• Page 1 of 15
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • ...
  • »
  • »»

the way Billy Jack would have wanted it...

Aug 27, 2015 -- 1:35pm

Race is a tricky issue to talk about.   I still think of the Seinfeld episode where Elaine couldn’t tell if the guy she was dating was black or not.    When the gang was at the diner talking about the issue, they always ended the discussion with “I don’t think we’re supposed to be talking about this” because they were uncomfortable talking about race issues where someone might hear them.   By the way, the guy wasn’t black, but he did think Elaine was Hispanic…but when they figured out they were just a couple of white folks, the decided to hang out at The Gap.    

That’s funny, but it’s a joke about white folks, so you can laugh without fear of reprisal.     What it were an ethnic couple doing a stereotypical ethnic thing?   It might still be funny, but by laughing at it, does that make you racist?    In some eyes, it might.    I’ve contended for years on the air that you can’t insult white men.   Oh, you can, and most sitcoms do….I’m just saying that when white men are made fun of they can’t scream racism or discrimination.   Why?   Because white men have ruled the world for thousands of years, they’ve been the majority and held all the power on most continents that whole time.    So it’s hard to feel discriminated against when you hold all the cards.   That’s why sitcom dads are usually seen as bumbling oafs.     It’s a safe target to pick on.

One of these days, though, race won’t be an issue.    Eventually we won’t hear that this person is the first Latina to do this…or that person is the first black man to do that.    Eventually we’ll just focus on the person rather than the color of their skin.    If a white guy beats up a black guy (or vice versa), everybody automatically thinks it’s a hate crime.     What if the 2 guys were friends but just got into an argument?     They would be fighting like any 2 people of the same race…they just happen to be of different races.   As our culture continues to integrate more and more, we’re going to have more situations where people of different backgrounds are going to interact with one another…and interact as people…not 2 people of different races.

Our President is bi-racial.    He’s half white and half black.    Many people in our society are of mixed-race these days.    Doesn’t bother me in the least, but I do have to ask from a scientific standpoint: how do you determine what you are?    What box do you check when you’re filling out a form and it asks for ‘race’?  Obama is called the first black president and he considers himself to be black, even though it’s only 50%.    A person who is only 1/32 Native American can call themselves a Native even though 31/32 percent of their DNA is of another race.     And then, you remember that president of the NAACP in Spokane, Rachel Dolezal, who said she considered herself to be Black, even though she wasn’t….not even close.   She was an imposter…but was she hurting anyone?   She worked tirelessly on African-American causes, so who cares if she was actually black?

They’ve finally stopped counting how many black or Latino coaches have been in sports, so the next time one is hired, we don’t have to hear how he’s the 18th black man to hold this position.   After a while, some of the other designations we make about someone’s ethnicity will start fading away as well.    It happens little by little.    This week, we’re mourning the loss of 2 TV people from Virginia, gunned down on a live broadcast.    They were white and the shooter was a black former co-worker.    Was it a hate crime because they were of different races or just the act of a disgruntled former employee?     In this case there were some racial overtones but just because something happens between 2 people with different colored skin, it doesn’t mean that race was the driving factor.     We’ll get there…maybe not in my lifetime, but we’ll get there.


Aug 19, 2015 -- 12:40pm

A few weeks ago, a dentist from Minnesota caused a world-wide stir when he did something that people have been doing for centuries….he killed a lion.     Don’t get me wrong, I think what he did was reprehensible.   I can’t fathom what makes someone look at a large mammal, gaze upon its majesty, take in its magnificence and think to themselves, “let’s kill it!!”

I understand killing for food or even thinning out herds if the population of the animal is getting to large for the region to sustain.   But when you get to the point when you can actually count how many of a certain species still exists on this planet, it’s time to stop killing that species.    The problem is, lion hunting is legal in parts of the world.   What this dentist did was probably illegal, but he may have been told it was okay by his guides.    

Then why is Dr. Walter Palmer on America’s 10 most hated list?     Times Change.   What once was accepted or even applauded is now looked at with disdain.    

Teddy Roosevelt was famous for his larger than life existence.    From charging San Juan Hill to carrying a big stick, TR was also known as a famous big game hunter.    The amount of large mammals he killed on safari was prodigious.      This was just one of the things that endeared him to a nation.   Hell, he’s even on Mount Rushmore!    

