Friday, January 21, 2005
FEMA caves to the sensitivity police
Who knew that the Federal Emergency Management Agency had an online game to teach children about tsunamis?
FEMA has now removed the game because it did not want to be seen as "trivializing" the catastrophe in south Asia.
I have a question. If our nation's bureaucrats made the judgment that an online game might help children learn about tsunamis, and if there is actual anecdotal evidence that educated children can save lives in the event of a tsunami, why is FEMA knuckling under to the sensitivity zealots and pulling the game? Admittedly, a "dancing frog" seems trivializing, but the purpose of the game is to teach children, and kids love to be rewarded with goofy things like dancing frogs.
I have no idea whether FEMA's tsunami game is even slightly useful in the matter of saving lives, but the people charged with making that judgment have concluded that it is. If FEMA is wrong in this judgment, it is up to the OMB, GAO or the Congress to blow the whistle and yank the funding. Until that time, we should suppose that the game will help some kid somewhere save himself and those around him. Is there any better time to promote tsunami knowledge than after such a catastrophe? Why should we give a rat's ass that people might be offended? We're not supposed to deal with unpleasant life-and-death threats because there is somebody in this world who takes umbrage? Shame on FEMA for knuckling under to this stupidity.
Our government, our courts, and our businesses spend far too much time catering to our most sensitive people. Sensitivity in the sense of susceptibility to emotional injury is not a virtue, but a shortcoming that burdens others. We should not subsidize it by bending over backwards to protect people from feelings that they could control if they decided it was their responsibility to do so.
The game, which debuted on FEMA's kids' Web site in 1998, asked players to guide a car, a starfish, a surfboard and other beach objects back to their proper places after they were scattered by a tsunami. Winners were linked to a cartoon dancing frog.
FEMA has now removed the game because it did not want to be seen as "trivializing" the catastrophe in south Asia.
I have a question. If our nation's bureaucrats made the judgment that an online game might help children learn about tsunamis, and if there is actual anecdotal evidence that educated children can save lives in the event of a tsunami, why is FEMA knuckling under to the sensitivity zealots and pulling the game? Admittedly, a "dancing frog" seems trivializing, but the purpose of the game is to teach children, and kids love to be rewarded with goofy things like dancing frogs.
I have no idea whether FEMA's tsunami game is even slightly useful in the matter of saving lives, but the people charged with making that judgment have concluded that it is. If FEMA is wrong in this judgment, it is up to the OMB, GAO or the Congress to blow the whistle and yank the funding. Until that time, we should suppose that the game will help some kid somewhere save himself and those around him. Is there any better time to promote tsunami knowledge than after such a catastrophe? Why should we give a rat's ass that people might be offended? We're not supposed to deal with unpleasant life-and-death threats because there is somebody in this world who takes umbrage? Shame on FEMA for knuckling under to this stupidity.
Our government, our courts, and our businesses spend far too much time catering to our most sensitive people. Sensitivity in the sense of susceptibility to emotional injury is not a virtue, but a shortcoming that burdens others. We should not subsidize it by bending over backwards to protect people from feelings that they could control if they decided it was their responsibility to do so.
0 Comments:
