at 21, when he is most likely unprepared to be or become a good citizen and runs a high risk of further damaging himself or others.

While it may be impossible to change Pennsylvania law in time to apply it to this case, similar situations will surely arise in the future. Some middle way, a mechanism that allows for keeping individuals convicted of heinous crimes in prison beyond the age of 21, with the potential for parole at some future date if they have shown repentance, good behavior, completed their education, exhibited the ability to perform productive work, and other mitigating factors that suggest they could join society.

In this particular case, I have seen no description in the news stories of where an 11-year-old got his hands on a 20-gauge shotgun. I have to guess the owner was his father, who had gotten the victim pregnant and intended to marry her without taking the trouble to integrate his son and his intended and her children -- the reported point of jealous contention between the killer and the victim -- into a semi-harmonious, potential future family. If indeed the boy’s father was responsible for the gun as well as the murderer, he should be held accountable as, at best, a negligent accessory to murder.

When Kids Kill: Roseanne Frangione

Taking a human life is the most horrible crime known to mankind. In a society where children grow up learning to kill by playing video games and watching hours upon hours of violence on television and films, the value of a person's life becomes less and less valuable. The questions remains: is this the fault of the society's impact on children, parents' lack of responsible upbringing, or does the blame lie within the children themselves?

I believe that every child deserves the right to grow up with respect and dignity. Teaching the next generation the importance of values and respect is key not only for their well being, but for our own as they will eventually be making decisions when we are senior citizens. Jordan Brown didn't find a gun and accidentally shoot his father's girlfriend. He learned to kill by hunting with his father, who gave his son a 20-gauge shotgun as a gift for Easter. Two lives could have been spared had Jordan Brown never learned to shoot a gun, and certainly if he had not had a shotgun given to him as a gift.

Eventually, this case will be decided and a sentence will be given, but no true justice will take place. A mother has lost her daughter and unborn grandson. Two daughters have lost their mother. A man has lost his fiancee and unborn son, and while his other son is still alive, he has basically lost him as well. Even if Jordan Brown is sentenced to serve his time in a juvenile facility and receives therapy (which is what I would recommend), he will forever carry with him the knowledge of his actions.

Email Roseanne

When Kids Kill: Have Your Say

Now that you've read the opinions of our panel, have your say by leaving a comment.

Monday, February 15, 2010

A Note from the Editors

Yesterday marked the one year anniversary of the tragic death of Tiana Notice, the sister of our friend and contributor Sasha Smith.  Our thoughts are with Sasha and her family, and with the many friends Tiana left behind.  To learn more about Tiana and what you can do to help stop domestic violence, visit TianaNoticeFoundation.org.

John Mayer's Controversial Playboy Interview

Singer/songwriter John Mayer's Playboy interview is making jaws drop across the country. Mayer, who has been linked romantically with several Hollywood stars including Jennifer Aniston and Jessica Simpson, is coming under fire for comments that are being considered as racist and sexist. Mayer calls Simpson “sexual napalm” and says that he does not have sex with black women because his penis “is a white supremacist.” Now many are wondering if Mayer, who has collaborated with many black musicians during his career, will be able to win back fans and members of the music industry who find the statements in his interview to be disgusting.

Today we asked our panel if their opinion of John Mayer changed after his Playboy interview, and if they believe this will seriously damage his career. After reading what Ryan, Jeff, Shaun, and Art think about this topic, have your say by leaving a comment.

John Mayer's Controversial Playboy Interview: Ryan John

I didn't have an opinion about John Mayer prior to reading his playboy interview.  I know he had a few songs I liked and he was pretty popular with the ladies, but that's about where it ends.  I find what he said very intriguing and risky, but I like it.  Even though Jessica Simpson supposedly has very conservative roots, I'm pretty sure they have been compromised throughout her career so, I don't think Jessica Simpson or her parents will be outraged by the Mayer comments.  In fact, I think they'll be taken fairly complimentary and what's good for the goose is good for the gander meaning that since the whole Simpson family  is involved with her career, they can only benefit from the publicity.  Now, if Mayer would have said she was boring in bed and sexual attraction wasn't a huge reason he was with her, I can see how that would be damaging to a woman whose sexual appeal is a big part of her success.  But wait a minute here.  Am I the only one who was confused by how "sexual napalm" is meant to be a good thing?  Or how it relates to anything involving sexual at all?  But, I'm guessing she's OK with the comments, because lets face it, they're pretty flattering, right? 
 