I remember watching movies or even cartoons like Commander McBragg always talking about going on safari to bag an elephant.     These days, talk like that will get you scowls and protests…and they should.     All these beautiful creatures are being hunted and poached to extinction.    I don’t know how old you are, but I can guarantee that several species of large mammals will be gone from this earth before you are.    Conservation efforts are underway, but it’s really too late.

Times change.   

That same mantra can be used for lots of things.   People these days complain about the world becoming too ‘PC’ and that what you used to be able to say 20 years ago is now viewed as offensive.   I agree that sometime people are overly sensitive, but most of the time, if someone takes offense, it’s probably justified.     Think about it…if you were called a word you didn’t like all your life, and then you finally got tired of it and said ‘that’s enough’.    The people you stood up to would think you were just being overly sensitive…but you were actually tired of being put down, or even bullied.

It’s funny when someone uses a taboo word to refer to an individual and you call them out about it.   They’re actually mad and fell somehow deprived that they can’t use a slur anymore…it’s like they’re missing out on their favourite TV show or something

The same can be said about the Confederate flag.    At one time, it was purely a symbol of heritage.     Now it’s both heritage and hate, depending on who’s waving it and why you’re waving it.     Times change.

As human beings, we have the ability to adapt.    We try to learn from our history.   The stuff that’s working…let’s keep doing it.    The stuff that fails, let’s stop doing it or change it so it does work.     If we see how we’re treating the earth, through killing animals or polluting it, isn’t working, then we need to change what we’re doing, even though ‘that’s the way it’s always been done’.    

Time change.    We can too.    Try it, you may not like it at first, but the people around you…and the Earth itself, probably will.

to no Trump

Aug 10, 2015 -- 12:33pm

There are a lot of reasons that Donald Trump needs to get credit.      He’s forced the candidates to get out of their comfort zones because of his unorthodox campaign.   He’s forced them to talk about issues that other candidates haven’t brought up.    He’s made the others have to change their style because so many people are reacting positively towards him.   And right now…he’s flat-out winning.

But that won’t last forever.   He’s tapped into the ‘angry, disgruntled, anti-establishment’ voter, but there are only so many of those.   You eventually reach a ceiling.    Once the campaign gets down to actual issues and how they can be achieved, the best candidate will rise to the top…not just the one with the biggest name recognition and who talks the loudest.

Or the one who brags the most.    Every candidate has to have the self-confidence enough to think they will win whatever contest they get into…but there’s a difference between self-confidence and just being a braggart.    We know Trump is rich but if we wanted to vote for rich…Romney would have won 3 years ago…and he didn’t flaunt it like Trump.

I guess the biggest problem I have with the man is that he’s the master of diversion.    If someone calls him out on something, disagrees with him or makes him look bad, instead of setting the record straight using facts, he resorts to the oldest trick in the book: name-calling.     It’s as simple as that…the thing you tried to teach your 4-year old that it’s immature to do…yeah, that’s what he does.   Examples?    There’s a new one every day:

Doesn’t like the questions Megyn Kelly asked in the debate?   “..she’s a lightweight…not very tough…not very sharp…highly overrated”

So he gets disinvited to the conservative gathering in Atlanta.   The organizer is all the sudden a “major sleaze and buffoon…weak and pathetic.

So Carly Fiorina says what Trump said about Kelly was out of line.    3 days after saying she’s “an effective debater”, he now says “if you listen to (her) for more than 10 minutes straight, you develop a massive headache”

So, his long-time campaign adviser quits, citing the core message is being lost amidst all the controversies.   Trump says he fired Roger Stone (who has been with him since the 80s) because he didn’t want “publicity seekers” tagging along and he was cleaning house.   I remind you, he resigned, not fired.

A few weeks ago a lawyer said Trump called her disgusting when she wanted to take a break in a deposition to pump breast milk.    Instead of explaining his side of the story, he said “…Elizabeth Beck did a terrible job against me, she lost (I even got legal fees). I loved beating her,she was easy.”    Who cares?

Then he defends himself by saying he doesn’t have time to be politically correct…a plotline that most of his followers agree with.    Problem is, none of this has to do anything with political correctness.    Master of diversion strikes again!

