While I'm on the topic of stupidity in the ranks of college sports, the story about the live tiger mascot at LSU made my stomach turn. This animal was put in a cage and rolled into noisy stadiums and noisy basketball arenas for the sick pleasure of the fans. The president of the university thinks that's just dandy. In fact, he tries to present it as an act of wildlife protection! See, if the animal is locked in LSU's little cage, the poachers can't get at it! Ain't that swell?
The university thinks it's being humane by providing the animal with an enclosure of 15,000 square feet. These are large cats that live in jungles and roam huge tracts of land. As PETA says, their habitats should be measured in acres, not feet. Nonetheless, these dumb-assed Southern bumpkins are hell-bent on getting another cat to torture. And they wonder why everyone thinks Southerners are boorish, cruel, uneducated jackasses!
27 May 2007
Scoring a 10 on the WTF Meter
My love of sports is something I grew up with. From football to basketball, baseball, softball, tennis--pretty much anything but golf or car racing (not sports)--I basically love 'em all. I'm especially a big fan of college sports. Nonetheless, I haven't been paying much attention to any sport for the better part of six months. I've simply been preoccupied. So, when I decided to peruse ESPN.com the other day, Iwas shocked to find an article concerning the NCAA rules on scholarship loss by female athletes.
The article talks about how the NCAA is considering revising its policy on pregnant athletes. At present, schools are allowed to yank the scholarships of female athletes if they become pregnant. I honestly could not believe it. If I ever needed evidence that (A) Title IX is not properly enforced, and (B) Title IX does not go far enough in its protection of females' rights to equal education, I've found it.
A large segment of the population is ignorant about what Title IX is all about. While it's commonly written off as a school sports law, it is actually focused on education, in general. It requires that females be given equal access to education. Once upon a time, girls who became pregnant or got married were forced out of school. My mother, for example, went to school in the heavily Mormon White Mountains of Arizona. At her school, pregnant and married girls were thought to be corrupting influences who had to be kept away from "good" girls. They were not allowed to complete their educations. Title IX put a stop to that. So, I wonder, how are schools allowed to threaten students with loss of scholarships for getting pregnant?
The old double standard rears its hideous head on this one. The number of male athletes who have at least one out-of-wedlock child is staggering. None are threatened with losing their scholarships. Anyone who has seen the movie Hoop Dreams has seen how some coaches even encourage their young male charges to basically dump their child completely on the mother. They need to be "boys," out playing sports--not worrying about being home to watch a kid. Of course, the fact that the young girl's life is made that much harder by such behavior isn't the coaches worry.
So, why is the male athlete/young father encouraged to continue school and his athletic pursuits, while the female athlete/young mother is threatened with the loss of scholarships? Because she's a "bad" girl? Because she needs to be punished for her "mistake," her "irresponsibility"?
I can already hear the claims that it's about time taken off to give birth. Why, then, are male athletes not threatened with loss of scholarship if they are injured or get sick? One of the players on the University of Arizona men's basketball team missed the entire season this past year with a case of mono. He was not threatened with the loss of his scholarship. Players who have debilitating injuries, even career-ending injuries are usually allowed to keep their scholarships, even if they never step on the playing field or court again. What is the difference?
The fact is that the loss of a scholarship at such a time in a young woman's life is likely to end her future and that of her child. At the exact time when money and time are going to dwindle, her ability to pay for college can be taken away? How can anyone who does such a thing live with themselves?
The article talks about how the NCAA is considering revising its policy on pregnant athletes. At present, schools are allowed to yank the scholarships of female athletes if they become pregnant. I honestly could not believe it. If I ever needed evidence that (A) Title IX is not properly enforced, and (B) Title IX does not go far enough in its protection of females' rights to equal education, I've found it.
A large segment of the population is ignorant about what Title IX is all about. While it's commonly written off as a school sports law, it is actually focused on education, in general. It requires that females be given equal access to education. Once upon a time, girls who became pregnant or got married were forced out of school. My mother, for example, went to school in the heavily Mormon White Mountains of Arizona. At her school, pregnant and married girls were thought to be corrupting influences who had to be kept away from "good" girls. They were not allowed to complete their educations. Title IX put a stop to that. So, I wonder, how are schools allowed to threaten students with loss of scholarships for getting pregnant?
