Multiply 365 Day 285 - Blunt Force Trauma 13.0 - Occupy this

This was a topic I had no intention of addressing on the blog. For the simple reason that for the most part it wasn't a story for me. Sure I had heard about it, and here in ye olde blogosphere there has been plenty of chatter about it, but for the most part the whole “Occupy Wall Street” protests have been a New York City problem, not something for me to worry about or concern myself with. So while they were on my radar, it would be akin to working an air traffic control tower and seeing two blips hundreds of miles apart, hardly worth mention. But that was before the stupidity came here to Pittsburgh.

Yes, I said it, the stupidity. Because at the end of the day, that is pretty much what this is. Maybe I am just missing out on something, but I really don't see the point of this whole “Occupy.....” movement. I get that corporations make lots of money, in a capitalistic society that happens, and if someone were to come to me and want to know about my feelings regarding the divide between the haves and the have nots, I would say that surely the disparity should not be as great as it is, but my complaints would be more along the lines of a tax code that provides so many loopholes that allow for the well to do to escape their civic responsibility than some kind of glorified paycheck envy because the CEO of XY Corporation makes more than I do working at Smithfield News.

So when the “Occupy......” movement came to Pittsburgh, I was less than enthralled. The fact that these protests were congesting things to the point that people who did have to work were now being inconvenienced by a movement that allegedly was there at least in part to protest on their behalf, and you start to get the irony of the situation. The protestors were doing a fascinatingly good job not of being a thorn in the side of over compensated CEOs, but of pissing off the people they claim to represent, at least if the informal poll I was taking outside at the bus stop is to be believed. Far more people were pissed at the fact that while they were trying to get to work, they were instead being made late for work, sometimes waiting as much as an extra hour for their bus to actually show up to take them to their place of employment. Meanwhile the objects of the protestors were enjoying a Saturday afternoon off, not being bothered in the least.

And I can't imagine whey Pittsburgh would even show up on the radar screen of this movement anyway, other than to be a pale copycat of what was taking place in New York, because Pittsburgh hasn't really been a corporate center for a good four decades now. Sure there was a time when many companies actually called Pittsburgh home, at one point in time it was the 5^th largest corporate headquarters in the United States, but many of those companies have since moved on to far better financial climates. So protesting here is akin to showing up for a birthday party 5 days late and wondering why there is no cake to eat, because by and large the party is over here.

But let's get to the meat of the matter as it were. Many of the people in these protests are there for one reason and one reason only; they want handed something and it is much easier to just stand around stomping your feet about why you don't have it than it is to actually go out and work for it. It is a glorified temper tantrum, another by product of a generation of spoiled brats for kids who have no appreciation for anything. If they don't get their way they will just sit there and scream at the top of their lungs, because that behavior worked so well when they were kids. Yell loud and long enough and mom or dad will eventually cave in and give them what they want. The result is there is no appreciation for hard work, they complain about being have nots because for the first time in their pampered lives, they are starting to realize that mom or dad's credit card isn't there to be pulled out to buy them what they want. Because if it was and mom and dad could fix their problems with a simple swipe of a magnetic strip, these people wouldn't even be here.

In our lust to make sure that each generation has it better than the last we have come to the crossroads where now we have a generation of lazy fucks. People who expect things for doing nothing. Hell, even in those childhood endeavors like Little League baseball, where the ideas of teamwork, sportsmanship and the idea that at times there are winners and losers we have diluted it to the point that no one keeps score, everyone gets to play regardless of skill level and at the end of the day everybody gets a trophy, just so no one feels bad. It is about as far from reality as one could get.

Now, free from their parents nest, they face a world in which people do keep score, ability matters and not everybody is going to get a trophy. And no amount of stomping ones feet is going to change that. And don't get me started on how this is different because of the way social media is being used. I think we have heard my opinion on this before, but just like blogging the whole “I am tweeting while I am at the protest” nonsense is just an illusion of work. If I tweet it, or stream it, or tell my friends where to meet me, I must have done something. Trust me, you haven't and you are not. A circus isn't significantly better simply because it has 5 bearded ladies as opposed to one. It is just the WalMartification of the protest, everything is now under the same tent and you don't have to go as far to find what you wanted to see.

