Who's Suing Who?

The saying goes, "Time heals all wounds." The problem out in Colorado is that some people apparently don't think that time is healing their wounds fast enough, so they're going to try to heal with some cold hard cash.

If you haven't heard the story, I am referring to the families of victims of the Columbine massacre two years ago. Since the two monsters who committed these heinous acts killed themselves at the close of this sorry episode, the victims' families have had to seek vengeance in other ways. First, they sued the county's 911 dispatch for not responding soon enough. That suit ended recently, and apparently it didn't satisfy their desires to be paid handsomely for their tragic losses.

Now supposedly, one of the gunmen was shown on a video he made holding one of the guns he would use in the shooting, and he had named the gun after a character in the video game "Doom". It has also been shown that the two young psychopaths were frequent visitors to adult web sites and played a helluva lot of PlayStation, and the more violent the games, the better, apparently. So the victim's families are suing the makers of the web sites and video games, including such corporate big boys as AOL Time Warner and the people who created "Doom" for $5 BILLION. FIVE BILLION DOLLARS!!!

Now, I don't want you all to think I'm some sort of heartless prick and I don't feel sorry for all the suffering these people have had to go through. Obviously, I do; nobody wants to lose somebody close to them, especially in such a grisly way. However, I do not believe that the way to make up for your loss is to sue everybody for mucho dinero. No amount of money, not even FIVE BILLION DOLLARS, is going to make up for losing somebody you love. If you honestly think it's going to make a difference, it won't, and I won't go so far as to call this an outright case of greed, but it's hard not to.

And then of course, it's the whole pop culture aspect; more precisely, it's the blaming pop culture aspect. While you're at it, why don't you sue Marilyn Manson's record label, cuz after all, the gunmen listened to his stuff and printed Manson lyrics on their web page. You better sue the guys who made "The Matrix", right on up from the producer, director, writers, all the way up to the studio that made and released it, because everyone likened the assault to something out of that particular movie; god knows, we had to see that particular scene enough times right after Columbine, because everyone pointed the finger at that movie above all others. And if you looked further into these kids' backgrounds, found out the other things they liked, music, movies, TV shows, web sites, video games, hell, pretty soon you could find yourself suing everyone who creates the pop culture in our country. And isn't this what it's all about, anyway; indicting pop culture and saying that pop culture is what drove these kids to shoot up their high school?

I have referenced this quote before, but it bears repeating: Pete Townshend of the Who once said that if you thought song lyrics were telling you to shoot up your school then "you're already f&H$ed up to begin with". I think we can safely extend this to TV, movies, and so on. There are people who cannot see the difference between fantasy and reality, I've known people like that. To be honest, they scare me, and I would be the first and probably not the only person to say that something is not quite right with these people upstairs. Something was definitely wrong upstairs with Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, and they had access to high-powered weaponry that seems like a bit much even in the hands of the US Army. That is the formula for tragedy; not music, not movies, not websites, not even video games. It just seems ridiculous that we have to revisit this argument two whole years later about the same incident. How long are we supposed to fight this battle again and again?

That said, there is no way in purgatory or worse that this is going to end in favor of the families of the victims. Not a chance. Way too much money, and it goes right down to the basic argument I have mentioned before; does pop culture drive people to violence? If there are any precedents in cases like this, it would be best to use them at this point. In the past, rock lyrics have been pointed at as reasons for everything from suicide to stalking, and in every case, the party suing has lost or has been forced to settle for a much smaller amount than they asked for. It would be best not to settled this one. Let it be decided; the whole will be watching the results.

And if by some ridiculous reason the victims actually do get their money, then could I possibly get away with beating the crap out of somebody and then suing MTV and the Backstreet Boys because their music drove me over the edge because I HATE IT SO DAMN MUCH?!? Ponder it, people, ponder it. I don't like to join the chorus of the "slippery slope" crowd; you know these people, the ones who believe that every little thing could open a "Pandora's Box" and lead to (insert right here) being taken away from us or whatever. However, one has to wonder that if the victims of Columbine and the families of the ones who died can get mad jack from entertainment providers whether or not this could open the floodgates for anyone to blame some segment of pop culture on anything. Could victims of hate crimes now sue Eminem? Could women's rights groups sue the makers of "Tomb Raider" for creating an unrealistic portrayal of the female body in Lara Croft? Could someone sue MTV because "Jackass" put the idea in their head to try to hurdle an oncoming car?