The old double standard rears its hideous head on this one. The number of male athletes who have at least one out-of-wedlock child is staggering. None are threatened with losing their scholarships. Anyone who has seen the movie Hoop Dreams has seen how some coaches even encourage their young male charges to basically dump their child completely on the mother. They need to be "boys," out playing sports--not worrying about being home to watch a kid. Of course, the fact that the young girl's life is made that much harder by such behavior isn't the coaches worry.
So, why is the male athlete/young father encouraged to continue school and his athletic pursuits, while the female athlete/young mother is threatened with the loss of scholarships? Because she's a "bad" girl? Because she needs to be punished for her "mistake," her "irresponsibility"?
I can already hear the claims that it's about time taken off to give birth. Why, then, are male athletes not threatened with loss of scholarship if they are injured or get sick? One of the players on the University of Arizona men's basketball team missed the entire season this past year with a case of mono. He was not threatened with the loss of his scholarship. Players who have debilitating injuries, even career-ending injuries are usually allowed to keep their scholarships, even if they never step on the playing field or court again. What is the difference?
The fact is that the loss of a scholarship at such a time in a young woman's life is likely to end her future and that of her child. At the exact time when money and time are going to dwindle, her ability to pay for college can be taken away? How can anyone who does such a thing live with themselves?
16 May 2007
More on Reality TV, Race and Class
Of course, one go-'round on an issue is never enough for me, so I'm revisiting the topic of the great Survivor "controversy" and what it says about race and class issues in this country. Specifically, this issue lays bare the hypocrisy of white, middle-class America. The fact is that most white Americans step on people for their own personal gain every single day. In fact, the tenets of capitalism allow for exploitation of others, and white Americans celebrate the glory of that particular economic system constantly. When the white CEO gets a huge bonus for "downsizing," he's just doing business, looking out for investors--and that's a good thing, if you ask white America. When someone screws someone else's spouse or significant other, they may not get a pat on the back, but they certainly don't get throngs of people fueled by a mob mentality attacking them in cyberspace. When someone talks behind a friends back, s/he tries to justify it by explaining away the behavior, making herself or himself the actual victim. When someone scrabbles up the corporate ladder on the backs of others, they are "just getting ahead"--and corporate culture encourages said behavior. All of these things are done by "good," "honest" white Americans every last day in real life. Nonetheless, when a black man makes a self-interested decision on a game show that is rooted in manipulation and betrayal, he is pilloried. The racist condemnation of all African-Americans runs rampant. The usual hatred of the poor shows its face. The hypocrisy oozes from the pores of all those fools posting vile nonsense on Internet message boards. The last time I was this motivated to get the hell out of this country was after the last presidential elections. Americans deserve the contempt they get from the rest of the world. They just proved it again.
15 May 2007
Reality TV Reveals an Ugly Reality: Dreamz, Class and Race in America
Anyone with even the slightest interest in reality TV is aware of the brouhaha over the latest season of Survivor. A great ugliness has been revealed in the 14th season of the show, and it isn't the decision made by one young African-American man to renege on a promise he made. Instead, it's the nasty face of racism and classism that is running rampant across the Internet.
The event in question, of course, was the decision by Dreamz not to honor a deal he made with fan-favorite Yau Man. The deal in question happened during the regular "car give-away" reward challenge. Just before the challenge, Dreamz asked the others if there was any chance to give him a car, please do it. This is not unprecedented, as a previous car winner was offered the chance to give away her car. She chose not to at that time and was promptly voted off. Dreamz talked in his confessional about how he was the only one of the remaining players who didn't own a car. Dreamz has talked about his past of homelessness and drug-addicted family members. He was certainly not the kind of person who usually gets cast on American reality shows. The others--especially the very smart, strategic Yau Man--knew that this past was his Achilles heel. So, when Yau Man won the new truck, he decided to make a deal with Dreamz. He started by saying, "Dreamz, how much do you need that truck?" Clearly, he was playing off the need of a man who had grown up in severe poverty. When Dreamz reiterated that he was the only one there without a vehicle, Yau Man offered a deal: if the two of them made it to the final 4 and Dreamz won immunity, he would give it to Yau Man. It was made clear that Yau Man had no way to enforce said deal, and he agreed to that. Dreamz took the deal. Yau Man immediately admitted that, although it was nice to be able to give such a gift, it was a strategic decision. Dreamz quickly realized what this meant for him: Yau Man wanted to take immunity and vote Dreamz out at final 4. And Dreamz was right, Yau Man did want to get rid of him--before the final 4, in fact, as he had explicitly stated to others.