If things were as bad out there as the protestors would have us believe, I can assure you there would be a lot more businesses out there that would be getting a higher quality of applicant than what they continue to get, because at the end of the day it is work, regardless of how unmeaningful a protestor believes that work to be. The difference between this generation and generations past is many in previous generations realized that their responsibility to their family meant that they would have to take a job to make sure the household had money coming in, and not worry about how much they wanted to work at that particular vocation. Responsibility trumped personal satisfaction. But now we have a generation that is accustomed to no responsibility and bathed in a childhood of personal satisfaction and this is a result.

So let's not call these protestors “Occupiers” as it were, let's call them what they really are, homesteaders, people who want something but without actually paying for it. The problem is for every occupier out there, there are plenty of people who will pay for what an occupier wants for free.

Multiply 365 Day 199 - Blunt Force Trauma 12.0 - Back because of a soccer like demand

 

A day like yesterday is a day where you remember that sometimes you change the facts to fit the narrative.

For the past week or so, sports pages in newspapers and online and sports talk radio has been running with the incredible story of the United States women's soccer team, how they had overcome the odds and were poised to become household names like their 1999 counterparts who were the last American team to win the World Cup. Maybe I live under a rock, but I don't think I could name a single player on that team without getting all Googly about it. Their story these days would be found in one of the VH1 documentaries, “Behind the Soccer” or something.

Nonetheless the media was all gripped in soccer fever of a sorts. Even the other night, as I was sitting down watching the nightly news, a chore anymore if ever there was one, one of the news pieces was about how there was an upswing in interest in soccer because of how the women's team was playing. The story was replete with kids playing soccer in a park and somebody yammering into the camera about how the team isn't viewed as a women's soccer players but just soccer players. Lots of nationalistic jingoism tied into a piece about a sport that most Americans couldn't give two shits about. Nary a single piece of evidence was produced in any of the vast amounts of yammering about how soccer was gaining in popularity was ever produced. Instead the story was basically just stock footage stuff, like knowing every 4^th of July there will be some jackass who blows his hand off with fireworks, or every Thanksgiving we have the requisite deep fried turkey disaster, every 4 years we get subjected to the nonsense that America is on the verge of becoming a nation that embraces soccer as a sport with extensive interest amongst the populace.

Anyone who reads my page for more than a day or two knows that I am a big hockey fan. I am one of those geeks that, if there is a hockey game on somewhere, regardless of who is playing, I will gladly sit down and watch it. The thing is though, I know I am a geek for doing so. Sure I would like for hockey to be more popular here in the states than it is, but in the back of my mind I am oh so acutely aware that basically I am a niche of a niche when it comes to an audience. The internet allows me to converse with like minded nichers, but we are nichers just the same. The average guy sitting in his home in Ames, Iowa probably couldn't even tell you the two teams that played for the Stanley Cup this year.

The reason I say that is that soccer is in the same boat. By and large the average American just doesn't care, regardless of how much the media would have you believe otherwise. Sure, sometimes a story will transcend the sport and grab national attention, not unlike the 1980 United States hockey team and the “Miracle on Ice”, but after a little bit of buzz everything returns to its status quo. Or the sudden rise of Tiger Woods early in his career in the PGA. But the end result wasn't a huge upswing in interest of the sport, hockey didn't become significantly more popular after 1980, blacks didn't take to the links in droves after Tiger became the first significant golfer of color since Calvin Peete.