There could only be one winner here, one group of winners to be specific, that being lawyers everywhere. Just one more unfortunate trend from the country that brought you the multimillion dollar settlement for spilling hot coffee in your lap.

It Must Be Open Season

I really wonder about some people's priorities sometimes. It is my view that you should always prioritize on the things you need to do to survive first, then the things that make you happy. So when it comes to the way some out there think and the things they think are most important, I really start to think that we definitely do not share the same priorities.

Take for example these idiots up there in Quebec protesting at the big free trade meetings. 34 world leaders, looking to improve the world economy and that of their respective nations, in the hope that things such as black market dealings and drug trafficking may be squashed and with that, the needless deaths that come with it (think "Scarface"). You'll recognize these people; you saw them first in Seattle disrupting the huge WTO summit and then at the Democratic National Convention complaining something to the effect that the American Left was too far to the right or something like that. The common thread in these protests, and again in Quebec was the fact that they have made a cottage industry of harassing police and causing normally cosmopolitan urban areas to suddenly resemble Beirut on a bad day.

During a recent round of flipping through the channels, I landed on a documentary on the public access channel depicting the "plight" of the Seattle protesters and the harsh treatment the police gave them in the final days of the summit. Now I did come to sympathize their situation, though certianly not their ideals, but the problem is they seemed to come away from the ordeal with the idea that all they need to do is cause the police to do similar crackdowns wherever they protest and they will get automatic sympathy from the American public. Hence, the last two large gatherings of these nutjobs, first in LA last summer, and now in Quebec. First in LA, they were as I said protesting some sort of thing the Dems have done or whatever, and their heroes, Rage Against the Machine showed up and held a free concert. Well, the concert ends and the wackjobs refuse to leave, and it's getting close to the end of the nightly "show" that tends to be these political conventions, so the cops are getting antsy. They move in to start telling people to leave, and the wackjobs refuse. The cops ask again, the wackjobs refuse and by now are throwing rocks at the police. So, the police do what they are SUPPOSED to do in this situation, and they fire the teargas and they round up the especially belligerent and toss them in the paddywagons. So what do we hear the next morning from various nutjobs on the news? "Police brutality, man! They were beating us, dude!"

I know what happened in Chicago in 1968, I've heard the stories, I saw "Medium Cool", I know the whole deal. In Chicago '68, the police responded to a peaceful march by beating the crap out of people. This was not Chicago '68. This was a mob that refused to disperse, in the same parking lot where some other morons (or possible the same ones, you never know) decided to start a few bonfires using LAPD cars as kindling following the Lakers' NBA championship a few months previous. This was the police coming in to disperse a crowd that refused to leave despite repeated warnings and in a sense doing their job. Police are not supposed to provoke violence, they are supposed to prevent it, and this is what they did. However, instant sympathy did go to the Seattle bunch because well, it happened in Seattle, and this IS the LAPD, so we believe you and not the cops. Wonderful.

So, we get the big trade summit up north in Quebec and the Seattle bunch is there with their standard playbook. They notice that the authorities have put up security barricades near the site of the meetings. This does make sense, after all; there is so much anti-American sentiment out there these days that some Osama Bin Laden follower would probably love to pick off a Bush or two if he got the chance, and so security is needed. Well, the Seattle bunch didn't like that much, so they started breaking the barricades down and throwing pieces of it (concrete, mind you) at the cops. And they threw hockey pucks as well (when in Rome, I suppose). The police responded accordingly, with tear gas and the like. Now I am willing to put money down on this (somebody else's money, not mine, remember I work in RADIO) that Monday morning, all we're going to read and hear about is how the Quebec police were out of line and that there was mass police brutality.