His other tactic is that when someone takes issue with him, he tells everyone how rich he is and that what the other side is doing won’t hurt him financially.    He doesn’t realize that the PGA and ESPN didn’t care if Trump was going to be able to make more money by renting his facilities to someone else…they just didn’t want to be associated with him.

Have many of the comments made by Trump that have caused a stir been taken out of context?   Probably.     Mexican rapists? yes.    Captured vets not being heroes? No.    Megyn Kelly bleeding from her wherever?  Maybe.

Regardless of how his comments are taken…if he says what he means or means what he says…all I have to say is….Keep talking Donald….keep talking.

it's coming down....

Jul 07, 2015 -- 12:31pm

The Confederate flag issue may come to an end this week in Columbia…but will the flag coming down from the Statehouse grounds really be the end?     Of course not.   Now, I’m in favor of bringing the flag down, but we know that there will be calls from other groups asking that other symbols from our past be done away with.   Some may have merit, like the removal of portraits and statues of former SC Governor Ben “Pitchfork” Tillman…a man who not only was a racist and segregationist, but who also openly called for the killing of blacks.    Other people may float ideas that will ultimately get laughed off….like removing George Washington  and Thomas Jefferson from history because of slave ownership or doing away with the US flag because it flew over the Indian massacres, wars and other basic history.    I rarely fall for the ‘slippery slope’ argument, and I’m not going to this time either.

Even though the flag needs to come down from the Statehouse grounds, there are other places that it should stay because of historical context…like at Fort Sumter or Confederate graveyards.   Those are truly the definition of ‘heritage’ that so many argue in favor of when speaking of the flag.  

We’re heard the same arguments for years, both for and against the flag, but let me address what I’ve been hearing since Dylann Roof shot and killed 9 people in a Charleston church last month:

1) It’s really not THEE Confederate flag.     Moot point.   It may be the flag of Northern Virginia, but if you ask 1000 people, 999 will identity the same flag as being ‘thee confederate flag.”    Perception is reality, so even though it may not be historically accurate, it doesn’t make a bit of difference in this argument.

2) Will bringing down the flag end racism?     Duh…of course not…but it’s a good step in the right direction.  

3) It’s Heritage not hate.    Actually, it CAN be both and in this case, it is.    To the majority of flag wavers, it simply means Southern Pride or Proud to be a Redneck.    To a few, it DOES have significance to an ancestor who fought in the war.   To many, it’s a symbol used to denigrate an entire race.

Many people equate this flag fight with the current fight against gay marriage.   I can see a connection, but probably not in the way you see it.    For both, many have said it’s just one more way where rights are taken from one group and given to another.    In my mind, both cases are about giving a group something the majority has enjoyed for a long time.    For marriage, it’s giving equal rights while taking nothing away from you.   For the flag, it’s allowing a large portion of the population to be able to walk past the state capitol without seeing a symbol you view as hate-filled flying in your face.

For everyone who says the removal of the flag tramples on your rights…just remember, the people who flew that flag originally were trying to break away from the United States and their Constitution…the document that gave the rights you’re asking for.   So which is it?

know your rights

Jun 17, 2015 -- 1:22pm

There's a lot of talk these days about the 1st Amendment.    There's a lot in there.     It talks about the Freedom of the Press.    It talks about the establishment of religion which has been interpreted as the 'separation of church and state'.    And then there's the freedom of speech.        It says 'congress shall make no law" that abridges your freedom of speech.   That's an important part of the sentence that some people seem to forget when complaining that someone else is infringing on their right to say whatever it is they want to say.

Go ahead...this is 'Murica...you can say what you want without fear of reprisal from the government.   It says so in the Constitution.    But keep in mind, the private sector is another story.    I have the right to say what I want to whomever I choose, but my employer can tell me that what I chose to say is a bad reflection on them and therefore I'm a liability to their business, so we have to cut ties.    That's their right (especially in a right to work state).     In recent days, we've seen many people lose their jobs after posting on social media about topics like same-sex marriage or Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner.     They had the right to speak their mind, but their employers have to look out for their reputation and bottom lines.    Congress didn't tell their employers to fire them...they decided on their own (or bowed to public pressure)...so quit crying about your 1st amendment rights being trampled.

