THE RIGHT ANGLE: Greensboro's Woods of Terror - Opinions
I want to begin this column by saying that I love Halloween, and I am incredibly glad that it falls on a weekday this year. The last time I was able to go to class dressed up like an idiot was Halloween my freshman year, and I didn't have the nerve to go through with it. You better bet I'll be walking around campus all day this year in my costume. Watch out.
Halloween is a great time of year. I've been a fan of horror movies and ghost stories since I was little, so of course I love a holiday that encourages these things. One of the things you must do, if you really want to appreciate Halloween, is do something, well, scary. There's no end to the number of haunted attractions to be found at this time of year. UNCG's own Mary Foust Residence College puts on a haunted house every year. It's conveniently located for the average student, and it's gotten some great reviews in the past.
But if you have a car and you don't mind a little 10-15 minute drive, there might be another attraction for you to check out. On Church Street, right outside of the Greensboro city limits, lies the Woods of Terror, an award-winning haunted trail attraction. According to their website (www.woodsofterror.com), the woods in which this trail lies is haunted by the spirits of those who perished during the Great Depression and were not given a proper burial.
After receiving high rankings from MSNBC, hauntedhouse.com, and Tourist Parks and Attractions, I finally decided to see what all the fuss was about. Some friends and I piled in a car and drove out to the Woods of Terror, looking for a scare. And boy did we find it. After being chased with chain saws, bumping into dead bodies, and taking the scariest hayride ever, my friends and I were all hoarse from screaming and laughing. Even I had to admit that I had been genuinely spooked by the haunted trail.
Aside from actually having the ability to frighten me, something else sets this Halloween attraction apart from all the others. After entering the Woods of Terror, you are immediately herded into a room with a television. A man (who turns out to be Eddie McLaurin, the owner of the Woods of Terror) appears on the screen and proceeds to tell everyone in the room about Jesus Christ. He doesn't preach or come off as "holier than thou," but he does explain how Christianity changed his life and how it can do the same for everyone in the room.
Of course, being in a crowd of college students, there were the obligatory cries of, "I'm offended!" and "He can't force his religion on us!" The irony in this is, of course, McLaurin isn't forcing his religion on anyone; he's offering it as an option to people entering HIS own private attraction. But most silly "open-minded" college students don't look at it that way.
Eddie McLaurin has been using his haunted trail to scare people since 1991. Although he had been raised as a Christian, he admits that he had fallen off the path sometime around his senior year of high school. Years later, after rededicating himself to God, McLaurin told me he realized (in reference to the haunted attraction), "God needed to be in it, and if it didn't glorify God, it wasn't right."
As he expected, McLaurin has received some bad feedback in the way he begins his haunted trail. Some Christians have chastised him for celebrating a traditionally "Satanic" holiday; however, in response, McLaurin states, "It's only the devil's holiday if we give it to him." He went on to say that Christians who refuse to celebrate Halloween should also refuse to have anything to do with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny on other major holidays. On the other end of the spectrum, non-Christians have criticized him for "forcing" his religion under false pretenses. But McLaurin has also received a great deal of feedback from people who were personally touched by his video, and who have changed their life the same way he changed his.
Eddie McLaurin is just another example of why I'm so proud to live in a free country where people can come up with ideas like this one. And sure, maybe there will be some people who don't attend his park because they don't want to have Christianity "forced" upon them, but they're the ones that are losing out. The video lasts all of two minutes, and doesn't make you feel like a bad person or a sinner if you don't chose to listen to it. And if anyone is really, truly offended by the video, I'm sure they'll have had it scared out of them by the end of the haunted trail. If you're looking for a good time this Halloween season, visit the Woods of Terror on Church Street. Or, you could just be a loser and sit at home if you're one of those people who are terrified by the concept of the First Amendment.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
The Conundrum of the Internet: The Framers of the Constitution REALLY Should Have Thought About Blogs...
