February 20, 1997

Sex, Drugs, and Scooby-Doo
Viewpoint
Mat Bielejeski

While munching on cookies and quenching my thirst with milk the other night, a group of my friends and I started a discussion on Scooby Doo.

Not many people realize the intricacies of the Hanna-Barbera masterpiece about a dog that solves crimes and talks.

I brought up the fact that Daphne was the first girl I ever had a crush on, and many guys agreed. The flaming red hair, the legs, the short skirt. Wow.

When I was five, I knew that Daphne was the girl for me. Then I began to notice something when I was older, surfing through the channels and stopping on the Cartoon Network.

Whenever the gang was searching some bombed out mine shaft or a haunted house that was 300 years old, they split up into groups.

Thelma, Shaggy and Scooby went one way (the direction that the monster was always in), and Fred and Daphne (my girl) went the other way.

For some reason, the way that Fred and Daphne went usually led back to the Mystery Machine. I don't think it's any mystery what was going on in that van.

If you watch carefully, the only time you'll see Fred not smiling is when the whole gang is being chased by some demon-spawn.

If I had realized the amount of sex that was happening right before my eyes in my formative years, I would have flipped out (well, okay, not really. I just would have watched the show every day, hoping to catch a glimpse of something I wasn't supposed to see).

Now Fred was the leader of the gang and Daphne was his whore. What about Thelma? Thelma was quite the mystery girl. She was the member of the gang who put all the clues together to realize some obvious truth about the case they were working on.

Of course, whenever she and Shag and Scooby were looking for the monster, she'd lose her glasses five seconds before the Creature from the Black Lagoon came chasing after them.

Thelma was a valuable member of the team, considering Fred and Daphne didn't do much but have fun in the Mystery Machine.

Shaggy and Scooby are my personal faves. In the course of our discussion, someone pointed out that the Shaggy voice was Casey Kasem. I am not kidding you. Listen to the Top 40 countdown and see if you can't hear the same voice that talks about the Macarena saying, "Zoinks!"

Shaggy also had an amazing fashion sense. Although what he was wearing on the show was not "in" in the 80's, you can see his style displayed on guys everywhere. Big (sometimes even green) pants that swoosh when you walk? Yup. Medium length hair that gets in your eyes and looks like a badger tried to make its bed there? Uh-huh. Shaggy was old school before old school was cool.

Scooby was just The Man (or The Dog). He even had the show named after him. Whenever Fred wanted Scooby to do something, he would offer him a variety of bribes (a new yacht, a summer home, one night with Daphne, etc.). These bribes never got him to do anything, except for the last one: the Scooby Snack.

Now let's think about this, folks. Why would a dog who has his own snack named after him need to be hanging around those losers?

If he has his own brand of doggy treats, he should be riding in a limo with Playmate Centerfolds hanging off his every paw. But no, he's looking for ghosts and solving mysteries. Go figure.

The strange and mysterious Scooby Snack was never actually shown as more than some brownish-red hunk of doggy treat (I'm not even sure we saw that much).

I would like to send one of them to a scientific lab to have it analyzed. I truly believe that the scientists would discover THC (yes, the mind-altering chemical in marijuana) in those little treats.

Why did Scooby and Shaggy always make those huge Scooby Sandwiches that were as tall as the Sears Tower? How quick can you say, "munchies?" Oh yes, they were high as kites. Did you ever notice how red Shaggy's eyes always were?

Yup, that‘s what I thought. Or the way he always walked along, real slow-like, occasionally bumping into the wall? Uh-huh.

I don't know what effects THC has on dogs, but from the way Scooby talked and sounded, he was having to keep the drool from slopping all over his face (another THC side-effect). To learn other effects on canines, maybe I'll help my cocker spaniel smoke a joint.

The one thing that always bugged me about the show was the predictability of the plot. Even when I was five, I could predict each episode with amazing accuracy. They went a little something like this:

• someone would come and tell the gang about a strange happening in some place
• the gang would go and investigate, splitting up into groups
• Thelma would lose her glasses (the cue for the monster to show up)
• Shaggy, Scooby and Thelma would run from the monster
• they would bump into Fred and Daphne (out for some fresh air and a cigarette)
• the whole gang devised a plan, bribing Scooby with a Scooby Snack to act as a diversion
• they caught the monster, the police showed up, and
• Fred pulls off the mask of the beast, revealing that it was only Old Man X, trying to scare off people and "he would have got away with it too, if it wasn't for those pesky kids."

That's pretty much the way it went. However, I can't really be mad at one of the greatest cartoons ever to hold my attention span on a Saturday morning.

Now I hope you can watch Scooby Doo with your eyes fully opened to the subtle intricacies of this fine cartoon.

