No Mo' Loko?

Four Loko, a caffeinated, alcoholic beverage, has been causing a lot of controversy recently. The FDA has placed a moratorium on the beverage, which has been called a "blackout in a can." The FDA moratorium was largely in response to the deaths of several college students, which were linked to consumption of Four Loko. The combination of caffeine and alcohol is the main problem with these beverages, the FDA says - the mixture of a depressant and stimulus proving especially harmful, and in some cases, deadly. 

However, one can only wonder if the FDA's banning of these beverages is taking one step too far. Cigarettes have been linked to deadly diseases for decades, yet the FDA only places a warning label on them - a label they could easily place on caffeinated alcoholic beverages as well. Why is there a difference between the two? Why can't people choose for themselves if they are willing to risk their physical safety for the consumption of this beverage?

I saw a clear resemblance between this ban and the San Francisco ban of toys in McDonald's "Happy Meals," due to the fact that some saw the toys as incentives for children to eat unhealthy food. (CommuniKATE tackles this issue in her blog here.) I can't help but think that both of these situations are cases of the government overstepping its regulatory bounds. People should choose for themselves what they eat, drink, and smoke, and if they want to get a little "Loko" and put their physical well being at risk, then they should be able to. 

Patdown, Shmatdown

A little over three weeks ago, the T.S.A., Transportation Security Administration, declared that it would be enforcing much stricter screening procedures in airport security. With this new procedure, T.S.A. agents are free to screen passengers in a much more forthright manner, with little regard for their personal privacy or personal space. The T.S.A. argues that this policy benefits everyone - obviously, any stricter security measures will make commercial flights that much safer.

Yet, I can't help but think that this new protocol is a bit overboard. Obviously, the T.S.A. has a vested interested in maintaining the safety of commercial flights, but, with the technology available to us today, I wonder if these increased, rather invasive measures are necessary.

This new policy has caused a veritable uproar in the weeks since it has been instated, calling into question the scope of the T.S.A.'s power to invade passenger's privacy. The government, and, by extension, the T.S.A., obviously has less stringent prohibitions when inspecting a commercial airline passenger. One could argue that, by traveling by plane, a commercial passenger therefore sacrifices a certain expectation of privacy - one that is obviously foregone with the new T.S.A. policies.

I am ambivalent about this new policy. One the one hand, anything that makes flying safer, and could prevent another 9/11, could be a step in the right direction. But, on the other hand, how much are we willing to sacrifice our rights for this safety? There has to be a limit to the rights that will be sacrificed in order to ensure a safe and pleasant flight. Ultimately, I think that the line should be drawn here. The new screening procedures are clearly far too invasive, and may, in fact, eventually garner even more resentment towards the T.S.A. and the commercial airline industry in general - resentment that neither of them need. I think that these screening procedures should be halted by the T.S.A.

Politically (In)Correct

The gingerbread-men's-rights-movement had begun. Ever since they had been falsely labeled as "gingerbread people," these oppressed, zesty holiday confections have been striving to reclaim not only their gender identities, but also their dignity. Their protests, redolent with the smell of Christmas and butter cream, were filled with repeated, strident outcries: "Give us back our gender!" Or, at least, "Stop being so politically correct!"

The cookie-men (can I call them that?) have a point. We, as a culture and people, have become far too politically correct, so much so that this frantic effort to avoid, even remotely, offending anyone and everyone has consumed, digested and regurgitated cultural discourse - transforming it into a deformed, cheapened imitation of what it should be. Much like a gingerbread-man with his legs bit off, cultural discourse and debate in America, and, indeed, the globe, has nowhere to go, no means to evolve or transform itself without the lurking, omnipresent force of "political correctness" stifling it.

Take, for example, the litany of instances in recent years in which political correctness has reached new heights of frivolous absurdity. In 2007, Australian recruitment firm Westaff banned its oft-hired troupe of Santa impersonators from saying "ho-ho-ho", insisting that the phrase, which has been an integral part of Ol' Saint Nick's routine for much longer than "ho" has been used as a derogatory term for women, is demeaning and may scare small children. Westaff insisted that its Santa impersonators say "ha-ha-ha," instead. Unfortunately, nobody is laughing.

The political-correctness-craze has not limited itself to just the holiday season, however, as no facet of culture and society has been left unaffected.