But nonetheless, the narrative being written was how great this was for soccer in America. Then the unthinkable happened, the United States lost in the World Cup final to an underdog Japan team. Now I could sit here and argue about how the game ended (Japan won on penalty kicks, something I railed about better than a year ago, again the blog is ahead of the curve) but I will not, because it just doesn't matter. It will have zero impact on the interest Americans have in soccer in general, so why waste my breath on something that is so inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. However, those that had invested so much time and effort into telling us once again why soccer is the next best thing since sliced bread now had to come up with why it was okay the United States lost, lest the real curtain gets pulled back to show that there wasn't an audience there after all. So it was, “well if anyone should beat the United States, at least it was Japan after what their country went through with the tsunami”. Excuse me? So now it is okay to lose if you are the prohibitive favorite as long as the nation of your opponent has went through significant suffering prior to the event. That my friends, is stupidity even I can't wrap my head around. If that were the case, we should all be rooting for Haiti every year. Or any of a handful of other Third World countries where a “dirt nap” doesn't mean you will sleep with the fishes, but instead that your bed in the very ground you are standing on. ““Hey Johnny, it sure is a shame the US lost to Rwanda””Yeah Billy, but hey the Rwandans just learned that the team can afford shoes and a ball next year and maybe in two years they will be able to afford an actual goal on the other half of the field.””

But in another day or two the buzz will quiet down and soccer will take it's rightful place in the family of American sports, it will go back to being that relative that shows up at the family reunion and everyone speaks to only to be polite, while they look at their watch, wondering how much longer before he leaves.

Blunt Force Trauma 11.0 - No need to apologize

     So I am sitting down just before I go to bed, doing a little last minute online reading.  It is a bad habit of mine, trying to stay semi plugged in with what is going on out there in the real world, or what passes for it on a daily basis.  I have said previously in this blog that I am not a big fan of award shows, watching a bunch of people getting together to pat each other on the back for doing their jobs just doesn't seem to me to be a very interesting use of my time.  So last night when the big to do was happening with Taylor Swift and Kanye West on the VMAs (Video Music Awards in the vernacular), I was sitting in front of my TV watching the Packers-Bears game.  From what I was able to muster through Youtube clips and various online articles, Taylor Swift wins an award for a song or something and during her acceptance speech Kanye West gets on the stage, takes Swift's mircophone from her and proceeds to say that Beyonce should have won.  If this had been the first time West had acted like an ass in public, then I suppose it would be shocking, but with him acting like an ass is sort of like breathing for the rest of us.  Presumably if he doesn't do it, he will die from lack of attention.

       Tonight was the premier of the new (and whether it is improved remains to be seen) Jay Leno Show on NBC.  One of the guests that was scheduled to appear on said show was the same Kanye West from the night before (as though the world would really need two of him).  Now after making an ass out of one's self, who is scheduled to appear isn't necessarily who will appear, the show could cancel the guest, or the guest could opt to stay out of the public eye for a while.  But this is TV after all and we are looking for ratings, so there was no chance that Leno was going to cancel a now controversial guest, and West being the attention whore mentioned above, wasn't going to pass on another chance to be in front of a camera.

       Naturally the topic had to come up about West interrupting Swift's acceptance speech, and once again it was about West.  Sure, he came off as contrite, but the words rang hollow.  Such as when he was asked when he realized that he screwed up, his answer was '"as soon as I gave the mic back to her and she didn't keep going."   Think about that for a moment.  What he is saying is that had she continued with her speech after his interruption, then he wouldn't have thought he screwed up at all.  What, had she continued the speech, then you Mr West would be what?  A fucking hero?  Please sir, don't insult me.  Better still was how he said he feels about it now, "I'm just ashamed that my hurt caused someone else's hurt."  Excuse me, but your hurt?  This has absolutely nothing to do with your hurt, whatever the hell that is, this is just you being an ass. You are of the Maury Povich of the music industry, all fucking spectacle and no substance.  You really want to do us all a favor, save us you psuedo apologies, and just go away.  Believe it or not, the world will get along just fine without you.

BFT 10.0 - Fixing what's broken

Tucked away in the mass of hysteria that was the Presidential Inauguration this Tuesday was a slice of info, that unless one was looking closely for it, most assuredly passed quietly into the night, that being the layoffs at Clear Channel Communications.  Timed to no doubt get buried in the Presidential coverage, Clear Channel on Tuesday removed 10% of their workforce, a total of 1850 people were shown the door the same time one man was being sworn in to take over his new job.  For those that don't know just who Clear Channel is, they are the largest radio holding company in the United States, owning more that 1200 radio stations nationwide, as well as having holdings in outdoor media, television and international radio as well.  So while I bemoaned my job loss late last year in my blog (at a non CC station), I was not kidding anyone when at the time I said that this is a intrinsic problem with radio in general and not my specific employer at the time.  That being said, why did it have to happen and could it have been prevented?  First, lets go with why it happened.

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to know that we are in an economic downturn, and one of the primary ways that radio succeeds is by selling advertising.  The thing is, during a downturn, businesses are less likely to by advertising in any form unless they are sure that they can get a return on their investment.  Think I am kidding?  Then why is it that one week before the Super Bowl, NBC still hadn't sold out all of its spots for an event that every year is one of, if not the most watched TV event of the year?  Sure cost figures into it, at 3 million per 30 second spot, it is a huge chunk of change for any business to part with, but the Super Bowl comes with enough buzz that businesses often unveil new ad campaigns during the contests, and part of the day after buzz in the papers is not just about the game, but talk about the commercioals themselves and whether or not they worked.  In many ways, advertisers get free plugs for days after the game by the endless chatter about their efforts days after the game took place.  Still, the idea that 8 days and counting before kickoff of such a largely viewed event, NBC hadn't been able to find enough buyers for all of its potential commercial avails (biz talk for availables, just so you know) .  Larger companies such as GMC, who used to make sure that they had spots running during the game, have come out and said that this year they will not be spending money in such a fashion.  If an event of this size and scope can have problems selling spots, the idea that somebody doing a radio show 5 days a week and looking to fill in the ballpark of 15-18 minutes of commercial avails per hour of every show with an audience far smaller than the Super Bowl, and you start to get where the problem begins.  If you can't sell time, then you can't pay the simple bills that keep the lights on and your employees fed, so you do what you can to start cutting costs, and the easiest way to begin that process is to start cutting jobs, and taking salaries off of the books.

Second is oversaturation.  Clear Channel is the most obvious, holding 1200 stations, but they are not the only player in having too much of a radio thing.  Media owners have been buying multiple stations in the same market for quite some time now, and the goal of that media ownership isn't neccessarily to compete in the marketplace, but simply to hurt others that are trying to compete.  In the grand chess game of corporate ownership, sometimes a station will be bought not because it is expected to be a big ratings winner, but because with little effort, you can hurt another company trying to do business in the same market.  Here in Pittsburgh Clear Channel owns 106.7 FM (country), 105.9 FM (alternative rock), 104.7 FM (talk), 102.5 FM (rock), 96.1 FM (pop, or whatever they call it these days) and 970 AM (sports).  Not that they are the only ones, CBS has at least 4 stations in this market, and many others also own multiple stations within the same market.  Not all of the CC stations are successful, take 970 AM for instance, that is largley syndicated fare from Fox Sports Radio out of Los Angeles, but the goal isn't necessarily to be dominant in the market, but simply to harm the local ESPN affiliate, 1250 AM that relies on a similar sports talk format.  If 970 AM can steal a few advertisers, while at the same time not spend that much on actual local talent, then their job is done, their goal isn't to try to compete to be the best station in the market. just steal enough listeners so that no one else can topple their bigger stations (102.5 and 104.7) from the lofty perches they currently have in the Arbitron ratings.  The result is that a signal that may employ quite a few people and try to be competitive is run on the cheap and is just designed to harm other stations in the same market.  Worse is if you feel you can't compete, which was the position my former station was in, then you opt not to, you basically just throw in the towel.  You sell off blocks of air time to advertisers, usually in 30 or 60 minute increments, and live off of those checks.  The quality of programming is not an issue, it is simply a matter of can you find enough Dr. McQuackens to hock their cure alls on your signal.  Every market has stations like these, you scan the dial and it is usually some religious programming or some guy selling the latest product to save your colon from some unmitigated disaster that your eating habits created.  While it generates money, it awful sounding radio, and usually such stations garner so little of an audience that they don't show up in the ratings at all, but they are paying to keep the lights on, and that is all that matters to them.

Third would be technology, which has allowed listeners more options than ever before.  Whether it be MP3s and Ipods, the internet which allows access to stations and media previously unavailable or satellite radio, radio has never had this many challenges from outsides sources before. 

Now the answer to trivia question, could it have been prevented.  In a simple word yes.  That doesn't mean that their wouldn't be a fall off in revenues, as long as fewer companies are spending advertising dollars, any form of business that relies on such revenue, whether it be print, television or radio, is going to feel some of those effects.  To suggest otherwise would be foolish, but that doesn't mean that radio hasn't overreacted either.

Let's go back to the arguments and dissemble them just a bit.  First is advertising revenue.  Sure numbers are down, but audience size is not.  In fact last year the number of people listening to radio actually increased, not decreased as is the case with newspapers and TV.  One of the big failings of radio is that it hasn't been able to make the argument that now, more than ever, they are capable of delivering an audience to advertisers.  When looking for how to spend advertising money, a business is going to look to get the biggest bang for its buck, and radio can deliver that, but it requires radio to stop with the "Woe is us" arguments that are permeating the industry and start dealing with facts and delivering those facts to advertisers.  Sure TV and print have helped permeate the argument that radio is dying, they are going to do that because they are competing for the same advertising dollars, radio is just making it easier for them to get away with exploiting that myth.

Second, the oversaturation of markets by a few big time players.  This is starting to play itself out in a way, those stations that were purchased originally as simple properties to hurt someone else are in fact bleeding money.  CBS has put radio stations up for sale,  and Clear Channel is trying to cut in markets where it overextended itself just to name two.  Not that owning multiple stations is a bad thing, but owning multiple stations when one or more are just throw aways rather than actually trying to program something is.  In the end you just end up hurting your own bottom line and maybe costing a few radio professionals jobs in the process.

The technology argument is another sham.  Audiences for radio online are incredibly small, and chances that advertisers will waste a lot of money targeting an audience that small and scattered aren't great.  Satellite radio may have the edge in sound, but it doesn't have the edge in listeners.  When Howard Stern gave up his show for satellite radio  he lost better than 80% of his audience despite the fact he was now available everywhere, not just in markets that carried his show, and now XM/Sirius are starting to realize that they overpayed for underperformance with a number of talents, so much so that they are facing bankruptcy.  MP3 players and Ipods are nice, but the argument that people will only listen to what they want to has always be made false.  When 8 tracks were introduced into cars, that was to be the death of radio, then it was cassettes, and worse, blank cassettes and cassette recorders, as people could now tape what they wanted to listen to ahead of time and just take it with them.  But alas, those never killed radio, nor will current technology, what is hurting is radio trying to be like current technology.  Regardless of the format, people have to have a reason to tune in and that reason is the personality of the station.  If your goal is attracting lisrteners, just doing song, song, back sell, time, temp, front sell, song, song is not a reason for anyone to tune in, because they can get that from current techonolgy without the middle garbage.  Likewise talk stations can't just plug in automation and walk away, there has to be a hook, a reason for the listener to care about what is on the station.  Small local stations do this better than anyone, they identify their audience and communicate with them and the larger markets would be wise to follow their lead on this front.  It isn't the small mom and pops serving 20,000+ that are cutting jobs, it is the big markets with the potential for big audiences that are hurting most.  The reason why is simple, the listener isn't given a reason to tune in.  Radio is being done on the cheap, rather than it being done well.  Programmers need to better understand their audience, sales people need to understand the audience they are trying to reach when pitching the station to advertisers and talent needs to both be free to do a show and responsible enough to do the work required to put on a show.

If anything, technology has given radio many ways for free promotion that were previously unavailable.  From podcasting to social networking sites, talent has been granted a unique opportunity to interact with listeners that heretofore was unavailable, and they need to take advantage of that.  A show host that doesn't have at least an email account and one social networking profile is simply someone who isn't doing their job.  Likewise, with the availability of information on such a grand scale, show prep these days should be better, not worse, than it was in the 1950s and 60s.  Finding a clever anecdote about a song that was just played or is about to be played, or getting a bead on the pulse of what people may want to talk about has never been easier, yet radio fails in this regard time and time again, instead opting for what is easy as opposed to what is good. 

So, at the end of the day, or days as I have been working on this post for a while now, the simple question of what is wrong with radio can be answered in one sentence, "Radio is what is wrong with radio.".