[back]

Editor's Note
Vanessa Urruela

Public record, fine lines and gray areas...

The way I see it, there is a time for every person to admit that they jumped the gun. I did when I wrote and published an editorial about the "rape case" and said that the punishment the judiciary board recommended wasn't fair.

I didn't have enough information and should have waited to publish a more informed opinion.

Because the men's defamation case against the woman was filed in Watauga Superior Court, some information about the first case is now public record.

Taking advantage of that, I have read all the documents several times. Within these documents is the fact that a large amount of alcohol was consumed before and during the sexual activity.

I am not going to judge the people involved in the case based upon their morals. I don't know them.

I can't blame the woman or the men for what happened. I blame a society that promotes drunken orgies and encourages young people to behave in ways that result in broken lives.

The actual events that took place on the specific night are technically over and done with (besides the defamation suit) and I don't want to dredge them up.

What I do want to get across is that the type of behavior that occurred that night is hardly rare and is definitely not just an "athletic" thing.

It's no secret that many college students drink alcohol on a regular basis. Many times, in fact, at parties where this behavior occurs, sexual activity also happens. Both facts are disheartening.

There is a mighty fine line between consensual and non-consensual sex. There is not however, a fine line between what is legal and what is not when it comes to alcohol and sex.

Many people don't know that if a person is intoxicated beyond a certain level, he or she cannot legally give consent. This means that if he or she is drunk and even says they want to engage in intercourse, they can later press charges. The law says that this is rape.

The bottom line is that when you are at a party or are in a situation where alcohol can or has impaired your judgement, you should know what the risks are. It's never your fault if you are taken advantage of, but there are definitely precautions you can take to increase the chances that it won't happen.

I think that the ugliest part of the whole scenario is that for many students, this is a racial issue. With ASU's NAACP chapter experiencing a successful rebirth and the already sensitive racial tensions, that's the last thing we all need.

Media frenzy and ridiculous notions...

Is it my imagination or have media outlets across the state recently taken unnecessary shots at Appalachian with astounding regularity?

On Monday night, WXII Channel 12 news aired a segment about the "Gorilla Grrls." I was interviewed for the piece along with other members of the student body including some disguised women who claimed to be the "Grrls" themselves. What I told the reporter (which was edited out for obvious reasons) was that there was no story in her "story." Most students don't even know that this group exists.

This story is just another example of a media blitz on a pretty decent school where students experience things that are mostly routine.

I am proud that I chose to come to Appalachian. It is a shame that other newspapers and television stations have nothing better to do than pick on us. My guess is that they know that when parents of college students or graduating high school students hear something about a college, they pay attention. Thank goodness we can all turn the page or the channel.

[back]

Letters to the Editor

Coverage on rape flawed

Letter to the Editor,

First of all we must understand that an opinion is just that, an opinion. In my opinion I believe you, the editor- in-chief, should have kept some of those irrelevant comments to yourself.

Appalachian is not a planet of its own, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

You believe that your paper was being fair when they printed the word "alleged." Until criminal charges are pressed and the accused are proven guilty, the crime will remain alleged until that time; therefore you have no authority to charge the accused as guilty.

Obviously your mentality is no better than the accused. Actually this case had more publicity and the accused received a harsh punishment compared to the fraternity case. Your paper did not respond to that case or even respond to the punishment that they received. What was your mentality on that situation?

Why were the two cases treated differently? I hope we all agree that a wrong is a wrong (alleged or proven), but why treat this case differently?

Therefore, before you accuse these guys as guilty, you need to get the facts. We are supposed to be able to read the newspaper and believe what is said, but for the last two weeks you have not gone into this case with a clear head. You found these guys guilty from the start, and that's not fair to them or their families.

Can you please try to have an open mind and stop accusing, because you have upset a lot of people.

Jeneen Madden
ASU Box 12032

Don't let emotions cloud judgement

Letter to the Editor,

I would like to take this time to point out some problems I have with your presentation of the punishments handed down last week in the alleged sexual assault case ("Rape case decision should anger community," 2/11/97).

First of all, you said, "All I could think about was the fact that The Appalachian had been so fair to the accused, writing ‘alleged' in headlines and stories about the case." This isn't being fair, Ms. Urruela. This is the law, not to mention journalistic responsibility.

There's this little concept we use in America called "innocent until proven guilty," which you may have heard of. You have to write "alleged" in cases like this; to leave that out would be slanderous.

"There are really only seven people who know what happened in the residence hall room." This is correct, and yet, for the first half of your editorial, you act as if you have reason to be outraged over the verdict.

