www.411mania.com
| Search
SPOTLIGHTS  SPOTLIGHTS
MOVIES/TV
// [Gossip] Kim Kardashian Classes It Up For GQ
MUSIC
// Top Ten Albums from 2005
WRESTLING
// 411 PPV Roundtable Preview: WWE Survivor Series 2009
POLITICS
// 411 Politics RoundTable: Thoughts On The Ft. Hood Massacre
MMA
// 411's Roundtable Preview - UFC 106: Ortiz vs. Griffin 2
BOXING
// 411 Roundtable Preview: Kessler vs. Ward
GAMES
// Top 10 Action Role Playing Games




  MY 411
User name
Password
Register now! | Forgot your password?
 MUST READ
//  WWSD - What Would Schlafly Do?
//  Game Time: Obama Set to Deliver National Address on Health Care Sept. 9
//  The Revolution Will Be Twitterized
//  What's So Wrong With Don't Ask, Don't Tell?
//  Why Letterman's Apology is Bad for Democracy
//  Porn Actress Tests Positive for HIV – Could More Government Oversight Have Prevented It?
//  Who Was Worse, Palin or Letterman?
//  Is Sotomayor Good Enough for the Supreme Court?
SYNDICATE  SYNDICATE



411mania RSS Feeds





Follow 411mania on Twitter!




Add 411 On Facebook
 



 
 411mania » Politics » Blog Entry
Raw Is Not War
Posted by Steve Cook on 10.29.2009



It's been a long time since I set foot over here, but I've always believed that you should only open your mouth if you have something of importance to say. Failing that, sometimes you need a chance to clarify something you previously said. My news column in the Wrestling Zone this week falls into that category. Recent events have caused political matters to be topics of discussion for wrestling writers, and since I'm well-studied in both wrestling & politics, I can get going on quite the rant when the situation merits. Sometimes people get really unhappy when I do that, but I feel that if I explain my statement in Wednesday's column in greater detail, it will be more easily understood.

Allow me to set the stage for those of you who might not read about the pro wrestling…former WWE CEO Linda McMahon is running for one of Connecticut's seats in the U.S. Senate. The election is to be held next year, but the fallout of her decision is already being felt on the WWE product. In an attempt to not reflect badly on their former CEO and hurt her chances for election, WWE has made several changes to their television presentation. The one change that has most dramatically altered their wrestling matches and has generated the most discussion amongst wrestling fans has been their forbidding their wrestlers to bleed during their matches.

Now, I can get behind the idea that grown men cutting themselves on the forehead with a razorblade is something that should be phased out of professional wrestling. WWE has taken it to extreme levels though…on Sunday's Bragging Rights pay-per-view telecast, John Cena was busted open during a match with Randy Orton. Knowing Cena to be one of WWE's most reliable people in and out of the ring, I can say that it didn't happen on purpose. Vince McMahon sent people down to ringside to rub Vaseline on the cut so nobody could get offended by the blood and use it against Linda in her campaign. Yes, that was actually the reason. So several minutes later, Randy Orton decided that he wanted to incinerate John Cena with pyrotechnics. It didn't happen, but the intent was there. Now, I could be completely insane on this point, but wouldn't somebody getting blown up with explosives be a lot more offensive than somebody getting cut open?

Granted, I'm the wrong person to ask because I don't get easily offended. Some people were offended by how I discussed the incident in my column, which I will re-create below:

So John Cena got busted open during the Iron Man match at Bragging Rights, right? Apparently they went all UFC with it and had people put some Vaseline on Cena's face to stop the bleeding, which is somewhat bizarre by wrestling standards. The reason they did this, I'm told, is that certain people thought that people would use Cena's bleeding against Linda McMahon in her upcoming Senate election. OK…um, wouldn't people be more offended by Randy Orton trying to blow Cena up with explosives coming up through the stage? That would be a hell of a lot more dangerous than a little blood from where I sit."

So far, so good. But then I decided I wanted to take a shot at Linda's political opposition within her party, who I feel would be completely hypocritical if they were to attack her based on violence in WWE because…well, they've created a lot of violence themselves.