BFT 9.0 - Stop talking

The President is scheduled to speak again this morning around 10:30am, regarding the current fiscal crisis.  I really wish he wouldn't.  Everytime one of these idiots in Washington speaks about their plan to aid the market, just the opposite happens.  When the House passed the bailout plan, what happened?  The market tanked 700+ points.  When Secretary Paulsen preached patience a couple of days ago, what happened?  A market that was up and down all day took a nosedive.  Yesterday the President started talking about a coordinated global response to the crisis?  You guessed it, another nosedive.  Face it, nobody has any confidence that the people that either instigated the current crisis or sat idly by driving the bus while it was taking shape are now going to be the saviors to bail us out from this mess.  That doesn't meant they should do nothing, but for God's sake, don't tell us about it.  Any credibility a plan may have is instantly lost the moment they open their mouths. 

So the President is going to speak in one hour and change.  The markets are getting ready for him, Dow futures are off 400+ points.  Can somebody shut these people up while the markets are still worth something?

BFT v 8.0 - Faux outrage

Oh yes kids, it's back and with a vengeance I tell you. Leave it to the 11 o'clock news this evening to bring forth tonight's topic du jour. As the news was flowing by on the TV screen, up popped a story of another shooting, two people dead in a van, one shot in the neck, the other in the head, one person in custody and the police are looking for at least one other person who remains at large.

The reason for this particular shooting remains to be determined, though of note the shots fired came from inside the van, which would lead one to believe that the victims probably new the shooter or shooters, given they were all in the same vehicle to begin with.

Of note is that the shooting took place in what can best be described as a less than friendly neighborhood. I think those of us that live in larger communities know what I am talking about, areas that are better left untrespassed through unless it is utterly needed. It is the very bare bones essence of street sense in that regard. What got me about the story was once again the community was "shocked and outraged' at the needless violence. Of course we had the requisite city councilman spouting  the typical nonsense. It has become sort of the package story for what takes place in some neighborhoods, usually jammed somewhere in the news between weather and sports, unless it just happened, then we will have some breathless reporter live on the scene. In the end though it is all the same, sound and fury signifying nothing.

The community is shocked and outraged..........for about ten minutes, then life goes on as usual. The community doesn't do anything to change this pattern, community watches aren't set up, people that may have seen something clam up because they don't want to be labeled as a "snitch", and funerals become nothing more than dots on the social calendar ("Hey, didn't I see you last at Jimmy's funeral?" "Yeah, that was a pretty service, wasn't it?" "We should get together sometime."). It is the Seen column for the less fortunate set.

Spare me the self serving platitudes about how something needs to be done to make the neighborhood safer and actually do something about it. Even the best of police forces are working with at least one hand tied behind their back when the community turns into a cone of silence the minute the police arrive. So the choices are really simple, either aid those that would see the violence be removed from the street, or just shut the fuck up because your combination of moral outrage and lack of cooperation rings quite hollow here.

BFT 7.0 - Liar, liar, media's on fire!

Ove the course of the last week, as the Democrats finally came up with a nominee, the media has spent a large chunk of its time looking back on the race and the missteps made and what can be learned from the campaign, and what can be expected in a race between Senators McCain and Obama. 

I am not sure what you have taken from the race, maybe it was a profound liking of one candidate over the other, or a profound disliking of one candidate over the other.  Maybe it was riveting and caused you to vote, maybe it was tedious and you wished it all would go away.  Whatever it was, a large number of you took something away from it all.  As for what I took away from it?  The media are a pack of liars.

Mind you, not a pack that favors one over the other, just a pack of liars either looking to fill TV time or column inches, but liars nonetheless.  Three examples if I might. 1) Shortly after John McCain received the Republican nod, the New York Times ran a front page story about how Senator McCain had an affair with a lobbyist.  The problem was, they had no evidence to support such a claim, but they ran the story anyway. 2) The night Barack Obama recieved the delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton was involved in a conference call with some of her supporters, where she was asked if she would be willing to be Obama's Vice President.  She answered yes, she would consider it if offered.  The media took that answer to a question and proceeded to create the story that she was lobbying to be Vice President.  Certainly some of her supporters were hoping she would be selected to be on the ticket, but at no time did the media actually provide any proof that Hillary herself had done anything but answer a simple question posed to her.  3) Late this week, Senator Obama fresh off of his victory was asked about Michelle Obama and the "whitey" video.  The problem is, there isn't a shred of evidence that such a tape exists, it is all based on a posting by an ex CIA guy, Larry Johnson on his blog, and his story has changed a number of times since its original posting, but never has there been a single report of an actual person having this tape. 