Now back to my whole idea of prioritizing (there IS a method to my madness, after all). These loons up in the land of the loon (different definitions, obviously) certainly do not share the same priorities in life as I do. After all, you do not need to protest in order to live, and secondly, I doubt throwing debris at the police, getting gassed and screaming "police brutality" is anyone's idea of fun. On the other hand, I could be completely wrong and this bunch actually DOES get off on the idea of massing in some major metropolis and causing trouble with the local protection. If this is the case, then I for one feel sorry for these people. What could possibly be so earth-shaking that requires the need to do this behavior? "Free trade will destroy the environment and hurt the poor?" Not good enough for me, especially because you couldn't be more WRONG. Free trade leads to common approaches and a consenus on preventing environmental damage, and it helps the poor by giving them jobs and helping them to attain a higher standard of living. Why immigrate to America when you can have the same quality of life in your own country? I dunno, maybe some people just seem to have a problem with anyone making money these days. Maybe they're former dot-com CEOs who just lost everything or something like that.

Feel sorry for these people, and also for another class of people, those who get offended too easily. I have a warning on my still-not-updated humor page (don't get me started on that) for a reason; because there actually are people who sit around all day waiting for something to offend them so they can protest, boycott, sue, whatever. They must lead meaningless existences, but they do exist. Case in point: Stewart's convenience stores out in Eastern New York (you MUST try their sodas, by the way) has come out with a new flavor of ice cream spoofing the stories of contamination in the Hudson River. It's called "Hudson River Mud" and is advertised to be made with "PCBs", that being Pecan, Chocolate, and Butterscotch (mmmm, butterscotch). Apparently, one local was so mortifed by the fact that someone would actually make light of supposed pollution that she announced in one of our local online gathering places that she was going to boycott Stewart's. I guess she'll never frequent any place out in LA that sells products with "smog" in the title. I for one thought the story and ad campaign to be quite funny, and if you can't laugh at the world, then you really need help; I'm sorry, but that's the way I feel. It is possible to make light of bad things and still want to fix them. Hell, enough people make fun of all the things we've got wrong around here in Syracuse, but we still want to at least attempt to make this a better place to live. If I felt something was important enough to protest, I would. However, I would not go provoking violence with the police and I would not let it totally consume me to the point where I find nothing funny but everything offensive.

Okay, that was my occasional "very serious" column. Next week: an essay on bowling (you think I'm kidding, right?)

Role Model

Every week, I empty out my thoughts onto this patch of cyberspace and I pretty much just come away from it all thinking that's all there is to it, and that my words have little to no effect on those who read it. After all, who can believe the insane ramblings of a radio guy who the good people at Yahoo actually allowed to have a forum like this for FREE? Not putting myself down here exactly, but my aim is for all who read this to get a good chuckle and maybe make you all think a little. But I don't intend to change minds, my hope is not to influence people to go on to do great things, based on my very words.

Which is why I would call myself somewhat surprised to read a column by national op-ed writer James Lileks in the Syracuse Sub-Standard, errrr, Post-Standard recently which seemed to me to be a reflection of a column I had written some weeks earlier on zero-tolerance policies. He specifically brought up the infamous "chicken finger" example. Now, this was very much like my column of a month before, only with a bit more research. Then again, this column's not about research. As many of you know, my interests often involve the same common thread; having to do as little as possible to achieve the desired ends. Therefore, it's just a matter of me deciding what aspect of pop culture/society/sports I want to go off on this week and emptying it out onto this black background, and that's the end of it. However, it got me thinking and I ultimately drew the obvious conclusion.

This guy's column was obviously influenced by my similar rant of weeks before. I mean, the sarcastic tone of it all, joking about modern educators telling Red China that they have to go sit in timeout if they drop bomb number one on Taiwan, that is so ME!!! Which of course has me wondering how many other columnists, aspiring or established, are coming to this spot weekly to come up with ideas and whatnot for their own opinioned endeavors. And this leads me to say one thing...

Please, DON'T.

