Wednesday, August 26, 2009

While it is certainly old news to anyone that cared enough to pay attention to the story, the Henry Louis Gates fiasco bears discussion. The incident that led to all the mess was certainly unfortunate for everyone involved, but it did illustrate an important lesson: There doesn't always have to be a "right" and "wrong" side of an issue/argument.

A brief recap:

-Dr. Gates, an esteemed Harvard professor that is African-American returns to his home in Cambridge, Massachusetts after a trip overseas.
-Upon arrival, he and his driver struggle to get the door unlocked/open. It is apparently jammed.
-While they (both African-American) try to pry the house door open, a neighbor sees this happening and calls 911 in fear that the house is being robbed.
-Two police officers arrive on the scene and begin questioning Gates as if a robbery had been attempted. Gates explains the scenario and cause for confusion.
-Gates is highly agitated and becomes "disorderly" with the officers, so he's arrested and taken into custody by Officer Crowley (white), with assistance from Officer Lashley (black).
-Boom!

In the end, all charges were dropped and President Obama made a hasty remark about the police officer(s) responded "stupidly". (Incidentally, how that little faux pas hasn't been further scrutinized, the world may never know.) Regardless, it basically was portrayed as a clear-cut example of racial profiling since among the two men trying to open the door and the two police officers, three were black and one was white. If only it could have been all one race or another, this would have never been a story.

Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist or anything, but the media really has taken this story and made it into something it is not. This is easy to assess because the story was nothing to start with, so making it into anything is, by default, making it into something it is not. By presenting this as actual "news", it has made people think they have to have an opinion on it and ultimately take a side. Once everyone chooses sides, it is their duty to defend their position and spit vitriol at the opposing side. Then the media can report on that. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Could it possibly be that there is not a "right" or "wrong" side to this story? Maybe Dr. Gates is partially innocent and partially guilty? After all, he was never charged with breaking into his own house (obviously). He was charged with disorderly conduct because he became very aggressive and hostile toward the police officers, both white and black. That's usually what happens when you are aggressive and hostile toward a police officer, regardless of your race or theirs. Officer Crowley can also be held to blame for not being more rational, given the circumstances. He acknowledged that it was Dr. Gates' house during the proceedings, so he had a basis for why Dr. Gates would be so frustrated in such circumstance. Ultimately it doesn't really matter who did what first or to what extent. Among two grown men, one an internationally-esteemed scholar and the other a civil servant, it is sad that the outcome was what it was. It doesn't really say much for society, especially in the cradle of higher learning of this country.

Almost on cue in response to the actions of a couple of grown men that know better, President Obama made his now-famous offer to have a beer with Gates and Crowley. Of course, this was just what the media needed. Was this a new and exciting way to resolve conflict from the brilliant leader? Or was it a lame attempt at appearing harmonious and cool at the same time? Again, couldn't the answer be "neither" and it not really matter either way? Will the Obama/Gates/Crowley beer summit stop a violent act from happening? Will it make anyone legitimately feel better about themselves? Unfortunately, the answer has to be "no" to both questions. But did it give the media something to talk about once they were tired of talking about the incident that led to it? Absolutely.


Geez, hopefully nobody noticed that Gates' beer was darker than the others.
New favorite Facebook comment for anything:

WOW!...Just WOW!

Find new and fun ways to work it into your daily life...

-When you get cut off in morning traffic: WOW!...Just WOW!

-When you get a ridiculous assignment at work: WOW!...Just WOW!

-When you eat too much for lunch: WOW!...Just WOW!

-When you read a story in the newspaper: WOW!...Just WOW!

-When your obnoxious neighbors make highly inconsiderate noise all night: WOW!...Just WOW!

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

So yes, it's fairly odd that a video clip from CBS Sunday Morning would show up around here, but it meets the main criteria of inclusion in this blog. If you're unaware of said criteria, here's a reminder:

1. Involves something ridiculous/annoying
2. Involves people following something blindly
3. Involves boredom
4. Involves the Cleveland Indians
5. Involves Wilco

Aha! Number 5 it is!



Save your comments about how it's lame for a media outlet that targets old people with hip music. Given that the age range of Wilco's members is about 40 to 53, it's sort of a lost argument in this case.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Strange things:

-Michael Vick has been signed by a team that used to play in a stadium nicknamed "The Vet".

-Brett Favre has cried in public multiple times and now has worked so hard...to wear purple.

-There are still movies being made in the Final Destination and Fast and Furious series.

-After many long days at work, a box of Wheat Thins is the perfect accompaniment to couch-time.

-Bud Light is already making commercials that are blatant rip-offs of the Billy Mays ad man style. Too soon?

-Usain Bolt is a human.

-Man U lost to Burnley.

Monday, August 3, 2009

Cash for Clunkers is such a hit. Just like so many other big ideas. Of course the idea is nice and many people are doing everything they can to make the most of it. Why shouldn't they? They got to buy that land-barge several years back and burn tons of gasoline while oil was relatively cheap, which led to new highways being built and old highways being ruined. Since so many of these huge gas-guzzlers were American-made, it gave the domestic automobile industry a false sense of hope and security. Now all that's left are bailouts and the Hummer.

Think of Cash for Clunkers as a "bailout for the people". The benefit being that it will lead people to buy new cars that are more fuel-efficient than their previous models. Yes, that makes the environment happy, but it also encourages people drive a lot more and clog up highways more and get in wrecks more and demonstrate what terrible drivers they are more. Soon though, once everyone has a chance to take their new cars out to see the stimulus money in action, there will be some kind of hip, fun way to encourage people to leave their new cars in the garage and ride the subway. After all, isn't it supposed to be more "green" to use public transportation? What better spokesman to remind you of this than Joe Biden?

Proponents of CARS will argue that this plan is designed so that the poor, huddled masses that can't afford a new car can now experience the joy of a new car that also helps the environment. While some of these less-fortunate people drive old "clunkers" (it's so nice to potentially hear your Federal Government call your car a clunker), many drive small economy-size cars that are really terrible, but happen to be fuel-efficient enough not to qualify because it takes so little gas to power a 1.2-liter engine that only generates 110 horsepower. In the eyes of the government, your 1989 Toyota Tercel with a missing mirror, duct tape bumper and a stripped transmission is NOT a clunker. However, if a few years ago you insisted on a having a gigantic SUV to traverse the suburbs, you're in luck!

Sorry, to be repetitive, but it's just so nice for the tax-paying public to shoulder the cost of bailing out people that made selfish (not to mention, ultimately ill-advised) decisions. Many of the same people that were outraged about the actions of AIG and the sort are probably all to happy to get some easy money for their automobile that doesn't really have any market value in a world where gasoline costs more than $1.50 a gallon. It really does seem like politics is nothing more than an elaborate system of deciding who takes responsibility for whose actions. The answer is more and more becoming that everyone takes responsibility for everyone's actions because that's fair. Ask yourself what the definition of "fair" is and see if it aligns with everything that is going on. If it does and you're happy with the thought, then see how this definition applies to other aspects of your life. Eventually there's a disconnect.

Maybe this opinion on Cash for Clunkers is a little one-sided and the true benefits are being overlooked for the sake of a truly stirring blog entry. Also, maybe not everyone can meet the eligibility requirements, despite driving an 11-year old car built for performance, not fuel efficiency. What a load.