Because I have residual Kayne anger concerning some of his outlandish comments and actions involving race, I don't mind Mayer speaking his mind and saying come controversial remarks in the other direction.  I know it's rather immature and counterproductive, but if Kayne is enjoying continued success, why shouldn't Mayer.  Besides, we've learned this past decade, through the wonderfully confusing world of reality TV, that shame free, uninhibited, behavior no matter how ignorant, crude or chaotic it is, really only can help your career shine in the lime light....even if it is only for a year or two.  There's no point of spending time naming the litany of rejects who have made hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, based on a persona that is otherwise embarrassing when the cameras aren't turned on, but we all know they're everywhere.  Why are people paying MTV's "Snookie" $10,000 to show up at their events?  Thankfully the Philadelphia audience was smart enough to boo her at the Wing Bowl last week, but that's besides the point. 
 
In Hollywood, that behavior is what gets noticed and what gets noticed gets you watched and what gets you watched produces ratings for the networks, and so on and so on...So will John Mayer's career be negatively affected?  Absolutely not.  He is far too established in his career to worry about black performers not teaming up with him.  We've seen that money talks, and all he needs is someone to suggest a Mayer/ black performer partnering that will create a hit song people will love and the Playboy interview will simply be remembered as a resume booster.

John Mayer's Controversial Playboy Interview: Jeff Weiss

John Mayer is more than just an idiot – he's a narcissistic idiot. The entertainer has in recent years become more famous for his tabloid romances as opposed to his music. However, whereas most celebrities shy from their tabloid image, Mayer appears to embrace it by taking to Twitter and other outlets to comment on his famous ex-girlfriends. Perhaps he is so amazed at the fact that women such as Jessica Simpson and Jennifer Aniston would even give him a second look, that he feels compelled to keep bring it up over and over again.

I almost feel sorry for John Mayer because he seems to actually think that he can say whatever comes to his mind – even when his words are shocking and mind-numbingly stupid – simply because he is considered somewhat of a celebrity. However, people in the public eye don't have a responsibility to be politically correct, and while Mayer's Playboy interview only shows how pathetic and sad he truly is, he had every right to liken his penis to former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke in a national publication. And I have every right to write here that he is pathetic for doing so.

Email Jeff

John Mayer's Controversial Playboy Interview: Shaun Hautly

If people are going to read Playboy and then come away saying they're offended, they shouldn't read Playboy. If they're going to say that something in Playboy is sexist, I suggest they look at the adjacent pages where women are objectified to make money. Sort of like Jessica Simpson's music videos, stage performances, appearances in movies, and print ads. After spending much of her life in panties at the business end of a camera, I'm sure Jessica is losing sleep after such a comment. In my brief, informal search, there have been well over 650 Playmates, and only 21 have been Black. So let's not be too shocked by racial skews in the magazine either.

Now, onto Mayer. The guy can play guitar. Really well. Unfortunately for me, he chooses to play mostly lame love songs (this is an op-ed piece, remember?). The kind of songs that get him girls like Simpson and Aniston. Not songs like Cobain who got Courtney Love. That's a trade-off he was willing to make. Now, his musical talents I can appreciate without focusing too much on his superior women-wrangling abilities. Like with most celebrities, I tend to avoid caring too much about their relationships because in most cases (Paris Hilton excluded) they're famous for a reason other than their sexual behavior.

