Having now played some of the "racist" Resident Evil 5, I feel comfortable asking where it is exactly. Not the evil or the residents, but the racism. I think part of the problem lies in the fact that no one (discussing this game) ever defines what they mean by racism, and so it means nothing and everything. How convenient. No doubt there are some authors (meaning anyone writing) who don't know they need to define their terms, and in their ignorance they can be overlooked. Still though, there are many out there who don't because they know they can't support their definitions with the arguments they provide.

RE5 is a perfect example. Some reviewing sites have compared the game to the movie Birth of a Nation. Their analysis is no more complicated than saying in both, black men are portrayed doing terrible things and looking savage and so both are equally racist. Now both the game and movie do portray blacks doing terrible things, but the relevant question is why are they doing them? Placed in a proper RE context RE5 is no longer comparable to Birth of a Nation or any other racist media because of motivation.

Now seems like a good time for my understanding of racism. According to Webster racism is "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." With this in mind, lets think about the RE5 scenario. First, like all the RE games (really the whole zombie genre) those who are zombies generally do not ask to become such; that trait is forced on them, it is not a natural product of their race. In the first part of RE5 you see, as you did in RE4, residents having these parasites forced on them. Again not exactly a trait or characteristic resulting from race.

You would have an easier time establishing racism for all the power-hungry whites who are cause of the zombification throughout the whole RE storyline. After all they intentionally created these viruses or used these parasites. Their seemingly naturally actions are more condemning than those carried out by the infected or infested. The arguments for racism in RE5 come off as ignorant or as a cry for attention, and in the end they might be more troublesome (in that they convince people everyone is racist) for society than the game they so desperately wish was.

I was worried that once I finished my work this semester, there would be too many games to play. Bittersweetly, the choice of which games to play is becoming easier everyday it seems. For instance today I read that the new Bond game I was anxious to play will not have any multiplayer component. Nice, check one off the list. I am sure I have mentioned this before but I enjoy socializing with others. When I say this I mean real tangible people that I know, not sidkid2349 and his/her whiny and vulgar friends.

To be sure I enjoy online gaming with my friends and I think it is a boon to the gaming experience, but it is foolhearty to drop the social aspect of games, especially in light of recent phenomena the Wii. There are some games out there still that embrace this approach, and there are even a few for this winter, but more and more abandon splitscreen/same screen coop and multiplayer vs. Does no one else find it ironic that devices like games and even cell phones, which were designed to increase socialization typically result in increased solitude? How many people play games at home, alone, with "others" on the internet. How many people do you see constantly on a phone even while at dinner with another person there.

Something else that disturbs me is that there are people out there who don't like split-screen or multiplayer optional games. I have encountered several here on GS who have said they hated those options. What in the world is going on. Seriously, has the state of our education sunken so low that this type of stupidity runs rampant. For heaven's sake it is an OPTION. You don't like the way split-screen shrinks your view or that other players keep you from moving on in a same screen game, then don't utilize the OPTION. How can you hate an option? How is that possible? I am not sure how it works but I think, perhaps, that some of these winners are now making games. I don't know, it's just a thought.

I hope that I am not the only one that laments this growing fad of less multiplayer options; or the only one who misses enjoying the company of friends while gaming. Maybe I will pick up golf or poker and leave gaming for those determined to live their lives alone with their virtual "friends." Whatever I decide to do I at least won't go broke this Christmas trying to play all the games I would like to.

To begin, let me say that I do not always agree with how Tuberville coaches. In particular his "let their offense make mistakes" mentality when Auburn has any kind of lead is brutal to my nerves. With that said however, recent posts across the internet about how Tuberville needs to go at the end of the season are, in my opinion, incredible (look up the term in the dictionary). So to remind those fans with short and skewed memories I have decided to list some facts about previous Auburn football coaches.

The revered, and rightfully so, Ralf "Shug" Jordan went 175-83-7 (.674) over a 24 year period. He was not good consistently, especially against Alabama (9-16). His first winning season was his third season (7-3-1). He had 3 ten win seasons, including the 1957 National Championship team but he also had 5 six win seasons. His longest streak of winning seasons with 8 or more wins was from 1969-1972. Outside of this he never went more than 2 seasons in a row with 8 or more wins. More importantly in his first nine seasons his record was 63-27-3 or (.677).

The next great coach was Pat Dye, who in 11 years was 99-39-4 (.711). Part of Dye's allure comes from the fact he finally broke Alabama's 9 game win streak in 1982. Dye had more consistency in his winning than had Jordan winning 8 or more games from 1982-1990. Never did he go undefeated but he did have 4 ten or more win seasons. Unfortunately he also had 3 five win seasons including his last two before he left Auburn burdened by his shady recruiting tactics. Against bama he was 6-6, and 6-3 in his first nine attempts. His first nine seasons he went 71-25-2 (.724).

Riding Dye's recruits to success was Terry Bowden who was 47-17-1 (.731). After winning his first 21 games, Bowden's production slowed. Still he was seemingly a stable coach, but his coaching tactics lead to his departure in 1998 in the midst of a 3-8 season. Not counting his last half season he was 3-2 against Alabama, otherwise his teams were 3-3.

Then came Tuberville to clean up the mess of Bowden, much as Jordan and Dye had done for their predecessors. Against Alabama he is 7-2, a feat achieved by no other coach in their first nine years. His first 9 seasons he went 78-32 (.709), and he has won 8 or more games since 2002, including the impressive but national championship denied 14-0 of 2004.

At this point Tuberville, regardless of whether we always agree with his coaching, belongs in the trinity of great AU football coaches. His first nine years are only bested by Pat Dye who it seems, like all the big coaches of his day, earned that record through illegal and ultimately costly recruiting. Having earned his spot among the AU coaching greats he deserves the same leniency those other coaches received. Jordan went 19-14-2 (.542) in his last three seasons and Dye went 18-14-2 (.529). Even if Tuberville does not win another game this season he would still be 24-14 (.631).

It is hard to dispute the numbers, though no doubt some of you will. Tommy Tuberville deserves to stay at Auburn until he has at least two seasons in a row with less than 6 wins. Let's face it, Jordan wasn't fired and Dye would have lasted longer had he not be force out because of the recruiting scandal. Other coaches were given more slack and Tuberville deserves no less. He has proven he can coach and win in the SEC, a hard feat to manage even at top-tier schools (see Tennessee the last few years).

To state or even hint that Tuberville needs to be fired at the end of the season only demonstrates an ignorance of Auburn history and a refusal to recognize Tuberville's success (he's gotten us the closest we've been to a national championship team since 1957). I may not always like him but he is the best thing for Auburn football and to throw him aside after his accomplishments at Auburn really smacks of Tuscaloosa, not Auburn, football and character (see Bill Curry, 26-10, .722 and was fired after 9-3 and 10-2 seasons). War Eagle and Long Live Tuberville!