Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Defending the Indefensible
Two recent stories jumped out at me this weekend. Initially unrelated, the more I thought about them the more I realized they touched on the issue of "free speech" and the curious habit of people on the Internet leaping to the support of people/organizations that don’t need (or deserve) any help.
First off, Kevin Smith was thrown off a Southwest Airlines flight because he looked too fat, emphasis on "looked" because he flew on that same airline later in the day without losing any weight. This frightens me because the airline has done this before and it wasn’t any more justified then than it was this time; some ignorant staffer just made a gut decision that a paying customer didn’t safely fit in one seat without actually confirming said suspicion. Any situation where people are being denied service because they look fat is of obvious concern for me, even when the discriminators are operating a business 5000 miles from my present location.
Given that Kevin Smith is famous, it didn’t take long for the PR people at Southwest to realize that they needed to respond to this mistake. However, they made the curious choice of apologizing for mistreating him while simultaneously asserting their right to do so. That’s like Denny’s refusing to serve a black guy and after they apologize, insisting that "in our defense, you really are black and we’d rather not have your kind in our restaurant."
The other details thus far are irrelevant (talk of safety concerns, standby status, and how many seats were purchased doesn’t matter when the person in question clearly fits in the allotted space) but what nags me are some of the comments on the Southwest Airlines "apology" page. More than a few people are in favor of ejecting passengers who appear obese, with one crazy person even citing the corporation’s right to "free speech."
While the right to refuse service is a logical one, as it protects businesses from legitimately unruly or disruptive customers, should we really accept that people are subject to superficial discrimination like this? Sure, Southwest has the option to remove fat people from their airplanes, but even if you’re not overweight this should be disturbing news. I don’t think an airline should be allowed to decline a passenger based on how they look any more than a hotel or a landlord should.
We’ll get back to that, but let’s get to that second news story that caught my eye: someone made threatening remarks over Xbox LIVE and the police were called. Again, there are commenters jumping to the defense of the angry young man, asserting his right to "free speech" and lamenting Microsoft’s meddling into the privacy of its customers. Even the article initially used the verb "rats out" in its headline before softening its stance.
Never mind the fact that the First Amendment to the Constitution doesn’t apply to private forums, it’s frightening to me that anyone alive today would take a stand against investigating threats of violence. If the 1999 Columbine massacre is too hazy in their memories, perhaps they can recall the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007? Aggressive statements and actions should never be ignored. I don’t know whether this guy was serious or not, but if he’s going to announce his intentions to kill people I want him questioned by the authorities.
How do these two disparate stories connect? In both cases, defenders of the wrongdoers rally behind "free speech" as an excuse for unconscionable behavior. This offends me because the more often people incorrectly cry that their rights are violated, the less impact legitimate complaints have. Call it The Boy Who Cried Free Speech; eventually people stop listening even if you’re telling the truth.
The basic misconception at work in both these situations is that free speech does not equal consequence-free speech. Just because something cannot be outlawed doesn’t mean it cannot go unpunished. I have the right to declare aloud "God hates fags" in San Francisco or proclaim "I hate niggers" in Harlem, but the anger that would follow could not be waved away with the Bill of Rights.
Southwest Airlines may have the right to turn away fatties and this angry Xbox user may have the right to shoot his mouth off, but they both need to face up to their actions when the outraged response arrives. Citing policies or the Constitution is not a defense and I cannot fathom why outside parties would weigh in with such statements.
Perhaps I’m reading too much into this. Any statement on the Internet, no matter how ignorant, is bound to draw at least one friendly response. It just puzzles me to see strangers defend discrimination and potential violence by citing the same lofty source.
つづく...(Click here to read more)
First off, Kevin Smith was thrown off a Southwest Airlines flight because he looked too fat, emphasis on "looked" because he flew on that same airline later in the day without losing any weight. This frightens me because the airline has done this before and it wasn’t any more justified then than it was this time; some ignorant staffer just made a gut decision that a paying customer didn’t safely fit in one seat without actually confirming said suspicion. Any situation where people are being denied service because they look fat is of obvious concern for me, even when the discriminators are operating a business 5000 miles from my present location.
Given that Kevin Smith is famous, it didn’t take long for the PR people at Southwest to realize that they needed to respond to this mistake. However, they made the curious choice of apologizing for mistreating him while simultaneously asserting their right to do so. That’s like Denny’s refusing to serve a black guy and after they apologize, insisting that "in our defense, you really are black and we’d rather not have your kind in our restaurant."
The other details thus far are irrelevant (talk of safety concerns, standby status, and how many seats were purchased doesn’t matter when the person in question clearly fits in the allotted space) but what nags me are some of the comments on the Southwest Airlines "apology" page. More than a few people are in favor of ejecting passengers who appear obese, with one crazy person even citing the corporation’s right to "free speech."