So Mayer said his penis was white supremacist. That should have been excluded. Just for its potential for controversy. However, he was speaking on his taste in women. Other penises are blonde supremacist, or breast supremacist. This isn't saying anything about discrimination on any other level than the woman he's attracted to. Mayer doesn't dig on black girls. Fine. That's not racist. He doesn't like them, others do. Gabriel Aubry (Halle Berry), Justin Chambers (Greys Anatomy), Wolfgang Puck, Robin Thicke, Robert DeNiro, David Bowie, and Thomas Jefferson. We all have our tastes, no reason to hate someone because they're attracted to a different type of person than you. 

As far as him using the n-word. He's on his own. That's one way that blacks and whites will NEVER be equal: whites never get to use that word. So keep on waiting for the world to change, just know it's never going to change to allow you to use that word.

Email Shaun
Follow Shaun on Twitter!

John Mayer's Controversial Playboy Interview: David Loftus

John Mayer is yet another pop personality with whom I was utterly unfamiliar until today, so it’s hard for me to get worked up about whether his career is hot or on the rocks. I did a little Google searching and learned that aside from his music, in the past he’s made something of a name for himself by saying outlandish things in comedy clubs and on Twitter, where his fan following of 3 million puts him in the ranks of Ashton Kutcher and Britney Spears -- two other megastar/midi-talents who have never given me much reason to care about them.

I’m not personally annoyed by his racial and homosexual slurs, because it’s all so tiresomely familiar. At one time I might have said such blather brands Mayer as lacking taste and judgment. Now I’d say he’s just unoriginal -- going to the same hot buttons as every other kid who thought he was not only flavor of the month but built to last. He’s trying too hard to be cool, rather than actually being cool, and therefore he doesn’t even attain the level of intellectual and aesthetic lightweight. (What does surprise me is that someone I thought possessed half a brain, namely Aniston, ever had anything to do with a nitwit like this.)

Since I had no opinion about Mayer to begin with, I can’t say it has changed. The only way my opinion could improve from zero is if Mayer pursues his craft long enough to create a body of work worth listening to for more than a season. I doubt the interview will damage his career, since I would imagine that has largely been supported by youth who don’t know enough history to find Mayer’s slurs particularly notable, whose cultural attention deficit disorder won’t enable them to recall this incident within the next year, and who lack the discrimination to condemn lapses in taste. This is just another non-story.

John Mayer's Controversial Playboy Interview: Have Your Say

Now that you've read the opinions of our panel, have your say by leaving a comment.

Friday, February 12, 2010

Face-Off Friday: Are the Olympic Games Worth the Cost?

The 2010 Winter Games start tonight with the opening ceremony live from Vancouver, BC at 7:30pm Eastern time. Today, Art and Austin face-off over the Olympics. With the cost of security alone at about one billion dollars, is it even worth having the games anymore? Read on to discover David and Austin's opinions, and then join the conversation by leaving a comment.

David:
I’m not comfortable with the phrasing of the question. It implies that the exorbitant cost of security should be the deciding factor on whether to hold the Olympics at all: it’s too expensive, so let’s call the whole thing off.

This is the wrong approach. My opinion is, yes, $1 billion is far too much to spend on security, but the Olympics should be held anyway, without spending that kind of money. I hate to put anyone’s life at risk, but it’s not me – and not the Olympic Committee – who is endangering anyone’s lives, it’s the crazies out there. If someone is bent on committing a senseless act of violence, it’s pretty close to impossible to stop him. A terrorist may not get to the athletes, but he’ll hurt some citizen attendees instead. Unless we’re talking about a world leader, a particular target really isn’t the point for terrorists, just the size of the bang, the body count, and the resulting media coverage. We can talk about the folks that Homeland Security has picked up over the seven years of its existence, but to my eye they have all been bumblers and buffoons who weren’t really that connected to the international terrorist movement. Because of delusions of grandeur, they made big plans and gathered up some imposing tools but probably never posed much of a threat at any time.

The Olympics were established on the principle of having the entire world (or as many countries as were willing to come) meet and compete in a spirit of peace and fair play. As terrorism is diametrically opposed to Olympic spirit, so planning for it is against the spirit of the Games too. I say go ahead and hold the Olympics in any case, and if countries and athletes don’t want to come because of their fears of potential violence, then let them stay home. Nations -- even world powers like the U.S. and the Soviet Union -- have skipped the Olympic Games for worse reasons before. In retrospect, it was a stupid thing to do, and made little difference in the long run.