This lack of facts has not stopped the media however, as they bloviate amongst themselves how these shocking revelations of nothing somehow affect the campaign.  Here is a novel idea, when doing reporting, how about basing it on facts in evidence rather than rumor and speculation.  And if you can't handle that simple job criteria, then get the hell out of the way for people who can.

BFT 6.0 - Just shut up!!!!

A brief disclaimer, those unfamiliar with the Blunt Force Trauma blogs probably need to move along if they are offended easily.  There is nothing good for you to read here.  For those that are familiar, well it is back, not by popular demand, but because something pissed me off, surprise, surprise.

Let's take a trip in the Wayback Machine to 9/11 for just a moment, shall we?  No, I am not going to go off on some rant about fundamentalist Islam, rather I want to focus on the comments on Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who used the opportunity to place the blame for the attacks that day on every group that they disapprove of, gays, feminists, the ACLU, etc.  Pretty much everyone but the actual perpetrators of the act, and all because this was God's judgement against us.  The comments were widely ridiculed, as well they should have been, the fact either of them has a shred of credibility after such a thing speaks less to the veracity of their argument and more to the stupidity of their followers.

Now let's come to present day and a more recent tragedy, the earthquake in China, where aftershocks are still being felt and bodies are still being pulled out of the rubble.  Sharon Stone uses the opportunity to say that maybe the tragedy is karma for the Chinese treatment of Tibet.  Just how the hell is this any different than the above statement?  Tens of thousands of people are dead, most of which had little or nothing to do with Chinese government policy toward Tibet, yet Sharon believes this is some sort of cosmic justice?  Is it really any better to attribute a tragedy to karma than the idiocy spewed forth by Robertson and Falwell?

This is the type of stuff that just pisses me off and makes me wish for bad things to happen to these people.  Like maybe hearing Sharon Stone was sodomized with a Coke bottle and rubber mallet, and when she went to report the attack to the police, the officer looks her in the eye and says. "Well, that's just kismet for not shutting your fucking pie hole."

BFT 5.0 - A whore is a whore, of course of course

whore noun 1. a woman who engages in sexual intercourse for money verb 1. work as a prostitute 2. have unlawful sex with a whore 3. compromise oneself for money or other gains; "She whored herself to Hollywood"

 

Take a good look at the word and definition above. For the time being, we are going to stick primarily withe the noun, rather than verb .

I have mentioned Eliot Spitzer in a previous blog, he of the most recent Asshat award, and this in no way defends him, rather this goes to the object of his dollars, Ashley Alexander Dupre.

Since Spitzer was busted for soliciting prostitutes, we have been subjected to the life story of his his partner in crime, Miss Dupre. We were told how she was a young girl, that when her boyfriend heard her sing in the shower one day, he convinced her that she could be a star. We were subjected ad nauseum to the tunes that she recorded on her myspace page, a page that would record over 5 million hits after her name was divulged in the Spitzer investigation. We were told of her hardships, of her boyfriend leaving her, how she was struggling to make it in New York, talk of a book deal of her experiences, how she posed for Joe Francis's "Girls Gone Wild" videos, but wait, she was underage, so Joe was taking advantage of her. It is enough to make one grab a tissue and dab the tears from their eyes.

Unless you are me.

Sorry, she was a whore, plain and simple. She didn't get to be a $5000 a night call girl because this was her first time servicing a client. Last time I checked that was illegal, not something to be rewarded. Even if it were legal, it would just make her a legal whore, not some starving artist. Face it, plenty of people struggle to pay the bills and put food on the table, they just opt not to do it by lying on their back with their legs behind their ears. What she was doing isn't something to be proud of or emulate, it was a crime, plain and simple. It was a victimless crime to be sure but a crime nonetheless and the notion that we should all stand and applaud her, simply because she happened to be the whore that was sent to service Mr. Spitzer on the night he got busted is ludicrous.