THE RIGHT ANGLE: The conundrum of the Internet - Opinions
I am nothing if not a strong proponent of freedom of speech. I am thankful for the right to speak my mind every time I write a column, debate a professor, or attend a rally. As Republican as I may be, I am extremely glad this administration (or any, for that matter) does not have the power to throw me in jail for my political beliefs or for voicing them.
But First Amendment rights have always been highly contested, and I trust they will continue to cause legal problems for years to come. Some people want to protect everything under the First Amendment. Some have tried to protect child pornographers and exotic dancers under the shield of freedom of expression. It's widely held that one person's First Amendment rights end when they compromise another person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But where is that cut off line?
The Internet adds a great deal of uncertainty to an already ambiguous constitutional right. Everyone and their brother has a blog or website and can write anything they want about anyone else. No one wants to infringe on anyone's right to speak their mind online, mostly because for so long the Internet has been regarded as untrustworthy in its information. But as it becomes more accessible and more influential (such as the bloggers that brought Dan Rather's media reign to an end), maybe boundaries are becoming more necessary.
Yes, I have Googled myself. If John Kerry can admit to it, so can I. With a name like mine, you don't tend to get too many hits that aren't me. The first time I Googled myself was during my sophomore year, and there wasn't much to write home about. After elections, the number grew by about a hundred, thanks to my blog and my column (and a fellow columnist's run in with Rush Limbaugh, which brought about a great deal of publicity for The Carolinian). There have been quite a few good sites and comments about me, but I found the amount of negative writings to be shocking. The types of people writing about me also surprised me. It wasn't just UNCG students: there were quite a few adults, including a Greensboro blogring that commented on all my media appearances within the last year. It's quite odd to see people you don't know writing things about you that may or may not be read as their opinion.
I never thought too much about it, until a fellow College Republican brought up a good point. It's painfully easy for people to conduct rudimentary background searches on the Internet. What happens if a future employer decides to check up on me and runs into some of these websites? For example, there is a mention of me on a pro-gay website in praise of tolerant Republicans. The fellow CR suggested that I might not be able to find work on a Republican campaign for which the candidate running was taking an anti-gay stance. While I don't see myself working for an openly homophobic candidate, I can see their point.
In writing a conservative column, owning a conservative blog, and participating in conservative rallies, I realize I am open to this sort of online publicity, for better or for worse. But a good friend of mine recently found herself on the slanderous side of the Internet for the first time. This friend's ex-boyfriend created a public group on the college website Facebook (www.facebook.com) proclaiming her to be a "psycho". A photoshopped picture was added for the finishing touch, which showed her with glowing red eyes, in case anyone doubted her psychotic state. While some could see this as a humorous end to a bad relationship, or maybe even a slightly pathetic attempt on the guy's end to save face, it was simply hurtful to a girl who I know for a fact to be less "psychotic" than many college girls. It's easy to shrug your shoulders and say "get over it," but life as a college student is hard enough without having to worry what your bitter ex-boyfriend is writing about you online.
It's easy to argue that freedom of speech allows all of these people to say whatever they want. And while I realize that the framers of the Constitution really had no way of envisioning something as huge as the Internet, I doubt they would be pleased with the way things are going. After all, these are the same people who invented the Electoral College because they thought the American public was too stupid to choose its own leader. And maybe they were right; maybe, rights to websites and blogs should come with not just an age limit, but an intelligence limit.
I am nothing if not a strong proponent of freedom of speech. I am thankful for the right to speak my mind every time I write a column, debate a professor, or attend a rally. As Republican as I may be, I am extremely glad this administration (or any, for that matter) does not have the power to throw me in jail for my political beliefs or for voicing them.
But First Amendment rights have always been highly contested, and I trust they will continue to cause legal problems for years to come. Some people want to protect everything under the First Amendment. Some have tried to protect child pornographers and exotic dancers under the shield of freedom of expression. It's widely held that one person's First Amendment rights end when they compromise another person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But where is that cut off line?