Well, the two of them did end up in the final 4. What's more--surprise, surprise--the challenge was tailor-made for Dreamz to excel. He did. He won. The kid fought himself over the decision. He said he wanted his son to know he was a man of his word, but he also knew that the money would make a huge difference in the lives of his family. He had to decide which one would mean more to his kid. When the time came, he decided the chance at the cash would mean more to his son. He kept his immunity and Yau Man was voted off.
So, now comes the backlash, and it has been hideous. In the blog of former Survivor contestant, BobDawg, he writes of some of the hideous posts on the CBS message boards. Here's some of what he had to say:
"**'Young Black America has no future if Dreamz-like people are their role model!... The only thing he taught me: there isn’t much honor, honesty, faith or self respect left in Black community as long as a "difficult life" is an acceptable excuse for becoming scum!'
"BobDawg sez: I had no idea the entire black community was counting on Dreamz to save us. Now I know what that ‘lost’ feeling I’ve been having is, because now I’m found. Too bad Dreamz dropped the ball. It’s all over for us now. Thanks a lot, ‘brother’…"
Even worse, he writes about this poster:
"And my favorite…
** 'I have nothing at all against the asians. I think they are extremely intelligent people and generally are friendly and good citizens. Let me also say, I am the first to notice a wonderful black person. May I remind you all I said I liked Earl (although he should've voted Cassandra in the end but I'm not at all suprised they all stick together LOL), and some of the others on this season, whose names aren't coming to me at the time. I also have a couple black friends that I hold in the highest regard. Do I still believe they are the exception?? Absolutely! But they are also people that don't speak ebonics, don't celebrate a made up holiday such as Kwanza, don't wear their pants down below their butt and sideways hat and repeatedly talk extremely loud in public with foul language, don't give extremely rude attitude along with dirty looks to people they don't even know, etc etc etc. The list could go on and on. I'm sure you get my point. And I'm also sure if you were honest with yourself you would maybe admit a lot of those thing, if not all, bother you too and are completely unnecessary for the human race. Back to Dreamz though.. that was not the usual lie on Survivor as many would agree with. This was a $60,000 gift given in exchange for a man's word and a handshake and swearing to God on national television.'
"BobDawg Sez: Wow. I have to admit, this one actually made me laugh. 'That’s not the usual lie people would agree with'???? Pray tell, which lies are the ones we agree with? Where’s the morality compass pointing on that one? And in a game full of lies that are apparently ok, Dre’s was so far and away worse that it deserves 300 thread pages and all this vicious name calling? And I had no idea people actually still say out loud stuff like 'the Asians are smart' and 'the blacks are lazy' and 'I’m not racist. I have black friends.' That’s so… 90s. It sounds like something from one of those ‘lesson’ episodes on Diff’rent Strokes... "
On the message boards at Televison Without Pity, one poster uses very poor spelling to write about Dre's "crokidile tears" and how he surely sheds them when he "beats women and robs convenience stores." This for a guy who did what all successful contestants on Survivor have done--tell a lie and renege on a deal?
Of course, we have the former TV actor and short-film producer (not to mention former contestant) Jonathan writing on the Survivor blogs about Dre's lack of integrity and how it makes him sick for society. Mind you, Jonathan was demonized in his own season for a lack of integrity and made the sarcastic quip about how these people seemed to think no one had ever lied on Survivor before. I guess he's just glad to get to piss on someone else. (Besides, a guy who actually did a TV episode of a Fran Drescher series should really still be hiding his face in absolute shame.)