From newscasters to movie trailers, political correctness is becoming a form of censorship. Why can't Vince Vaughn call a hybrid car "gay" in a movie trailer? Calling something "gay" has transformed beyond simply denoting sexual orientation in the American vernacular. Vaughn even recognizes this distinction in the film, clarifying his statement that hybrid cars are "gay" by distinguishing the various meanings of the word to, in this case, mean "stupid" rather than homosexual.

Yet, gay advocacy groups, such as GLAAD, are still incensed by the trailer, claiming that it is derogatory and mean.  Whether or not the word "gay" is being used in a derogatory manner in this case should be up to the viewer to decide. (Personally, I thought the scene was funny and touched on some relatable aspects of American culture.)

If Ron Howard had cut the scene from the film, which he ultimately didn't, he would not only be relenting to the zeal of politically-correct-followers but the film would be prevented from possibly stirring a meaningful cultural discussion.

I am often ambivalent about the use of the word "gay" in the modern American dialect, but simply ignoring its use would be neglecting to recognize an aspect of contemporary American culture that should be discussed and considered. If we, as a society, can't portray cultural trends in a film without offending someone, what can we portray?

Similarly, why can't Juan Williams say that he becomes "nervous" and "worried" upon seeing people in "Muslim garb" board his plane? Obviously, his view is fueled by generalizations about Muslims and their connections to terrorist organizations. But, somewhat less obviously, these generalizations are not unfounded - many of the people that have been responsible for terrorist attacks on America and in Europe have been Islamic fundamentalists. Why isn't Williams able to share his views without repercussions?
 

Simple: His views do not mesh with the politically-correct media. (Sick of reading the words politically correct? Because I certainly am.) Simply because Williams' views do not fit this mold, or, dare I say it, run the risk of offending someone, does not mean that he should be silenced or fired. Rather, the consequences of his comments only serve to perpetuate fear in America: the (now-ingrained fear) of offending someone.
 
This fear can only lead to one thing in political and cultural discourse - hesitation.

Diffidence is the last thing one needs in a democratic society. People should be free to express their views, regardless of whether they risk offending someone.

Now, let me clarify. This is not to say that people should have free reign to bully or demean others, as, especially as seen recently, the power of hateful words is often terrifying.
 

Rather, my criticism of political correctness pertains to its role in limiting intelligent, civil public discussion.

 
Clearly, if conforming to the parameters of political correctness is the first thing that one considers before making a comment in today's society, there is something fundamentally wrong with the ways in which we communicate with one another.
 

I think we could all benefit from honesty - the ability to speak candidly and openly with one another without the looming shadow of political correctness hanging over every word.

And, if I won't offend anyone by saying so, I think all of America could use a little thicker skin.

Role Models

      It seems like, in today's age of heightened, omnipresent media scrutiny, you can't win - no matter what you do. Visiting a foreign country in which the drinking age is not an anachronistic relic that only encourages unhealthy drinking habits? Well don't have a beer. 24-years-old? Well, make sure you don't do anything considered sexual, especially if you happen to play a high-school student. (see another blogger's take on the GQ/Glee Photo Scandal here)
       I mean, really. I understand the argument - if someone is going to be in the public sphere, market themselves to impressionable youngsters, and thereby become a role model for said wide-eyed tykes, then they shouldn't do anything outrageous or morally base (otherwise newborns might start mimicking them as soon as they come out of the womb, society will explode, etc., etc.). But, what about when celebrities do things that aren't really that bad? And, furthermore, who decides whether what they do is morally deplorable or not?
     The two examples I used above, Miley Cyrus sipping a beer in Spain, and 24-year-olds posing suggestively in a magazine, are two such instances of the media once again completely sensationalizing situations that really aren't that big of a deal. So what if Glee's stars posed suggestively in GQ? They're 24-year-olds, I think they can make that decision for themselves. And what does it say about our sexually repressed society if there is such a large backlash about a dozen sexually suggestible photos in a magazine? We all know where sexual repression leads.
     I think our society not only needs to reexamine it's priorities and values, but also the ways in which our media tends to be, frankly, a little melodramatic.

Some Takes on Cyber Bullying

Check out this great blog post and Op-Ed about cyber bullying!