While the right to refuse service is a logical one, as it protects businesses from legitimately unruly or disruptive customers, should we really accept that people are subject to superficial discrimination like this? Sure, Southwest has the option to remove fat people from their airplanes, but even if you’re not overweight this should be disturbing news. I don’t think an airline should be allowed to decline a passenger based on how they look any more than a hotel or a landlord should.
We’ll get back to that, but let’s get to that second news story that caught my eye: someone made threatening remarks over Xbox LIVE and the police were called. Again, there are commenters jumping to the defense of the angry young man, asserting his right to "free speech" and lamenting Microsoft’s meddling into the privacy of its customers. Even the article initially used the verb "rats out" in its headline before softening its stance.
Never mind the fact that the First Amendment to the Constitution doesn’t apply to private forums, it’s frightening to me that anyone alive today would take a stand against investigating threats of violence. If the 1999 Columbine massacre is too hazy in their memories, perhaps they can recall the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007? Aggressive statements and actions should never be ignored. I don’t know whether this guy was serious or not, but if he’s going to announce his intentions to kill people I want him questioned by the authorities.
How do these two disparate stories connect? In both cases, defenders of the wrongdoers rally behind "free speech" as an excuse for unconscionable behavior. This offends me because the more often people incorrectly cry that their rights are violated, the less impact legitimate complaints have. Call it The Boy Who Cried Free Speech; eventually people stop listening even if you’re telling the truth.
The basic misconception at work in both these situations is that free speech does not equal consequence-free speech. Just because something cannot be outlawed doesn’t mean it cannot go unpunished. I have the right to declare aloud "God hates fags" in San Francisco or proclaim "I hate niggers" in Harlem, but the anger that would follow could not be waved away with the Bill of Rights.
Southwest Airlines may have the right to turn away fatties and this angry Xbox user may have the right to shoot his mouth off, but they both need to face up to their actions when the outraged response arrives. Citing policies or the Constitution is not a defense and I cannot fathom why outside parties would weigh in with such statements.
Perhaps I’m reading too much into this. Any statement on the Internet, no matter how ignorant, is bound to draw at least one friendly response. It just puzzles me to see strangers defend discrimination and potential violence by citing the same lofty source.
Labels: free speech, I hate people, Internet issues
つづく...(Click here to read more)
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Mourning the Blue Dragon
A great athlete retired last week.
Not because he was too old or because he wanted to pursue other interests, but because he made one too many mistakes outside of the ring. His biggest mistake of all might have been dominating a sport that is too short-sighted to recognize that a great champion is a great champion, period. No amount of "controversy" can justify the Sumo Association pressuring Asashoryu into retirement. Not at the age of 29 and not on the heels of his twenty-fifth tournament championship (in Japanese, yusho).
For those unaware of Asashoryu's accomplishments, I can offer some perspective. His twenty-five yusho qualifies him for third place on the all time list, with first place being a mere seven yusho away. Given the rate at which he won and his relative youth, it was a question of "when" rather than "if" he would find himself on top of that list.
More significant is what his victories represent: his stature as the undisputed best wrestler in sumo of the decade. For three straight years he was the sole yokozuna, the top rank in the sport. This is the longest such period in sumo history.
The title of yokozuna is only bestowed upon wrestlers after winning two consecutive tournaments. During his 2004-2007 solo reign Asashoryu won an incredible sixteen of twenty-one tournaments, including an unprecedented seven straight from November 2004 to November 2005. No one had ever won six yusho in a single calendar year before, let alone seven in a row. He single-handedly ensured that no one else could reach his level because there was no chance for other wrestlers to string two yusho together.
As it turns out, all that winning wasn't good enough. Sumo is unique among professional sports in many areas, but perhaps the most unusual aspect is how strictly a wrestler's lifestyle and public persona is controlled. They never appear outside wearing any modern clothing. They are not supposed to drive themselves. They live, eat, sleep and train together in so-called "stables."
Asashoryu had a "controversial" reputation as a "bad boy" but I don't think there are quotation marks big enough to qualify those terms when one of those "controversies" was Asashoryu celebrating a yusho by raising his arms in the ring. The NFL may have some absurd ideas about what qualifies a celebration excessive but in sumo, it seems any celebration is too much.
Perhaps his sole legitimate transgression was skipping out on a exhibition tournament in 2007 by claiming injury and then competing in a charity soccer match in Mongolia. For his crime he was suspended for two full tournaments and subjected to relentless media attention. I'm guessing the latter hurt more than the former, because during that time he reportedly sought treatment for depression and his wife left him.