"Then again, Linda's running as a Republican, and Republicans have no problems with blowing people up if the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan are any indication. As long as they don't have to see it, they really don't give a damn. But a little blood…oh my goodness, oh my gracious! That damn WWE woman's gotta be stopped! Please."

The problems people had with this statement were two-fold: Some thought it was bashing the Republicans, and they didn't like it because they're Republicans. Well, if it makes them feel any better. I'm not too thrilled with the fact that our Nobel Peace Prize winning President is probably going to send more troops into Afghanistan, endanger more American lives and create more violence in an already dangerous part of the world. I'm opposed to how the Democrats have handled the issue as well, but didn't mention them in the statement because Linda hasn't made it past the primary election and isn't yet running against a Democratic opponent. Frankly, I'll be surprised if she makes it that far.

Some people thought it was bashing the troops. It wasn't. I respect the troops and appreciate that they serve so others won't have to. Nothing in my statement was directly attacking the troops…my opposition to the wars in which they fight doesn't mean that I want them to fail. I want them to come home safely to their families and not have their lives cut short before they even come close to reaching their prime. I know that this is a sensitive topic for people in our military, and I don't mean to degrade their

I'm anti-war. Like many young boys I grew up all interested in wars and fighting and other things of that nature. My bookshelf is full with more American History & Civil War books than you can shake a stick at. I love the history of war…it fascinates me to read about it to this day. But reading about it is all I want to do. I want war to be a thing of the past, something we read about in history books and learn about so we don't repeat the mistakes of our ancestors. Yes, I'm aware that there are a lot of dangerous people out there, people who hate America and want to see us fail. I don't think attacking their countries and killing many of their fellow countrymen is going to make that go away. I think there are better ways to conduct foreign policy than, as I put in the column, blowing people up.

And I think it's hypocritical for people to bash WWE for the stimulated violence they produce on their television shows while advocating that the United States go to war with other countries…preferably somewhere where we won't have to see it. I think it's hypocritical for politicians to go after mixed martial-arts, boxing and other forms of sporting violence for the product they display and condemn their sport as "human cockfighting" when they're always among the first in line to support going to war for almost any reason. The reason I made the comparison between WWE violence and war is because I think it's fairly obvious that the violence that has gone on in Afghanistan, Iraq and countless other places is a lot more brutal and offensive than the pre-determined violence we watch on television for a laugh.

I am not opposing the troops. I oppose the people who send them into wars. I did a term paper back in 2002 while I was in college on whether I felt there was a just cause for going into war with Iraq. I didn't think there was, but obviously people much more powerful than me felt otherwise. (To be fair, they had access to much more information than I did.) I didn't sit in front of my television cursing these people and hoping that the military would come up short in Iraq. I hoped that the troops would win, the war would be short, and they would come home sooner rather than later. When the war wasn't short, people were saying that we would never really win, and troops weren't coming home sooner rather than later…I wasn't happy about it.

And I'm still not happy about it.

So to those who feel that my comments may have been directed towards our military and didn't appreciate it, I apologize and say that it was not my intent. I will always respect the people who serve in our military, even if I myself do not have the stomach for war and do not agree with the reasons our government conducts it. I could have probably used better words to express my viewpoint, and Rush Limbaugh Jr. will probably use them against me someday decades from now, but I'll have to deal with that later.

To those who were more concerned about my bashing Republican politicians than anything concerning the troops and the war…I don't really apologize, but I will say that Democrats aren't doing much better on that front.

Now let's hope that politics stays out of wrestling, and vice-versa.


Post Comment (15)  |  Email Steve Cook  |  View Steve Cook's 411 Profile

  Send To Friend  |    Stumble It!  |    Digg It!  | 



Please add your comment below.
If you are registered, you can login and post under your registered name. If not, you can post as a guest or register.

* Please note that 411 moderates all comments. Your comment will show up on the site after it has been approved by an editor.
 
Name : 
Comment : 
Remaining Characters : 
2800
 

Comments (15)

 
I like your writing but did you really need to post whole article in this section just to respond to some comments to your wrestling column?