The Internet adds a great deal of uncertainty to an already ambiguous constitutional right. Everyone and their brother has a blog or website and can write anything they want about anyone else. No one wants to infringe on anyone's right to speak their mind online, mostly because for so long the Internet has been regarded as untrustworthy in its information. But as it becomes more accessible and more influential (such as the bloggers that brought Dan Rather's media reign to an end), maybe boundaries are becoming more necessary.
Yes, I have Googled myself. If John Kerry can admit to it, so can I. With a name like mine, you don't tend to get too many hits that aren't me. The first time I Googled myself was during my sophomore year, and there wasn't much to write home about. After elections, the number grew by about a hundred, thanks to my blog and my column (and a fellow columnist's run in with Rush Limbaugh, which brought about a great deal of publicity for The Carolinian). There have been quite a few good sites and comments about me, but I found the amount of negative writings to be shocking. The types of people writing about me also surprised me. It wasn't just UNCG students: there were quite a few adults, including a Greensboro blogring that commented on all my media appearances within the last year. It's quite odd to see people you don't know writing things about you that may or may not be read as their opinion.
I never thought too much about it, until a fellow College Republican brought up a good point. It's painfully easy for people to conduct rudimentary background searches on the Internet. What happens if a future employer decides to check up on me and runs into some of these websites? For example, there is a mention of me on a pro-gay website in praise of tolerant Republicans. The fellow CR suggested that I might not be able to find work on a Republican campaign for which the candidate running was taking an anti-gay stance. While I don't see myself working for an openly homophobic candidate, I can see their point.
In writing a conservative column, owning a conservative blog, and participating in conservative rallies, I realize I am open to this sort of online publicity, for better or for worse. But a good friend of mine recently found herself on the slanderous side of the Internet for the first time. This friend's ex-boyfriend created a public group on the college website Facebook (www.facebook.com) proclaiming her to be a "psycho". A photoshopped picture was added for the finishing touch, which showed her with glowing red eyes, in case anyone doubted her psychotic state. While some could see this as a humorous end to a bad relationship, or maybe even a slightly pathetic attempt on the guy's end to save face, it was simply hurtful to a girl who I know for a fact to be less "psychotic" than many college girls. It's easy to shrug your shoulders and say "get over it," but life as a college student is hard enough without having to worry what your bitter ex-boyfriend is writing about you online.
It's easy to argue that freedom of speech allows all of these people to say whatever they want. And while I realize that the framers of the Constitution really had no way of envisioning something as huge as the Internet, I doubt they would be pleased with the way things are going. After all, these are the same people who invented the Electoral College because they thought the American public was too stupid to choose its own leader. And maybe they were right; maybe, rights to websites and blogs should come with not just an age limit, but an intelligence limit.
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Don't Fall Prey to the Partisan Monster
(I hope it's painfully obvious to everyone that I did NOT title this column... I'm guessing my editor is to blame for this gem.)
THE RIGHT ANGLE: Don't fall prey to the partisan monster - Opinions
Partisanship is ruining the world. There, I said it.
Some people may think that's an odd statement coming from me. After all, this is the token conservative column, and I am the president of the College Republicans. But I also think there is a fine line between party loyalty and stupidity.
I started really thinking about it this weekend while I was scanning through the UNCG Livejournal community once again. A student had posted an advertisement asking students to vote for him in the recent SGA Senate elections. Another student immediately responded, asking where they could find information about all the candidates, including their "political status".
I'm not sure why, but that immediately annoyed me. I could be wrong, but I just don't think SGA is going to be taking a vote to do away with Social Security any time soon. What possible advantage could knowing a student's political affiliation have? Should we have all students running for SGA offices list their preferred political party next to their name? Do we need to start offering students a "straight ticket" voting option?
What goes on inside partisan group meetings is one thing, but it's another thing completely to bring it out into the open. There are actually members of other campus organizations that refuse to talk to me, or openly glare at me around campus, simply because I am a well-known College Republican.