Pam Geller is making a lot of noise lately about those Moooslims.   She says she can have a 'draw Mohammed' contest anywhere she wants to...it's her right....and if it happens to upset some Muslims, then so be it.     Well, it led to gunfire and 2 gunmen being killed.     The gunmen didn't have the right to respond in the way they did, but what did Ms Geller think was going to happen?     You yell 'fire' in a movie theatre, people will stampede.    You taunt radical Islam and someone might just open fire, putting innocent lives at danger...which is exactly what she did.   What's she gonna do next?     Have a pig roast on the steps of the Simon Weisenthal Center?

But does the governmen really NOT have any laws that abridge our freedom of speech?     In the last example, we've seen people arrested for that 'fire in a movie theatre' scenario.    What about 'hate speech'?     Hate crimes go to the Federal level and hate speech is right along with it.     How about threatening someone (assalut) or threatening the life of someone, like the President.    Go ahead...see how fast the Secret Service would be at your front door if you did that.    And now that everyone's online, there are lawys against cyber-bullying and cyber-terrorism.      

So even though the 1st amendment says 'Congress shall make no laws" about your freedom of speech...they already have.     And just because someone reacts to what you have to say with a pink slip or a punch in the nose...they're not Congress...so they can react however they want...which also might have consequences.         


Jun 11, 2015 -- 12:49pm

A lot of people credit MTV's Real World for being the first 'reality' show.     It wasn't, but for all intents and purposes, it kinda was.    Put a lot of people together, fill the house with cameras and let the characters 'be themselves' while we watch what unfolds.     It gave America a chance to be a voyeur and watch a bunch of people live life without rules, bills, or a care in the world.   It wasn't very 'real' as the title implied, but it spawned a whole new genre of TV shows....unscripted as it's called.     Whether we're watching guys cut down trees, hunt ghosts or catch crabs (which probably happened a lot on Real World, but I digress) people tune in by the millions to watch people do everyday, mundane things.     Uplifting shows about families just dealing with the everyday ups and downs of life are very popular, but shows that really get a rabid following always have an edge to them.     You never know what might happen....and when something does happen, we can't look away.     If you pass a car-wreck, you're transfixed.   When you come across one on your favorite reality show....same thing happens.     

On some shows, the characters are encourgaed to act up.     They become bigger stars, the show gets bigger ratings and everyone makes more money.   But what happens when that line gets crossed between reality TV and real life....when the person on TV does something illegal or immoral?    That's the problem....it becomes real for them...but it's still part of a TV show for us.      We continue to watch as though it's a scripted drama, missing out on the fact that it's someone's real life going down the drain.       

Jenelle Evans lives in Horry County.   She first appeared on '16 and Pregnant" before graduating to Teen Mom 2.      She's been arrested more times than I can count and it's all been documented on tv and in the tabloids.    Teresa Giudice from "Real Housewives of NJ" is currently serving 15 months for tax evasion...her husband, also a cast member, will serve 41 months when she's done.     She's already got a dela with Bravo for a tell-all when she gets out.        Kim Richards from the Orange County version of Real Housewives had her fall from sobriety splashed on all the tabloid media.      Honey Boo-Boo got pulled when her mom started dating the man who spent 10 years behind bars for molesting one of her own children.      Now the Duggars and their "19 Kids and Counting" are in limbo when it was found out that the eldest son, Josh, sexually molested 4 of his own sisters as a teenager.      

We're agasht....yet we watch.     We're disgusted...yet we buy the magazines with the characters on the cover.      We act surprised...yet we can't wait to tune in next week to see how they'll top themselves.    

Why do so many reality stars get in trouble?    Is it the fact that they started out as real people and can't handle the fame, money and noteriety?    Is it the fact that to remain relevant, you have to keep getting headlines?   Is it the fact that in an ensemble cast, if you stand out, you stand a better chance of getting a spin-off for yourself...thus getting more fame and more money?      Yes to all.     They're encouraged to push the envelope by the show's producers....it's just that some don't know when to stop.

Shakespeare once said, "all the world's a stage and all the men and women are merely players".     The fact that there are more unscripted shows on television now than scripted ones, pretty much tells me that he was right.     Not everyone has a show yet.....yet.

  • Page 1 of 15
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • ...
  • »
  • »»