Austin:
The Modern Olympics was based around amateur athletes.  Today, the only sport that can claim "no professionals" is Boxing.  So, this is just a collection of professional athletes that train year-round being paid by sponsors and/or the US Olympic Committee.  I say its time to say enough is enough.  The games really don't matter much anyway because of the proliferation of sports on television.  You can catch almost all of the Olympic sports on television year-round these days so the novelty of watching them every four years isn't a good hook anymore.

Besides that fact that it cost more than $1,000,000,000 simply for security for the games, NBC indicated they will probably LOSE $250,000,000 on the 2010 Winter Olympics.  Bob Costas is probably working hard this week to try and find some hard luck stories, but its a little harder now that most of the athletes get cushy training facilities, sponsorships, and endorsement deals.  Shaun White, the snowboard king, had Red Bull create his own private half-pipe for his training.  So much for a heart warming story about grinding it out on the local slopes.

The biggest example that we need to just end the games is this: Jamaica is sending a skier to the 2010 games in Vancouver.  The funny thing is that he grew up in Lake Tahoe!  That's right folks no dread-locks and funny accent here.  He probably looks like an American and probably sounds like he's from the Mountain West.  I am willing to bet even money that he wasn't good enough to make the US team this year and used his ancestry to gain the lone spot for Jamaica.  Is this what the games have come to: Tricks and games to get a spot?

The Olympics has run its course (again).  Just let it go.

A Valentine for Singles: Nikki Lorenzini

I’ve been single for three years. Yes, three years. I've had only one date in those three years. So that means three years worth of birthdays, Christmases, New Years, Valentines Days, and other random holidays being spent alone. Well, no, not alone, I have friends. So three years worth of holidays as a single women spending them with her friends. Despite these three years, I always hated Valentines Day. Yes, I said hate. Hated it since about high school. Why? I think it’s the most over rated holiday that we have on our calendars. I know this question was raised before: Why do we have a holiday spent to obligate our significant other their love for us?

Well, one legend says St. Valentines day was to commemorate the anniversary of St. Valentine, a clergy man from Roman who was executed on Feb. 14, around 270 ad. He was executed for secretly marrying couples which was in defiance of the emperor. Another legend has this holiday started in as a Roman fertility festival.

It started in the US and England in the early 1700s. The idea of sending Valentines started in 1797, when a British publisher issued The Young Man’s Valentine Writer, which was composed of suggested sentiment verses for someone who was unable to write their own. Paper valentines became popular in England in the early 1800s when companies started to mass produce valentines as well as a better postal service rates. In the United States, the first mass produced valentines were produced by Esther Howland in 1847. Her father operated a book and stationary store, and after Esther received a valentine from an a man in England, had used this as an inspiration, and started selling their own valentines. Currently, 190 million Valentines cards are exchanged annually.

So on this Valentines Day, I hope you all enjoy your significant others. While I sit at home and baby sit 5 kids all under the age of 8, I hope some of you out there will enjoy it enough for me. While the idea behind this day is sweet and well meaning, I’ll keep my distance from any Hallmark holiday.

Email Nikki

Chinese New Year: Nikki Lorenzini

This year, the Chinese New Year, the longest and most important festival in the lunar calendar, starts on February 14 and runs for 15 days. My co-worker whose from China sighed and said technically it starts on Saturday because China is 13 hours ahead of us. However, we are here so I’m celebrating Sunday. 2010 marks the year of the year of the Tiger. According Chinese Zodiac, tigers are born leaders, and they are respected for their courage. They are also unpredictable, tense, and like to be in a hurry. They have magnetic personalities, adventurous, and confident.