What was the incident that pushed him over the edge? Asashoryu got drunk during the January 2010 tournament and allegedly got into a brawl. The more salacious details (death threats?) are the stuff of tabloid rumors and completely unconfirmed. The matter was settled without any lawsuits or criminal charges, though it's generally assumed that the other party received financial compensation for getting beaten up.
I know all of these issues snowball over time and these high-profile screw-ups are Asashoryu's own damn fault, but is this seriously enough motivation to throw someone out of a sport? Especially when said sport is teetering on the brink of irrelevance?
Sumo wrestling may be right up there with ninja and samurai as foreign images of Japan go, but these days there's not much popular interest in the sport. Baseball is far and away the national pastime, with soccer closing in fast. When I talk to my students about their dreams of the future, no one ever says "I want to be a sumo wrestler." Not even the ones who look like sumo wrestlers.
Asashoryu was the face of sumo. When I conducted a (non-scientific) survey about sumo in 2006, asking college students and older adults alike to name their favorite wrestler, he was the practically the only active wrestler anyone could name. Most people thought of champions from the past like Takanohana or Wakanohana. When I watch sumo with my in-laws, they look to me to identify who's who in the ring because they can barely read the elaborate ring names the wrestlers use.
Is sumo dead? Hardly. Is it in danger? Big time. Besides Asashoryu's non-controversies, the Sumo Association has seen some serious scandals in recent years. A number of wrestlers were fired after they tested positive for marijuana use (no laughing matter in Japan). A trainee was beaten to death by his stable master who then tried to cover it up, claiming he died of exhaustion. Combine that incident with the general strictness of the sumo lifestyle and it’s no wonder recruitment is at an all-time low.
Sumo as a sport (and a business) is not in a position to turn away fans or potential athletes right now, and in shoving Asashoryu out the door the Association is are doing both. Nobody cared when Chiyotaikai, a veteran wrestler with a longer tenure than Asashoryu, retired last month. There were no news stories outside of sports coverage and no chatter on the afternoon talk shows.
Meanwhile, Asashoryu was the talk of the television for weeks, starting when the alleged brawl took place and running straight through the end of the tournament and into last week’s Sumo Association election. No, it wasn't all positive news but it was news, something that no struggling sport can refuse.
The fictional Bela Lugosi once said "There is no such thing as bad publicity." I’m not positive that's true, but forcing your star performer and current champion to retire because he was too "ontroversial" is insane. How often do those two qualities overlap? What sport would willing drop both at the same time?
Would Major League Baseball suspend Derek Jeter if he was photographed jogging in a Fun Run while on the disabled list? Would the NFL ever ditch Peyton Manning or Tom Brady for getting drunk after a game? Hell, Michael Vick was convicted of multiple felonies, went to prison and was still welcomed back into the league upon his release (if not by the same team).
Asashoryu broke no law, committed no crime and violated no sacred trust of sumo. He is not Pete Rose, Shoeless Joe Jackson or even Dennis Rodman. Yet the Sumo Association treated him as if he was all three and tossed him to the curb. They should have protected and celebrated his achievements as if he were Michael Jordan.
MJ had a gambling problem, by the way. There's a reason no one cared.
つづく...(Click here to read more)
Not because he was too old or because he wanted to pursue other interests, but because he made one too many mistakes outside of the ring. His biggest mistake of all might have been dominating a sport that is too short-sighted to recognize that a great champion is a great champion, period. No amount of "controversy" can justify the Sumo Association pressuring Asashoryu into retirement. Not at the age of 29 and not on the heels of his twenty-fifth tournament championship (in Japanese, yusho).
For those unaware of Asashoryu's accomplishments, I can offer some perspective. His twenty-five yusho qualifies him for third place on the all time list, with first place being a mere seven yusho away. Given the rate at which he won and his relative youth, it was a question of "when" rather than "if" he would find himself on top of that list.
More significant is what his victories represent: his stature as the undisputed best wrestler in sumo of the decade. For three straight years he was the sole yokozuna, the top rank in the sport. This is the longest such period in sumo history.
The title of yokozuna is only bestowed upon wrestlers after winning two consecutive tournaments. During his 2004-2007 solo reign Asashoryu won an incredible sixteen of twenty-one tournaments, including an unprecedented seven straight from November 2004 to November 2005. No one had ever won six yusho in a single calendar year before, let alone seven in a row. He single-handedly ensured that no one else could reach his level because there was no chance for other wrestlers to string two yusho together.
As it turns out, all that winning wasn't good enough. Sumo is unique among professional sports in many areas, but perhaps the most unusual aspect is how strictly a wrestler's lifestyle and public persona is controlled. They never appear outside wearing any modern clothing. They are not supposed to drive themselves. They live, eat, sleep and train together in so-called "stables."