However, Jonathan does at least have the ability to recognize something that most people are overlooking in this entire matter: living on the street forces one to adopt a different ethic. Middle-class, educated white people have never had to live that way and have no idea how they would react. The fact is that Jonathan's lecture about "longterm consequences" means fuck all to someone on the street. You take what you can get now because there may not be a "longterm." What's more, you don't allow yourself to look like a mark to potential exploiters or you will become one. Finally, you don't develop a deep bond with or trust in people outside your circle because they may or may not stick around. Once you've lived that way long enough, it is difficult to shake.
The part that really takes the cake, though, is that Yau Man is being hailed as some kind of saint. Look, I liked the guy a lot. I was rooting for Earl, but I dug the hell out of Yau Man for reasons very similar to the ones that made me like Rupert Boneham back in his first season. They both came in as underdogs. Rupert was selected the most likely to be voted off first by the viewers leading up to his season, and promptly came out and blew the doors off. Yau Man was an older, frail-looking guy who turned out to be not only smart, but also quite the immunity threat. That made him beloved.
However, the idea that he did something for Dre out of the goodness of his heart and Dre is scum for betraying him is bullshit. Yau Man said as much when he said that it was strategy. Furthermore, he had previously told others that he wanted Dre out sooner rather than later despite the fact that they were supposedly allies. And, y'know what? That was smart of Yau Man. He was playing a game that rewards that kind of behavior. Dre, too, was smart for turning it on its head and breaking his word. Would that be admirable in real life? No. However, they all enter this game with the agreement that they will be lied to, manipulated and betrayed. This show has been going on for a while. Nobody should be surprised by how it is played at this point. What's more, Yau Man specifically tried to exploit Dre's poverty to his own advantage--and that, I guess, is an admirable act in the eyes of America.
Dre is a young man. He was playing a game that is based on lying, deceiving, betraying. Anyone who doesn't see that is lying to themselves. What's more, anyone who decries that fact and still watches the show is a hypocrite. After all, if they don't like the way the game rewards betrayal, manipulation and exploitation, then they shouldn't be watching. The abuse he is taking is what really concerns me. How do people--apparently morally unblemished and upright, if they are to be believed--pile on in a mob frenzy and live with themselves? After all, they are not playing a game. They are, in fact, doing this in the real world. They are truly showing the dankness in their own souls by attacking Dreamz in the vile, racist, self-righteous way that they are.
The event in question, of course, was the decision by Dreamz not to honor a deal he made with fan-favorite Yau Man. The deal in question happened during the regular "car give-away" reward challenge. Just before the challenge, Dreamz asked the others if there was any chance to give him a car, please do it. This is not unprecedented, as a previous car winner was offered the chance to give away her car. She chose not to at that time and was promptly voted off. Dreamz talked in his confessional about how he was the only one of the remaining players who didn't own a car. Dreamz has talked about his past of homelessness and drug-addicted family members. He was certainly not the kind of person who usually gets cast on American reality shows. The others--especially the very smart, strategic Yau Man--knew that this past was his Achilles heel. So, when Yau Man won the new truck, he decided to make a deal with Dreamz. He started by saying, "Dreamz, how much do you need that truck?" Clearly, he was playing off the need of a man who had grown up in severe poverty. When Dreamz reiterated that he was the only one there without a vehicle, Yau Man offered a deal: if the two of them made it to the final 4 and Dreamz won immunity, he would give it to Yau Man. It was made clear that Yau Man had no way to enforce said deal, and he agreed to that. Dreamz took the deal. Yau Man immediately admitted that, although it was nice to be able to give such a gift, it was a strategic decision. Dreamz quickly realized what this meant for him: Yau Man wanted to take immunity and vote Dreamz out at final 4. And Dreamz was right, Yau Man did want to get rid of him--before the final 4, in fact, as he had explicitly stated to others.
Well, the two of them did end up in the final 4. What's more--surprise, surprise--the challenge was tailor-made for Dreamz to excel. He did. He won. The kid fought himself over the decision. He said he wanted his son to know he was a man of his word, but he also knew that the money would make a huge difference in the lives of his family. He had to decide which one would mean more to his kid. When the time came, he decided the chance at the cash would mean more to his son. He kept his immunity and Yau Man was voted off.