Ironically enough, on the few occasions that someone from a more liberal group will actually TALK to me, they end up telling me that I'm not quite the "monster" everyone claims I am (and yes, that term has been used). These same people are often shocked to find that I can talk about things other than politics, and that even while discussing politics, I'm very laid-back about it all. This is because I don't take my politics to extremes. I like to see both sides of an issue and decide for myself what's right. Anyone that reads this column knows that I would not be considered a "good" Republican by any means. After all, I don't let the Republican Party tell me what I do and don't believe in. And I would certainly never refuse to be friendly to someone just because of their political preference.
And honestly, we're in college. Yes, this is supposed to be preparing us for the real world, but everything doesn't have to be a life or death situation. I personally enjoy debating politics with someone, and then going out for a beer with that same person afterwards. So what if I think we should privatize Social Security and they think the government should handle everything? Doesn't mean we can't talk about something much more important later, like baseball, or who's going to win American Idol this season.
I know I seem to be contradicting myself, because I've always wanted people to be more politically aware, but aware doesn't necessarily mean "blindly loyal". In last November's elections, I voted for a couple Democrats as well as several Libertarians. Actually being aware of the candidates and the issues can help you make informed decisions - straight-ticket voting just elects a party platform, not necessarily a good politician.
Stereotypes are just all-around bad, whether you attach them to races, genders, or members of a political party. When it all comes down to it, does it really matter what my voter registration card says I am? After all, it's far more probable I'll dislike you for being a Boston Red Sox fan than for being a Democrat.
THE RIGHT ANGLE: Don't fall prey to the partisan monster - Opinions
Partisanship is ruining the world. There, I said it.
Some people may think that's an odd statement coming from me. After all, this is the token conservative column, and I am the president of the College Republicans. But I also think there is a fine line between party loyalty and stupidity.
I started really thinking about it this weekend while I was scanning through the UNCG Livejournal community once again. A student had posted an advertisement asking students to vote for him in the recent SGA Senate elections. Another student immediately responded, asking where they could find information about all the candidates, including their "political status".
I'm not sure why, but that immediately annoyed me. I could be wrong, but I just don't think SGA is going to be taking a vote to do away with Social Security any time soon. What possible advantage could knowing a student's political affiliation have? Should we have all students running for SGA offices list their preferred political party next to their name? Do we need to start offering students a "straight ticket" voting option?
What goes on inside partisan group meetings is one thing, but it's another thing completely to bring it out into the open. There are actually members of other campus organizations that refuse to talk to me, or openly glare at me around campus, simply because I am a well-known College Republican.
Ironically enough, on the few occasions that someone from a more liberal group will actually TALK to me, they end up telling me that I'm not quite the "monster" everyone claims I am (and yes, that term has been used). These same people are often shocked to find that I can talk about things other than politics, and that even while discussing politics, I'm very laid-back about it all. This is because I don't take my politics to extremes. I like to see both sides of an issue and decide for myself what's right. Anyone that reads this column knows that I would not be considered a "good" Republican by any means. After all, I don't let the Republican Party tell me what I do and don't believe in. And I would certainly never refuse to be friendly to someone just because of their political preference.
And honestly, we're in college. Yes, this is supposed to be preparing us for the real world, but everything doesn't have to be a life or death situation. I personally enjoy debating politics with someone, and then going out for a beer with that same person afterwards. So what if I think we should privatize Social Security and they think the government should handle everything? Doesn't mean we can't talk about something much more important later, like baseball, or who's going to win American Idol this season.
I know I seem to be contradicting myself, because I've always wanted people to be more politically aware, but aware doesn't necessarily mean "blindly loyal". In last November's elections, I voted for a couple Democrats as well as several Libertarians. Actually being aware of the candidates and the issues can help you make informed decisions - straight-ticket voting just elects a party platform, not necessarily a good politician.
Stereotypes are just all-around bad, whether you attach them to races, genders, or members of a political party. When it all comes down to it, does it really matter what my voter registration card says I am? After all, it's far more probable I'll dislike you for being a Boston Red Sox fan than for being a Democrat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