You don't want me as an influence. Trust me on this one. For every smart thought that comes out of this format, I have several equally bad ones. Ask any of my friends; they know I have the unique talent of putting my foot in my mouth at any given time or place. In fact, I know that people would be shocked, offended, perhaps even moritified if I even dared to say any of the things I write in this column in public. It's not just political correctness, but the mere fact that such opinions aren't exactly mainstream. Hell, I'm a MODERATE. That in itself isn't mainstream, and based on who you believe, like I dunno, RUSH LIMBAUGH, we moderates are actually poseur liberals, or we are so wishy-washy that we could not possibly form the opinions that I manage to fill this space with every Friday or so.

On the other hand, it's kinda cool to think of what value I could have to the next generation if people actually are getting anything out of what I write. In all serious, I KNOW that Lileks did not read my thoughts on zero-tolerance and immediately think, "This guy's a genius; I must write something equally as brilliant on this subject!" However, it is kinda cool to wonder what effect I could have on people with my thoughts, feelings, and ideas. My soon-to-be-former housemate has told me that I'm the only other person he thinks would be perfect as president besides himself. He does have a point there; don't we all think sometimes that the only person who is qualified to fix anything is ourselves? Should I lead some kind of movement, a new political force to be reckoned with, a push to show America they we moderates actually do make up the majority of this nation and that we cannot be bullied by the right or the left to accept their positions or else?

Nah. I got way too much to do around here, like become a radio star. Maybe when I have accomplished that goal, then maybe I could use the "bully pulpit" of the airwaves, but right now I'm a talk show producer in market #78. So, I of course have priorities to take care of. The most satisfaction I get out of life in general when it comes to opinions is knowing somebody agrees with me. That I'm not alone in the way I think. It helps to know you're not the only "freak" out there. Not that most of my views are "freakish", but it's easy to think that when you feel like nobody out there represents your views and especially when I have to sit through three-hours of the aforementioned right-wind gasbag ripping the way I think apart and then sometimes getting the exact same views (the same words, even) from the mouths of callers to Local Talk Host.

So, of course the answer to Eminem's musical question, "Don't you wanna grow up to be just like me?" is in my case probably not. But if you want to, cool. I'll just keep howling here like the lone wolf in the wilderness. Feel free to howl along if you wish.

Play Ball

The baseball season is finally upon us, and I once again have the unique thrill and pleasure to be able to turn on my TV, watch my beloved New York Mets, and scream, "WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING SWINGING AT THAT PITCH, ORDONEZ???"

Yes, the Gold Glove shortstop who can't hit his weight (or MY weight for that matter) is back, so I guess all is well in Metland. And now it is time for me to once again lick my finger, stick it up to the wind and see if I can pick how the season will go. As a Mets fan, I will try not to let that bias affect my predictions... that much.

Let's go to the American League first, starting in the East, or as anyone would probably call it, "The Yankees and Everyone Else Division". It's been that way the last few years, as there has been little to no drama in the AL East, and this year, it looks like it's going to be that way again. Yes, they are aging, and the world is rooting for them to lose for once, but it's not going to happen. Toronto is just not good enough to challenge, they seem forever torn between challenging and rebuilding. They dumped David Wells, then shell out $68 million to keep Carlos Delgado north of the border. No better than second place and no shot at the wild card. Boston's season ended when Nomar went down with a wrist injury in spring training, and Nomo's not going to throw a no-hitter every time out. Tampa Bay and Baltimore are nothing more than also-rans. The Orioles swore to go with a youth movement this year, then they went out and bought a few more 30-somethings and I think they actually wound up with an even OLDER team than last year's. It'll be another long year, and unfortunately Mike Hargrove will get stuck with the blame, and Peter Angelos will fire him after the season.

In the Central, Chicago's out to prove that they weren't a one-year wonder, and with the addition of Wells, they may do just that. They've gotta get past Cleveland first, however, especially now that Juan Gonzalez has a team and ballpark he is happy with (for the moment). Take the ChiSox, though; they're only getting better. Detroit's brand of "Scrap Iron" ball will keep them in third place and ahead of the hopeless small market teams, Minnesota and Kansas City, who at this point just hope that there is some silver lining in the next collective bargaining agreement that will save them without having to go through Baseball Armageddon to do it (more on that later).