So, now comes the backlash, and it has been hideous. In the blog of former Survivor contestant, BobDawg, he writes of some of the hideous posts on the CBS message boards. Here's some of what he had to say:
"**'Young Black America has no future if Dreamz-like people are their role model!... The only thing he taught me: there isn’t much honor, honesty, faith or self respect left in Black community as long as a "difficult life" is an acceptable excuse for becoming scum!'
"BobDawg sez: I had no idea the entire black community was counting on Dreamz to save us. Now I know what that ‘lost’ feeling I’ve been having is, because now I’m found. Too bad Dreamz dropped the ball. It’s all over for us now. Thanks a lot, ‘brother’…"
Even worse, he writes about this poster:
"And my favorite…
** 'I have nothing at all against the asians. I think they are extremely intelligent people and generally are friendly and good citizens. Let me also say, I am the first to notice a wonderful black person. May I remind you all I said I liked Earl (although he should've voted Cassandra in the end but I'm not at all suprised they all stick together LOL), and some of the others on this season, whose names aren't coming to me at the time. I also have a couple black friends that I hold in the highest regard. Do I still believe they are the exception?? Absolutely! But they are also people that don't speak ebonics, don't celebrate a made up holiday such as Kwanza, don't wear their pants down below their butt and sideways hat and repeatedly talk extremely loud in public with foul language, don't give extremely rude attitude along with dirty looks to people they don't even know, etc etc etc. The list could go on and on. I'm sure you get my point. And I'm also sure if you were honest with yourself you would maybe admit a lot of those thing, if not all, bother you too and are completely unnecessary for the human race. Back to Dreamz though.. that was not the usual lie on Survivor as many would agree with. This was a $60,000 gift given in exchange for a man's word and a handshake and swearing to God on national television.'
"BobDawg Sez: Wow. I have to admit, this one actually made me laugh. 'That’s not the usual lie people would agree with'???? Pray tell, which lies are the ones we agree with? Where’s the morality compass pointing on that one? And in a game full of lies that are apparently ok, Dre’s was so far and away worse that it deserves 300 thread pages and all this vicious name calling? And I had no idea people actually still say out loud stuff like 'the Asians are smart' and 'the blacks are lazy' and 'I’m not racist. I have black friends.' That’s so… 90s. It sounds like something from one of those ‘lesson’ episodes on Diff’rent Strokes... "
On the message boards at Televison Without Pity, one poster uses very poor spelling to write about Dre's "crokidile tears" and how he surely sheds them when he "beats women and robs convenience stores." This for a guy who did what all successful contestants on Survivor have done--tell a lie and renege on a deal?
Of course, we have the former TV actor and short-film producer (not to mention former contestant) Jonathan writing on the Survivor blogs about Dre's lack of integrity and how it makes him sick for society. Mind you, Jonathan was demonized in his own season for a lack of integrity and made the sarcastic quip about how these people seemed to think no one had ever lied on Survivor before. I guess he's just glad to get to piss on someone else. (Besides, a guy who actually did a TV episode of a Fran Drescher series should really still be hiding his face in absolute shame.)
However, Jonathan does at least have the ability to recognize something that most people are overlooking in this entire matter: living on the street forces one to adopt a different ethic. Middle-class, educated white people have never had to live that way and have no idea how they would react. The fact is that Jonathan's lecture about "longterm consequences" means fuck all to someone on the street. You take what you can get now because there may not be a "longterm." What's more, you don't allow yourself to look like a mark to potential exploiters or you will become one. Finally, you don't develop a deep bond with or trust in people outside your circle because they may or may not stick around. Once you've lived that way long enough, it is difficult to shake.
The part that really takes the cake, though, is that Yau Man is being hailed as some kind of saint. Look, I liked the guy a lot. I was rooting for Earl, but I dug the hell out of Yau Man for reasons very similar to the ones that made me like Rupert Boneham back in his first season. They both came in as underdogs. Rupert was selected the most likely to be voted off first by the viewers leading up to his season, and promptly came out and blew the doors off. Yau Man was an older, frail-looking guy who turned out to be not only smart, but also quite the immunity threat. That made him beloved.