Posted By: poffo316 (Guest)  on October 29, 2009 at 07:12 PM

 
 
Thanks Cook, I appreciate you doing this. Its a shame that you have to explain it all out, but I am glad you did.

By the way, I am not American, nor will I ever be. However, it is nice to see that some Americans are indeed against war, because, from the outside, there doesn't appear to be that many of you...


Posted By: Louis (Guest)  on October 29, 2009 at 07:16 PM

 
 
uhhh.....what???

Posted By: Confused (Guest)  on October 29, 2009 at 07:30 PM

 
 
Yes Raw is not War, RAW is Jericho baby!!!

Posted By: Guest#2818 (Guest)  on October 29, 2009 at 07:49 PM

 
 
Yep, don't ever apologize for being anti-war, anyone who supports the unnecessary deaths of young servicemen and women should be the ones who apologize.
Funny thing is most of those idiots will be on their couch watching FOX News eating popcorn while the wars they push for go on. None of them will ever think of serving.


Posted By: Foolio (Guest)  on October 29, 2009 at 08:10 PM

 
 
"I think it's hypocritical for politicians to go after mixed martial-arts, boxing and other forms of sporting violence for the product they display and condemn their sport as "human cockfighting" when they're always among the first in line to support going to war for almost any reason."

So, you are comparing sports that are done for entertainment value only to people fighting so that other people are force to live at the gun point of a power-crazed dictator? Right, buddy. I hope you never run for any office because you're clearly out of touch with basic reality.


Posted By: BKS (Guest)  on October 29, 2009 at 08:21 PM

 
 
LONG LIVE THE COOK REGIME! I forgot to read your column since I hadn't seen WWECW yet and wasn't sure if you were going to discuss it, so I'll check out the raucous in the comment section in a moment. I'm not really offended, but I do find it ridiculous Vince McMahon went this far to stop Cena bleeding when Linda's opponents can just watch a tape of previous years and use that instead. It's not like she can say, "Vince and I are changed people. We don't allow bleeding anymore!" after blading has been in the WWE/F for decades already. All that is coming out of this senate race is WWE getting worse at the expense of Linda McMahon probably losing. I have nothing against her though and I hope she has a good showing, but people already have their minds made up about pro wrestling and changing it to PG now doesn't affect anyone but the loyal fans who want a more exciting product.

I hate the politics section anyway. I just the "RAW is Not War" link on the left margin, then saw you wrote the column, and figured I'd read it and comment on my support for the Cook Regime, hahaha.


Posted By: RavenTazECW (Registered)  on October 29, 2009 at 09:31 PM

 
 
"Now let's hope that politics stays out of wrestling, and vice-versa."


Well if thats the case, then why did you write the article or give us your imput on wars to begin with?

When I want to read about earth shattering columns about the western states hertitage title, I will read you. Until then, thanks for your imput. There are plenty of left wing anti war political writers on this site. Do we really need another one?


Posted By: John Galbraith (Guest)  on October 29, 2009 at 09:46 PM

 
 
"So, you are comparing sports that are done for entertainment value only to people fighting so that other people are force to live at the gun point of a power-crazed dictator? Right, buddy. I hope you never run for any office because you're clearly out of touch with basic reality. - Posted By: BKS (Guest)"

Nope. He never compared those two things. He was talking about the politicians who make a big deal out of one of them. People with limited reading comprehension skills like you are the ones he feels he needs to defend himself againt.


Posted By: Shawn S Lealos (Registered)  on October 29, 2009 at 10:32 PM

 
 
Why blame the Republicans when, no doubt, it's the internal pressures from the Democratic party that's fueling the changes on WWE programming.

Posted By: Mikel (Guest)  on October 29, 2009 at 11:24 PM

 
 
"anyone who supports the unnecessary deaths of young servicemen and women should be the ones who apologize."

Everyone supports the troops now that Black Jesus is calling the shots. Goddamn hypocrites.


Posted By: Guest#8287 (Guest)  on October 29, 2009 at 11:42 PM

 
 
"Nope. He never compared those two things. He was talking about the politicians who make a big deal out of one of them. People with limited reading comprehension skills like you are the ones he feels he needs to defend himself againt.

