Hypocrisy all around us
It seems that Greg Wilcox needs to focus more on doing his homework and less time attacking moral conservatism. In his life article "Who will edit Clean Flicks’ owner’s behavior?" Wilcox incorrectly identifies Daniel Thompson as the owner of Clean Flicks. Thompson is the owner and operator of Flix Video Club. I would hate to see Clean Flicks dragged through the mud anymore because of Thompson’s behavior.
Wilcox’s message seems to be "beware of hypocrisy," which I couldn’t agree with more. But, one must remember that this goes both ways. Wilcox mentions two Republicans who have shamefully been caught in hypocritical scandals but fails to mention the scandals on the other side. Did Bill Clinton run for office representing himself as an immoral intern-exploiter? Certainly not, but that’s what he turned out to be.
I also must take issue with Wilcox when he calls Utah Valley communities "insecure" for their desire to have edited films. The fact that I wish to watch Gladiator without the most gruesome parts or Lock-Stock and Two Smoking Barrels without the constant profanity hardly makes me insecure. I have no problem with anyone else choosing to watch these movies with all of the original content, and I believe that they should afford me the same right. It would seem that someone who has to resort to name-calling about an issue that doesn’t affect him would be the insecure individual.
So when Wilcox tells us to beware of hypocrisy, I must agree. But let us be wary of it in all places, even the College Times.
Certainly opinion pieces are not subject to the same level of journalistic quality as news articles. It is unfortunate, however, that Greg Wilcox’s editorial on Feb. 4 failed to get several facts correct. Clean Flicks and Flix Club are not the same company – they may provide similar services, but are in no way related. Daniel Thompson has no affiliation whatsoever with Clean Flicks. Also, Senator Craig was not "busted for lewd acts," but rather arrested on suspicion of lewd conduct and pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct. The main point of the piece remains valid, but the argument is weakened by these factual errors.
In Response to the article "Brought to you by the Children’s Workshop",
I have some of my own opinions on the subject matter that was discussed. I am a 25-year-old young woman, married, and a senior studying in the behavioral science dept. I study behaviors a lot and have experienced many things that have brought me to the realities of this world. I have learned that there are a lot of people who just let things happen to them and others who make things happen! I laugh at the fact that this article mocked and made fun of people who were but only protesting for "decent" movies and music videos at their local Gold’s Gym. My stepsister’s friend was apart the group who caused a scene over the vulgar, disrespectful, and demeaning content that was not filtered at the gym. He is a very intelligent, and an attractive young man. What makes him attractive is that he will challenge anyone who believes it is socially acceptable in selling a woman’s body in any way shape or form through the media. This media represented at the Gold’s Gym brought him and other men to fight for filtration. I see no baby talk, or little "self-righteous" boys trying to fight against the "first amendment" of the constitution as what was stated in this article. If anything, they have defended what is their right, to speak up for something that is immoral and wrong. Allowing videos and movies of practically naked women dancing around like they want sex is nothing more than immature and childish in my opinion.
February 4, 2008