However, the idea that he did something for Dre out of the goodness of his heart and Dre is scum for betraying him is bullshit. Yau Man said as much when he said that it was strategy. Furthermore, he had previously told others that he wanted Dre out sooner rather than later despite the fact that they were supposedly allies. And, y'know what? That was smart of Yau Man. He was playing a game that rewards that kind of behavior. Dre, too, was smart for turning it on its head and breaking his word. Would that be admirable in real life? No. However, they all enter this game with the agreement that they will be lied to, manipulated and betrayed. This show has been going on for a while. Nobody should be surprised by how it is played at this point. What's more, Yau Man specifically tried to exploit Dre's poverty to his own advantage--and that, I guess, is an admirable act in the eyes of America.
Dre is a young man. He was playing a game that is based on lying, deceiving, betraying. Anyone who doesn't see that is lying to themselves. What's more, anyone who decries that fact and still watches the show is a hypocrite. After all, if they don't like the way the game rewards betrayal, manipulation and exploitation, then they shouldn't be watching. The abuse he is taking is what really concerns me. How do people--apparently morally unblemished and upright, if they are to be believed--pile on in a mob frenzy and live with themselves? After all, they are not playing a game. They are, in fact, doing this in the real world. They are truly showing the dankness in their own souls by attacking Dreamz in the vile, racist, self-righteous way that they are.
17 April 2007
More insanity on the Internet
Continuing on the topic of the complete and utter lack of humanity that has cast a wide net over online society, I've come across several discussions of the targeting of female bloggers with online threats and harassment. While the vast majority of this truly pathological behavior is the work of straight males, women are not immune from attacking other women or targeting them for ridicule. That's obvious when one explores sites dedicated to "snark" and celebrity gossip. However, the world of politics does not provide a woman refuge from attacks by other women. Hell, if women can be vilely targeted for writing about computer software, there is no safety anywhere...
I'm not going to re-hash the Kathy Sierra thing, but I have to echo and expand upon some of the sentiments expressed by Joan Walsh at salon.com. The thing that struck me the most as I perused the comments at the Sierra blog, as well as entries about it at feministing.com and various other places, was the insistence by a considerable number of commenters that online attacks and misogyny--up to and including sexual threats against women on the web--has to be expected, accepted and tolerated. It's just one more bomb in the war of assholes. They don't need to control their stupidity or the hate rotting their souls. They have the absolute goddamned right to threaten women, and those women better just shut up and take it. If they don't, if they dare speak out against it, then they're "drama queens," as one commenter on Sierra's blog called her.
The whole thing reminds me of something that happened to me when I first started going online in the mid-90s. At the time, I was using AOL simply because it was the easiest way to get online without a credit card at that time. Not long after I started going online, this creep started contacting me via IM. Every message from him was sexual in nature. What's more, he lived in my own city. (Does it surprise anyone that he was also employed in the "corrections" industry--specifically, as a probation officer?)
At first, I would simply try to steer the conversation to something more appropriate. I made it clear that I was very happily married and in no way interested in cybersex. He wouldn't take the polite request to knock it off. So, finally, I flat out told him to stop contacting me. I told him I found his constant sexual badgering to be obnoxious, and I blocked him from contacting me further.
That should have been that. After all, I had not initiated any of the contact with this man. I had made it clear that I wasn't interested in his sexual needs. I had tried to be nice about it. Unfortunately, he wasn't going to let it go. In retaliation, he contacted AOL and reported me for posting "offensive content." I still have no idea what "offensive content" I might have posted, but the idea that this creep would try to have me booted from my ISP because I refused to take part in his demands for sexual response infuriates me to this day.
The fact that this guy lived in the same city as I do still gives me the creeps. Fortunately, his attempts to "punish" me for refusing to make myself available to his demands were not physically threatening. However, the very fact that he made any such attempt at all is indicative of a twisted mind.
I'm not going to re-hash the Kathy Sierra thing, but I have to echo and expand upon some of the sentiments expressed by Joan Walsh at salon.com. The thing that struck me the most as I perused the comments at the Sierra blog, as well as entries about it at feministing.com and various other places, was the insistence by a considerable number of commenters that online attacks and misogyny--up to and including sexual threats against women on the web--has to be expected, accepted and tolerated. It's just one more bomb in the war of assholes. They don't need to control their stupidity or the hate rotting their souls. They have the absolute goddamned right to threaten women, and those women better just shut up and take it. If they don't, if they dare speak out against it, then they're "drama queens," as one commenter on Sierra's blog called her.