"Nobody besides those people can truly say if someone was raped." And yet, you put the word "rape" in the headline of this particular editorial, despite the fact that no criminal rape charges were even filed with the police department!

"So, when we get angry about the situation, do we process our emotional response intelligently?" Well, some of us do, but apparently you don't. You should have asked yourself this question before you got halfway through your editorial.

I realize that an editorial is basically an opinion, and you are entitled to print it. However, this does not absolve you of having to think logically, or of forgetting your journalistic responsibility to all of those involved, and not just to the "victim."

Jeremy Hefner
Box 13769

Innocent until proven guilty

Letter to the Editor,

There are several things in the Feb. 11 issue that are bothering us. We too, are "mad as hell," as Ms. Urruela says she is. However, our anger is not for the same reasons.

The first issue we have is about the article on the front page, written by Renee Cagle. Her first sentence implies that the one male student that has been suspended is more guilty of this assault. This is not the case. The men that were found guilty of any charge were all found equally guilty. One of the men was already on probation (from our understanding, nothing relating to any type of harmful offense), and was therefore suspended.

Now, we recognize that Ms. Urruela was only stating her opinion and that she has every right to that opinion. However, we feel that she should be wary of contradicting herself. Someone in her position should be able to recognize simple concepts like the importance of neutrality of the press. Can she define "so fair"?

Either something is fair or it is not. There is no middle ground where fairness is concerned. Especially in the position of a newspaper. Our understanding is that you, as journalists, are to present the facts to the public. Fair or not, the people have a right to know.

As Ms. Urruela stated, "there are really only seven people who know what happened in the residence hall room," and she is not one of them. So how can she state that being so fair to the accused includes printing the word "alleged?"

Even to this point, the rape is still alleged. The charges that the accused were facing were lewd, indecent or obscene conduct charges and forcible or non-forcible sex offenses.

No criminal rape charges have been filed, and the men accused were found not guilty of forcible or non-forcible sex offenses.

April Adams ASU Box 13957
Angela Bigger ASU Box 8151
Dana Fabretti ASU Box 15427
Meghan Frisoni ASU Box 15966
Brandi Jones ASU Box 12038
Jenny Lynn ASU Box 10485
Rebecca Ogilvie ASU Box 9676

Take a closer look at the accuser

Letter to the Editor,

Let me begin by saying that anyone who is going to hold the responsibility of being the editor-in-chief of a newspaper on a college campus needs to be better trained than Vanessa Urruela obviously has been. Anytime anyone is placed in such a position, whether intentional or not, their comments are often taken to be the sentiments of the administration and the student body in general.

I am sure I am not alone when I speak of how greatly offended I was by the obviously uninformed opinion Ms. Urruela gave in the February 11 edition of the The Appalachian. On the front page of the very same newspaper that Vanessa writes for it was clearly stated that the young men involved in the alleged rape case were not found guilty of forcible or non-forcible sexual assault, therefore how is it that she saw fit to continually speak in such a derogatory way of them?

Vanessa proceeded to say that she does not want people who assault women walking around on this campus, well what about the women walking around this campus falsely accusing young men of violent crimes and putting their reputations as well as their futures on the line?

I personally feel that people should look less harshly on the young men and begin to take a closer look at the young women.

I do agree with Vanessa on one part, I was also "mad as hell" at the punishments handed down by the University Board. I fail to understand why the young woman involved was not also punished for "lewd, indecent or obscene conduct."

Obviously, her conduct was more lewd and indecent than anyone, if she in fact was not raped or sexually assaulted. It is truly a sad time when the highest ranking official of a college newspaper can make slanderous remarks about other students without there being any repercussions.

I think it is past the time for everyone to stop looking at the young men and judging them because of what they may have participated in and start looking at the young woman for what she did participate in.

Shyvonnia M. McDaniel
ASU Box 17377

Freaky white response

Letter to the Editor,

Just after reading an excellent editorial by Kirstie Fischer which acknowledged and condemned the rape prone culture we live in, I turned the page to see that an SGA Senator, Rolondo Enoch-X, had written the editor implying that every "freaky" white girl on campus was to blame for rapes and that the true victims were black males.

The letter was written with such a complete lack of tact that it was actually funny in parts. Especially when he expressed such ludicrous ideas as white girl "groupies," hanging around "being down for whatever" (thank you for that ebonics lesson) and the white, "freaky" freshman girl, who apparently can't wait to leave home and come to school to try the "‘Black Experience" (which in this case was six big black athletes versus one small girl).

He seem especially irritated at the fact that black athletes in particular are "harassed" by the little white devils. No offense, but that's because of the fact that a large majority of the black population at ASU is attending this institute of higher learning on scholarships attained for athletic merit.