One of the practices for Chinese New Year are the Red Packets. When midnight sticks on New Years day, children get red packets from their parents as a blessing, which are put underneath their pillows at night when they sleep. Children also practice Guarding the night that happens on New Years Eve where they stay up at night to pray for their parents to have good health. One of the more noticeable symbols of the Chinese New Year is the Dragon Dance. Also known as the “Dragon Lantern Dance,” it originated from the Han Dynasty. It was originally done to please their ancestors and ask for enough rain for crops. There is a Chinese Fairy Tale that tells the legend and it goes:

One day, the Dragon King felt some terrible pain around his waist. After consuming all medication he could find, the pain persisted. Without any other option, he turned into human form and sought for doctor's advice. After the inspection, the doctor claimed, "You are not a human." Realizing that he couldn't pretend anymore, the Dragon King turned into his original form. The doctor helped removed a scolopendrid from his waist and applied medication on the wound. The Dragon King felt relieve immediately. In appreciation to the doctor's help, the Dragon King said this to the doctor, "Dance in gears in the form of a dragon and you shall be granted with smooth weather and great harvests." The news quickly spread and people began to dance in gears built to the form of a dragon to plead for rain in drought seasons.

As in any culture, food is also important to the Chinese during this holiday. The Chinese superstitions play a lot into their choosing of their food. Some examples of their food choices are:

Lettuce- lettuce in Chinese sounds like “making money.”
Seaweed- the special hair like seaweed sounds like ‘Get Rich.’
Bamboo Shoots- Indicates ‘New Start,’ also means ‘Advancing in Career.”
Fish- They say this is a must every New year because it indicates ‘Having leftovers.’


So this year for Chinese New Year, I hope you all have a some good wonton soup and an egg roll, and much good fortune to you all this year!

Email Nikki

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Palin 2012

Never one to shy away from the spotlight, Sarah Palin was in the news again over the weekend. Palin enjoyed a large amount of visibility during the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, causing much speculation that she is gearing up for a presidential campaign. While being interviewed on Fox News Sunday, Palin was asked about a potential run for the White House in 2012. Palin replied, “I would be willing to if I believe that it's right for the country.”

Today we asked our panel if they believe Sarah Palin is a viable candidate for President of the United States. After reading the opinions of Shaun, Nikki, David, Austin, and Ryan, join the conversation by leaving a comment.

Palin 2012: Shaun Hautly

I'm nervous about writing on Sarah Palin as President. It's hard to be objective about it. If you're a republican, of course she is at least a viable candidate. Democrat? You may be booking tickets to Canada during her inauguration. I traveled the country interviewing people leading up to the 2008 election. I can say from experience that there is no middle ground for support of Sarah Palin. Love her or hate her. 

http://colonelshaun.com/post/256939622/paulscheer-sarah-palin-parking-lot-america


That's a link to my blog from several months ago when I posted a video of supporters interviewed at a Palin book signing. If you don't have time to watch, the summary is this: They don't know anything about her policies or opinions, they support her because they like her 'Real America' message, and the talking points she has without the execution method behind them. This is how most people are with candidates. This is why it scares me to see her run for president. Not that she'd have a chance to win, in my opinion, but her followers and supporters are so ignorant and so conservative, that she could have the power to push through some awful legislation without much resistance.

Obama was not a perfect candidate. His supports sang, "change is coming!" You ask them how, they have no answer. However, Obama's message of change was for the people, and about the general health of America as I interpreted it. Sarah's message seems to be one of persecution to wrongdoers, and taking rights from people instead of empowering and providing responsibility. Then again, I have to say that I am Pro-Choice (sort of), Pro Gay Marriage, Pro Minorities, and Pro Government. I am democratic, and have not liked the over-played artificial and condescending Sarah Palin that we have seen as Americans.

Email Shaun
Follow Shaun on Twitter!

Palin 2012: Nikki Lorenzini

Sarah Palin irritates me. I am sure she is a lovely woman, but at this point, I really hope she would just disappear back into the woods of Alaska. I mean, do you really hear of John McCain popping up in random places, wearing a visor from his campaign with black magic marker over it, giving his two cents over issues that are really non issues? Seriously, I have barely heard from him since he lost to Obama, and isn’t that part of losing graciously?