Posted By: Shawn S Lealos (Registered) on October 29, 2009 at 10:32 PM"


"I think it's hypocritical for politicians to go after mixed martial-arts, boxing and other forms of sporting violence for the product they display and condemn their sport as "human cockfighting" when they're always among the first in line to support going to war for almost any reason."

No, see, he said it was hypocritical for politicians to go after a sport, that at the time was done without regulation, that's done for nothing but entertainment and support a war. Got news for you. War gets things done; many times it put an end to evil people or awful acts. MMA provides us with entertainment. There is a difference. Let me guess: You're the kind of person who attacks cops for going after gangsters because they both use guns, right? Of course, I'm joking, but I wouldn't be surprise if you're the kind of person who celebrates a cop murder.


Posted By: BKS (Guest)  on October 30, 2009 at 01:43 AM

 
 
"Yep, don't ever apologize for being anti-war, anyone who supports the unnecessary deaths of young servicemen and women should be the ones who apologize.
Funny thing is most of those idiots will be on their couch watching FOX News eating popcorn while the wars they push for go on. None of them will ever think of serving.

Posted By: Foolio (Guest) on October 29, 2009 at 08:10 PM"


You really are an idiot! Now, while I don't agree with every war we've been in, war is a necessity thanks to people like Achmedinejad, Castro, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Chavez, Mao, the Taliban, Al Qaida, etc.

Maybe you should try spreading your "anti-war" BS to all these violent nations around the world and see how long you keep your own life!


Posted By: Spyke (Guest)  on October 30, 2009 at 07:59 AM

 
 
I just checked your comments- I saw two people that called you out. One was half assed at that.

As a former Soldier, and a vet, I'm against war in general, but reality always dictates circumstances.

We are not fighting wars because we want to- we are fighting wars because at some point politics failed.

Afghanistan is the result of the largest terrorist attack in our history. It happened, and this is how we have to deal with it.

I remember both liberals and conservatives voting for this war- and its still being funded and escalating by both sides.

Iraq happened because deplomacy failed. Saddam never lived up to his end of his own surrender- and compound that with 9/11 and the war on terror...I'm surprised it took so long to happen.

Nobody really wants war, unless they are insane, but it happens- and you have the right to speak out against it thanks to the lives of people who served.

Just stick to watching wrestling if you can't deal with it...but I agree with one of the posters by saying that you should not apologize for being anti-war.

We should have more people who are anti-war, but the reality is that war happens and we all have to deal with it as it happens.

I think you are kind of shitty for blaming conservatives alone for war...but that hardly needs to be explained, I think you know this and thats why you responded to the two posts that called you out.


Posted By: Grant Muioc (Guest)  on October 30, 2009 at 01:03 PM

 
 
Poffo: Maybe, maybe not, but I felt it necessary to try and diversify this topic from the majority of my wrestling writing. Like I said, it was brought up in the wrestling column because Linda's campaign is effecting the WWE product, but after some thought I decided to take it over here to not bring my next wrestling news column way off topic.

Grant: I also received a few e-mails on the topic, which were generally more well-spoken than the comments. Yes, I was surprised by this because people just comment instead of e-mailing 99% of the time, but they wanted to speak their piece in a more private forum. I'm not leaving the Democrats out of the blame game at all here, and I know all conservatives aren't as gung-ho about the whole war thing as certain members of the Republican party are.

Louis: I think more of us dislike war than you think. We're not as loud about it though, so I understand why you'd feel otherwise.

Spyke: I would suggest there's a difference between violent leadership and violent nations. Violent leadership leads to the unnecessary suffering of their people, who often don't have a way out of it. Yes, there are violent people out there that will never be reasoned with, but they're not the majority.

Thanks to everybody for reading, and I appreciate your input whether you agree or disagree with me.


Posted By: Steve Cook (Registered)  on October 30, 2009 at 03:47 PM

 
STAY CURRENT

Advertisement



www.41mania.com
Copyright © 2005 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.