The whole thing reminds me of something that happened to me when I first started going online in the mid-90s. At the time, I was using AOL simply because it was the easiest way to get online without a credit card at that time. Not long after I started going online, this creep started contacting me via IM. Every message from him was sexual in nature. What's more, he lived in my own city. (Does it surprise anyone that he was also employed in the "corrections" industry--specifically, as a probation officer?)
At first, I would simply try to steer the conversation to something more appropriate. I made it clear that I was very happily married and in no way interested in cybersex. He wouldn't take the polite request to knock it off. So, finally, I flat out told him to stop contacting me. I told him I found his constant sexual badgering to be obnoxious, and I blocked him from contacting me further.
That should have been that. After all, I had not initiated any of the contact with this man. I had made it clear that I wasn't interested in his sexual needs. I had tried to be nice about it. Unfortunately, he wasn't going to let it go. In retaliation, he contacted AOL and reported me for posting "offensive content." I still have no idea what "offensive content" I might have posted, but the idea that this creep would try to have me booted from my ISP because I refused to take part in his demands for sexual response infuriates me to this day.
The fact that this guy lived in the same city as I do still gives me the creeps. Fortunately, his attempts to "punish" me for refusing to make myself available to his demands were not physically threatening. However, the very fact that he made any such attempt at all is indicative of a twisted mind.
15 April 2007
Another interesting link...
The state of American journalism is something that I've grown so accustomed to that having someone comment on its toothlessness doesn't really make much of an impression on me anymore. What does make an impression, though, is hypocrisy. As such, I just had to laugh at Dan Rather's rant about how American journalists allow politicians to use them, and how they're too bound by the idea of patriotism to question politicians during wartime. After all, this was the guy who made the ballsy statement: "George Bush is the president," Rather said, "he makes the decisions." Speaking as "one American," the newsman added: "Wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where. And he'll make the call.". Um, yeah, Dan. You keep on givin' 'em hell!
An interesting link...
More on the Age of Assholism:
Here's an interesting article that made some of the same points (about some of the same targets) that I did in my last couple of posts. It quotes a professor at Johns Hopkins University about the cause of what I call Assholism. His term for it is the "disinhibition effect," which allows people to act, well, inhuman to each other online. He also speaks about cultural narcissism, which refers to the tendency to think that one's own feelings and opinions are valid or important. Sounds just like an average forum post on a well-known television site...hmmm....
The funniest thing, though, is that they actually quote Kathy Griffin on this matter. Wait a minute, isn't this the woman who revels in talking shit about other people? Sorry, but I don't find her amusing. I do, however, find her extremely hypocritical in her comments in this piece.
Regardless, it's not a bad piece. I do find it's insistence that confronting a politician about his policies or actions is somehow tantamount to heckling a comedian bizarre. The only way an average person can confront a politician is in such a manner. More importantly, these are the people who have the power to make life-and-death decisions. They have to expect that they will be confronted by people who find their decisions dangerous and out-of-touch. It's quite another thing to revel in humiliating an actress because she gained 10 pounds.
Here's an interesting article that made some of the same points (about some of the same targets) that I did in my last couple of posts. It quotes a professor at Johns Hopkins University about the cause of what I call Assholism. His term for it is the "disinhibition effect," which allows people to act, well, inhuman to each other online. He also speaks about cultural narcissism, which refers to the tendency to think that one's own feelings and opinions are valid or important. Sounds just like an average forum post on a well-known television site...hmmm....
The funniest thing, though, is that they actually quote Kathy Griffin on this matter. Wait a minute, isn't this the woman who revels in talking shit about other people? Sorry, but I don't find her amusing. I do, however, find her extremely hypocritical in her comments in this piece.
Regardless, it's not a bad piece. I do find it's insistence that confronting a politician about his policies or actions is somehow tantamount to heckling a comedian bizarre. The only way an average person can confront a politician is in such a manner. More importantly, these are the people who have the power to make life-and-death decisions. They have to expect that they will be confronted by people who find their decisions dangerous and out-of-touch. It's quite another thing to revel in humiliating an actress because she gained 10 pounds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)