Asashoryu had a "controversial" reputation as a "bad boy" but I don't think there are quotation marks big enough to qualify those terms when one of those "controversies" was Asashoryu celebrating a yusho by raising his arms in the ring. The NFL may have some absurd ideas about what qualifies a celebration excessive but in sumo, it seems any celebration is too much.
Perhaps his sole legitimate transgression was skipping out on a exhibition tournament in 2007 by claiming injury and then competing in a charity soccer match in Mongolia. For his crime he was suspended for two full tournaments and subjected to relentless media attention. I'm guessing the latter hurt more than the former, because during that time he reportedly sought treatment for depression and his wife left him.
What was the incident that pushed him over the edge? Asashoryu got drunk during the January 2010 tournament and allegedly got into a brawl. The more salacious details (death threats?) are the stuff of tabloid rumors and completely unconfirmed. The matter was settled without any lawsuits or criminal charges, though it's generally assumed that the other party received financial compensation for getting beaten up.
I know all of these issues snowball over time and these high-profile screw-ups are Asashoryu's own damn fault, but is this seriously enough motivation to throw someone out of a sport? Especially when said sport is teetering on the brink of irrelevance?
Sumo wrestling may be right up there with ninja and samurai as foreign images of Japan go, but these days there's not much popular interest in the sport. Baseball is far and away the national pastime, with soccer closing in fast. When I talk to my students about their dreams of the future, no one ever says "I want to be a sumo wrestler." Not even the ones who look like sumo wrestlers.
Asashoryu was the face of sumo. When I conducted a (non-scientific) survey about sumo in 2006, asking college students and older adults alike to name their favorite wrestler, he was the practically the only active wrestler anyone could name. Most people thought of champions from the past like Takanohana or Wakanohana. When I watch sumo with my in-laws, they look to me to identify who's who in the ring because they can barely read the elaborate ring names the wrestlers use.
Is sumo dead? Hardly. Is it in danger? Big time. Besides Asashoryu's non-controversies, the Sumo Association has seen some serious scandals in recent years. A number of wrestlers were fired after they tested positive for marijuana use (no laughing matter in Japan). A trainee was beaten to death by his stable master who then tried to cover it up, claiming he died of exhaustion. Combine that incident with the general strictness of the sumo lifestyle and it’s no wonder recruitment is at an all-time low.
Sumo as a sport (and a business) is not in a position to turn away fans or potential athletes right now, and in shoving Asashoryu out the door the Association is are doing both. Nobody cared when Chiyotaikai, a veteran wrestler with a longer tenure than Asashoryu, retired last month. There were no news stories outside of sports coverage and no chatter on the afternoon talk shows.
Meanwhile, Asashoryu was the talk of the television for weeks, starting when the alleged brawl took place and running straight through the end of the tournament and into last week’s Sumo Association election. No, it wasn't all positive news but it was news, something that no struggling sport can refuse.
The fictional Bela Lugosi once said "There is no such thing as bad publicity." I’m not positive that's true, but forcing your star performer and current champion to retire because he was too "ontroversial" is insane. How often do those two qualities overlap? What sport would willing drop both at the same time?
Would Major League Baseball suspend Derek Jeter if he was photographed jogging in a Fun Run while on the disabled list? Would the NFL ever ditch Peyton Manning or Tom Brady for getting drunk after a game? Hell, Michael Vick was convicted of multiple felonies, went to prison and was still welcomed back into the league upon his release (if not by the same team).
Asashoryu broke no law, committed no crime and violated no sacred trust of sumo. He is not Pete Rose, Shoeless Joe Jackson or even Dennis Rodman. Yet the Sumo Association treated him as if he was all three and tossed him to the curb. They should have protected and celebrated his achievements as if he were Michael Jordan.
MJ had a gambling problem, by the way. There's a reason no one cared.
つづく...(Click here to read more)
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Happy 2010 already
Don't know why I put off my first post of the year for so long, so I'm writing this on my phone to get it over with.
つづく...(Click here to read more)
Fact is, the future of feitclub.com is in doubt. Blogger has decided to end publishing via FTP, and since I use my own domain that's precisely how I put this blog together.
I want to continue writing and there are options on the table to migrate this project of mine to a new host or another publishing platform (Wordpress?), but nothing's going to be easy. It's fair to say I won't post much of anything here until I sort this out.
I'm trying to remain positive about this. I've wanted to overhaul the site for years as it's grown increasingly ugly by web standards. It was never pretty but it was, for a while, NOT hideous. Now it looks like less polished MySpace page. Ugh.
In the meantime, I'll continue to use Twitter and Facebook as usual. Notice that I've stopped the automated messages regarding feitclub.com. From now on, I'll just tweet about updates myself.
TTFN, I guess. Feit...out.
Labels: moblogging, site news
つづく...(Click here to read more)