Do I think Palin would be a viable candidate? No! She still has a relatively young family at home. Her one child is younger than I am and has a child, who is barely younger than Palin's youngest, who has down syndrome. Call me old fashioned, but I think Palin should really stay at home and focus on her family. She already stepped down from her governors position, so what makes her think she can handle the stress of being President? It’s a nice thought, but not everyone is cut out for that position.

I’m not going to make any digs at her intelligence. That’s so not fair. All I know is that it looks like that she is starting to come off as media hungry and attention thirsty. She got a taste of the national spotlight and had people fall in love with her wit for a bit. That can only get you so far. If I never hear from Palin again, I will be pleased.

Email Nikki

Palin 2012: David Loftus

It would be nice to believe Ms. Palin was being honest, but if she were, she’d acknowledge that she could never be right for the country and therefore should put away any ideas about running. Has there ever been a Presidential candidate who had less experience as a public servant? The sum total of her work in the public sector consists of four years on a city council, two three-year terms as mayor (both for a town with a population of less than 10,000), about a year on a state commission (Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation, from which she resigned because she couldn’t work with the other members), and less than three years as governor (much of which she spent running for national office, and then resigned). This does not strike me as Presidential material, and I know I’m not alone.

She handles the English language even worse than Dubya (which is pretty pathetic for a former college journalism major), she’s a decent stump speaker but hasn’t offered a single idea of her devising for a domestic or foreign policy program (as opposed to crowd-pleasing slogans and jingoism), and her record as a public servant is, at best, mediocre. The latest Palin faux pas concerns the pair of backcountry cabins she owns with her husband and has apparently never reported on her income tax returns and therefore never paid property taxes on. I mentioned on Monday seeing a story about this in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer last Friday and provided a link to it. The story was repeated in the Los Angeles Times, but so far I’m not seeing it getting further traction. Perhaps after state tax officials have completed their investigation, we’ll hear more about it.

Her inability to handle even simple policy questions from interviewers (after the Feb. 6 tea party speech, she participated in an on-stage interview in which she read from notes written on her palm) makes me tremble at the thought of her dealing with leaders of foreign nations. If she were to be elected (an impossibility most horrid to imagine), the image of the United States among the community of nations would plummet again. As a thinking, old-school liberal Democrat, there’s a part of me that would love to see her run just because she would guarantee so much entertainment with her subnormal political intelligence and malapropisms. On the other hand, it would be very expensive entertainment, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing . . . in other words, even worse than “Avatar.”

Palin 2012: Jeff Weiss

Yes! Go Palin! Get those “Palin 2012” bumper stickers ready! I hope Sarah Palin sweeps the primaries and gets the nomination as the Republican presidential candidate in 2012. I've never been a fan of Mrs Palin the past, so you may be wondering why I'm so supportive of her as a presidential candidate. Well, there are actually two reasons.

First, Saturday Night Live was never funnier as when Palin was John McCain's running mate and Tina Fey perfected her spot-on Palin impersonation. Just think of the humor to be had with Palin giving interviews, making speeches, and taking parts in debates. The best script writers in Hollywood couldn't create the comedic magic of a Palin presidential campaign. Just this past week, Palin called out President Obama for using a TelePrompTer while she had notes written on the palm of her hand. When asked how Obama could improve his chances for re-election, Palin suggested (with a straight face) that Obama should declare war on Iran. She is a walking punchline! A Palin presidential campaign would help the economy by keeping joke writers across the country employed.

The second reason I would love to see Palin headlining the GOP ticket is because it would virtually guarantee a landslide for President Obama. Sure, those tea party guys love to hear Palin speak, but would they really want her to answer 3am call at the White House? I sure don't. I wouldn't trust Palin's opinion on what I should have for lunch let alone matters of national security. The country, led by President Obama, is heading for recovery. It may be a slow recovery, but it is happening none the less. Putting Palin opposite Obama in an election is a sure fire way to keep Barack Obama leading us in the right direction. Do I want Obama back for a second term? You betcha!

Email Jeff