In the West, it's the Texas A-Rods versus the Oakland Giambis. No, actually it's the Texas Rangers, who are practically paying A-Rod more than the rest of the team combined, against the Oakland A's with their multiple Giambis (Jeremy and Jason). Seattle may sneak in and cause a stir as well, but that depends on whether or not they actually have anything left after the defections of Randy Johnson, Griffey, and A-Rod. Anaheim is, well, Anaheim, and so they will finish far back, leading Disney to wonder if they should just throw nine cartoon characters on the field by the end of the season if it will get fannies in the seats.

Over in the National League, the West features a bunch of teams who have broken the bank in recent years and have nothing to show for it. The Giants are the exception to this rule; they actually have chemistry, and a damn good manager in Dusty Baker. Expect them to breeze to another division title. The middle of the pack will be the Dodgers, who will put Gary Sheffield back on the trading block as soon as he opens his big fat yap again; the Rockies, who now have pitching but no hitting (other than Walker and Helton), the reverse of past years; and the Diamondbacks, who are going to kick themselves for firing Buck Showalter after last season as the oldsters continue to break down and the team sinks closer to oblivion. Or in this case, San Diego, who will take up the rear.

In the Central, St. Louis is picked by many to cruise through the season, but I don't buy it. The Reds will be back, as soon as Griffey gets over his annoying hammy problems. Houston will be third; many say that they will be back with a vengeance, but unfortunately, not with that stadium of theirs. The Astros have unfortunately become another version of the Colorado Rockies; Enron Field will beat them more than the opposition. The Cubs have Sammy locked up for a while, so they can concentrate on actually building a nucleus for future years. This year will be a good start, they'll wind up in fourth. As for Pittsburgh and Milwaukee, what can you say about them except... well... um... they have nice new stadiums.

Now to the East, where it's the Mets and Braves duking it out again. Actually, this may be the best division in baseball, as all five teams can at least be considered "on the rise". The Phillies are picked by many to surprise, but I think they're still a year away, and although they'll get to .500, they'll finish fourth behind the Marlins. Since somebody has to finish last in this division, it will unfortunately be the Expos, which is a shame because they can be a fun team to watch, but with zero fan support and no English radio coverage (again), they're as good as gone from Montreal. Which leaves the contenders. And to that, I say, the hell with bias. Mets all the way. It is a different year, no more Braves thumping the Mets on a regular basis. In fact, the Braves are in trouble, and really on the decline. They have only two good healthy arms in Glavine and Maddux, Smoltz is in trouble, Millwood hasn't gotten past his struggles, and even Rocker can't save their still-awful bullpen. I will be branded a lunatic for this, but I say that Atlanta slides all the way to THIRD in the NL East, and the Marlins challenge Cincinnati for the wild-card.

On to the postseason. In the AL, Oakland and the Yankees will face off for the title. Now it's not because I want to see the Yankees lose (OK, maybe it is), but the A's gave them all they could handle last year, and they're even better this year. Oakland in six to the World Series. Over in the NL, the Mets get the Giants or Reds in the LCS, and they win to go to the Series.

Now I know you all know where this is headed, and I'm going to pick the Mets to win it all. But here is the serious logic behind my pick. In past years, I have gradually upped my expectations every year. In '98, I just wanted to make the playoffs, and we blew it. In '99, I wanted them to win the division, they got the wild-card. Last year, I wanted them to win the NL pennant, and they did; however, as the wild-card again. This year, it only seems fair to up the ante again and say that I am rooting for a World Championship. Even with a number 8 hitter who can't outhit most 9 hitters on their worst day (and yes, I do mean PITCHERS), they can do it.

Now as to the labor deal. Time will tell whether there will be one in time to halt baseball's slouching toward Gomorrah, the point is they NEED to do it. The sport will not survive another work stoppage, therefore, both sides need to get to the table ASAP, do away with the rhetoric and make a deal. Both sides will probably have to give up something; that's the way the world works. That is what is necessary. Now, get out there and DO IT!!!