Soapbox Session: Terrorist? Really?

A little fact about myself: I rarely get into potential politics. I find that both sides of the political spectrum are psychotic in their own individual ways and I personally wouldn't want any extremist or group of extremists on either side to run this country alone. When asked what is my political affiliation, I choose libertarian because that's the most level-headed political party out there and they stand for what America should stand for: Liberty.

Now why do I have to make that point clear? Because there's a news story that makes me rather cross. There's a story about a middle school who called a group of students who, in an act of civil disobedience, broke dress code "terrorists." I wish I was kidding. I really was hoping that was a troll article or a piece from The Onion or a similar satire site, but I'm afraid this is all too real. Now what was the punishments for these alleged homegrown followers of the Taliban? Two weeks suspension and an essay on why civil disobedience is a "crime."

Don't you think that if you were serious about the terrorist label you'd go all the way and have them expelled or possibly deported instead of a mere suspension and essay? You can't have it both ways, calling an organized dress code protest the same act as a suicide bombing and giving them a slap on the wrist should this have been a true terroristic threat.

Forgive me if I'm wrong and feel free to correct me here, but isn't the definition of terrorism supposed to mean inciting fear or terror for political means? How is civil disobedience an incitement of fear or terror for a political goal, unless untucked shirts and baggy jeans are en vogue for Al-Qaeda operatives this season? Answer: It isn't. In fact this country has had a history of civil disobedience when unfairness or oppression struck. Look at events like the Boston Tea Party or the American revolution, the latter of which we celebrated just a few days ago. What about the Civil Rights movement? Had nothing happened, black people would still be sitting in the backs of buses and generally treated like dirt. Had we not declared our independence, we'd still be under British rule. Women and minorities wouldn't have the right to vote, need I go on?

By the principal's logic, all of the great men and women who disobeyed unjust laws would be labeled terrorists. People like Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., George Washington, Susan B. Anthony, everyone who signed the Declaration of Independence would be put under the same label as Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. You want to know who the real terrorist is, by the true definition? The principal, whose name I won't mention for privacy reasons. Rest assured, she is getting many emails flooding her inbox about this ordeal, and some of them suggest that she get fired. Once again, terrorism is defined as using fear to bring forth political goals. Ergo, her misuse of the term and thus weakening it is, to me, true terrorism.

Think about it; terms like terrorist, if overused for every thing you don't like, will lose its potency and if something were to really happen, no one would take the threat seriously and everyone is doomed. If anything, this is a case of history repeating itself, as throughout not just America's history but world history words have been diluted and weakened by being used willy-nilly for ad hominid attacks. Heretic was used in times where the church ruled alongside government, witch was thrown around aimlessly in Salem in the 1600s and perhaps earlier in medieval times, and communist was the insult du jour for both Red Scares; all of these bringing forth harsh penalties for those accused, from burning at the stake to being stoned to death or merely blacklisted from society. Disobeying a dress code is no reason to be labeled a terrorist, even if it was for a political reason, as is the case of Tinker V. Des Moines back in the 60s.

My point is that unless there was going to be violence or fear mongering involved with this civil protest against what may or may not be an unjust dress code, it's not terrorism, but rather people who throw the term around like candy on Halloween are more so terroristic in that regard. It's not clear exactly what rules in the dress code made this group decide to take action, but I support them all the way, as part of my civic duties as an American citizen who believes in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Man Vs. Rude

It's been a while since I updated this page, I know, but this is a topic I feel that I need to give my two cents on.

In case you're not aware, Adam Richman, the host of Man Vs. Food a while back and most recently a poster boy for Walmart's steaks, had a new show coming out on Travel Channel talking about hidden menu items and other restaurant secrets. However, the former competitive eater was put under fire after a social media war which ultimately ended with his new show getting canned before it even began. It all began after Richman started using the term "Thinspiration" to describe his weight loss since his MVF days. What he didn't know is that the term is used to support anorexia and thus erupted a Twitter war, where he went on a rant about the word and again, his show got the boot.

Now this is the way I see it: He had good intentions. He wanted to inspire people struggling with weight loss, since he was quite rotund when MVF was on the air, but he had a poor choice of words and a massive temper tantrum to boot, so now he's paying the price. Granted he apologized for his unsavory comments, but the damage was done, and nothing on the internet truly dies.

I guess that's the main point I want to talk about: Social media relations. If you're a celebrity or a company, make sure you use social media outlets like Twitter or Facebook responsibly. Adam is not the first, nor is he the last personality that will erupt online. Anyone remember Amy's Baking Company and how they handled the immense amount of criticism that came their way? Granted, some of the critics were trolls trying to get a rise out of the Scottsdale Arizona restaurant, but they should have either responded in a professional and civil manner or just say nothing. Business classes nowadays use ABC as a shining example of what not to do when faced with critics on social media. Think of it, companies and businesses are using Twitter, Facebook, Yelp, etc. to touch base with customers, promote themselves, hold contests, you name it, and they do so with grace and style.

In the case of celebrities on social media, most of them usually don't have anything of worth to say. I have no interest in the private lives of famous people because I find it creepy, and even then, one of them could fart and get 100,000 retweets, but I'm getting off topic. Most celebrities know better than to write rude comments to their followers, since they want good PR and because they're under constant scrutiny by tabloids and their employers, any mistake or misstep that gets brought to light will be magnified, no matter how recent or old it is. It ruined Paula Dean, who's allegedly racist escapades date back to before Food Network was even established, much less before she became the butter-obsessed Southern belle most foodies recognize.

Case and point, Adam messed up and his good intentions came out as fat shaming and taking a serious topic like anorexia lightly, which caused his next show to get thrown in the trash, which is sad because I was interested in checking it out.