The overall message of the letter, however, was very dangerous. Not only did he give 96 percent of the student population an excuse to resent his extremist, culturally biased expressions and risked igniting racial tensions here higher than they have ever been, but in doing so he has also taken a very important campus-wide initiative about rape education (which Rolondo ignored as a gender problem), and intentionally turned it into a race battle.

Rolondo, you're not Johnnie Cochran, and race has not been, and does not need to be a part of the rape awareness phase we are going through.

I personally couldn't care less what kind of ignorant racist ideas you believe (as long as you don't tell me I "owe" you something), but your completely unfounded argument that white, freaky freshmen and white groupies are rape initiators on campus is, without a doubt, the most irresponsible piece of racist propaganda I have ever read in The Appalachian.

Tell any "African-American brothers" of yours who agree with your b.s. sentiments about the alleged rapes on campus being some sort of white conspiracy to destroy the black male community that the racial issue was raised by yourself and those "lewd, indecent, and obscene" perverts you're defending.

Joseph Caldwell
ASU Box 11385

Letter racist and sexist

Letter to the Editor,

I am writing in response to the outrageous letter printed February 13 in the Letters to the Editor section. I know everyone knows the letter to which I am referring: "White Girls are Freaky," written by one Mr. Rolondo R. Enoch.

The letter was not only sexist, but racist too! I hope Mr. Enoch recognizes what a feat this is! Two disgusting forms of prejudice rear their respective ugly heads in one letter! How proud his mother must be!

I am glad to know that Mr. Enoch is so incredibly popular, attractive, and intelligent that he attracts every "freaky" white female to the point where he cannot even walk across campus in peace. And young ones, too! According to Mr. Enoch, this is the age when white girls are the freakiest.

If the limit for this letter weren't 150 words, I would quit focusing on Enoch's sexist and racist attitude and focus on his opinion of the alleged rapists. There just isn't enough space. Perhaps everyone should stop focusing on this one case and start helping to insure we don't have more like it.

Perhaps Mr. Enoch needs to learn that people are attracted to others because of many reasons, and I personally have never met anyone who picks someone to like based simply on their race.

I hate the fact that we as ASU students have to deal with the issues of rape and sexual assault, and now racism and sexism are being dragged into it. Let's quit before we dig a hole too large to climb out of.

Crystal Masters
ASU Box 8760

Rape is not a racial issue

Letter to the Editor,

With the recent tragedies that have occurred here on the campus of ASU, an atmosphere of racial tension has also been created; a racial tension which is causing separation and racism; a racial tension which must be strangled.

I am appalled at the fact that people in prominent active leadership positions on this campus, whom might I say have a significant amount of influence on their fellow peers, are making the recent rapes an issue of race.

I will state, quite clearly, my point; this is not an issue of race and never has been. This is, however, an issue of simply basic human rights. In my opinion, making this issue one of race does nothing more than propagate, support and empower racism, as well as demean the true severity of such a crime.

Those of us who are Christians, using wisdom, must confront this heresy whenever it is presented; confronting it by presenting the issue for what it truly is about, by disseminating harmony, love, humane understanding, and by displaying Christ-like attitudes.

This should not be a time for us as a community to become separated, but more than ever, it is a time for us to come together to take back our community, become educated and to do all we can to prevent this atrocity from recurring.

Brothers and sisters in Christ we must be that ". . . city on a hill," and let our light shine and our love flow (Matt 5:14). We must cross the racial boundaries and strangle racism and division upon immediate realization. The Bible states. "

Get facts straight on flag

Letter to the Editor,

As a South Carolinian, I challenge Sarah Madden to get her facts straight.

First off, let me say that I don't believe the Confederate Flag should continue to fly over the capitol building. If a person wants to display it in their home, on their car, or even wear a t-shirt with it, that is their right. However, it should not remain on the capitol building.

I would like to correct two things that Madden said in her article entitled "Grover Speaks on Confederate Flag Issue." First, the Confederate Flag was not placed over the capitol building of South Carolina "as a slap in the face of the civil rights movement." Legislators placed it there to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the start of the Civil War. (It was placed there until 1962 due to democratic red tape.) They intended for it to only fly for one year.

However, they actually forgot to pass the legislation to take it down. Year after year, they just never remembered to do anything about it.

Secondly, BMW must not object too much to the Confederate Flag riding atop the statehouse, because they have a plant in Greer, South Carolina. The people of South Carolina were extremely proud to acquire this plant, which brought a lot of jobs and tax money to my homestate.

Please, the next time you write an article, get the facts right, or don't do an article at all.

Katherine A. Beam
ASU Box 14043

[back]

E-mail The Appalachian Online at theapp@conrad.appstate.edu