Spare me the books and made for TV movies of the hooker with a heart of gold, Julia Roberts already played that part, and it sucked then just as it sucks now.

BFT 4.0 - Whiny primary voters

It is a good time to be working on a liberal talk show. At least if it is non Air America related, after all, we can at least pay our bills, I think Mr. Franken and Miss Garafalo are still waiting on paychecks (don't worry, they are in the mail). Take yesterday for instance, where despite being on a lower powered AM station and running with a last minute fill in host (thanks Phil for coming in on 1.5 hr notice), we ran a full board of calls for the better part of two of the three hours we were on the air. The show had plenty of input by moi, enough so that I may end up posting it on imeem as being my content as well as Phil's.

That is not why we are here today however. A theme has come up regarding the Democrats, one that pits the Obama supporters against the Clinton supporters, and one that should be fairly easy to address and that is the rules of the game. I am plenty sick and tired of hearing Clinton supporters complain that caucuses favor Obama, or Obama supporters yelling that the superdelegates could undermine the will of the people. Get this skippy, those were the rules you signed on for when the contest began. This is akin to a football team taking the field then bitching that it takes ten yards to get a first down. You knew this going in, there were no hidden curtains or unknowing surprises sprung on either of the candidates. The Clinton campaign should have anticipated that caucuses would matter and the Obama campaign needs to bag this notion that the superdelegates should reflect the will of the voters, that is not what they are designed to do. If it were the case, then the votes of the two senators and one governor from Massachusetts, all superdelegates, should in fact belong to Clinton since she won that state. The superdelegates are designed to be outside of the process, sure some superdelegates will cater to their elected districts in order to maintain their office, but if they don't, it is not a crime against humanity. Ideally they are to use their judgement in determining who they support, regardless of how flawed or flawless that judgement may be.

Don't get me wrong, in an ideal world I would be perfectly content with one voter - one vote primaries for all 50 states, no caucuses, no superdelegates, but I don't get to make that call, nor do the candidates. All they get to do is play by the rules that were in place long before the campaign took place, so to all of those people complaining now how the rules are unfair to their favored candidate, grow up.

BFT Version 3.0 - Mourning in America

I was listening to the radio about a month ago, one of the sports shows I so often listen to in my free time. As a rule, I tend to not listen to political talk shows as I like to enjoy the radio and listening to politics is too much like the work I already do, and while I love doing radio, I don't want to drown in it, so people talking about sports instead is a nice diversion. Still, as I am listening to a show, the host is interviewing Tracy McGrady, who is a basketball player with the Houston Rockets. Through the course of the discussion, Tracy talked about what he did in the offseason, which was take a trip to some of the war torn regions of Africa. This made my ears perk up, as it seemed to be an unusual place for an athlete to take a vacation. He proceeded to talk about a village he visited, where in order for families to have food and water, they have to send out the adults to the hills in order to find sustenance. The problem being, in the hills are the people that are ravaging their village, so if the men go out, it is likely they run the chance of being killed, the women are only a little more fortunate, if they are caught, they are only raped, as if that is some consolation knowing you haven't been killed, only violated. I was struck by the story and felt empathetic to those people who have to make a decision like that every day, that simply providing for one's family is a deadly proposition.

This type of story will get no play here, it isn't pretty enough. Instead we were stuck with the endless drivel the last couple of weeks of the death of Heath Ledger. Did Mr. Ledger do something worthy of such attention, besides overmedicate himself? Not really unless you consider playing a good gay cowboy on screen to be some sort of earth shattering achievement. Don't get me wrong, I like movies and all, but they fall along the same lines as sports for me, they are nice distractions, but at the end of the day, that is all they are, distractions. Neither of which is along the lines of curing cancer, or putting your life in danger so that your kids may eat. Yet we were bombarded with news coverage of Ledgers death, and the body being sent to Los Angeles, and the mourning taking place there, and everyone's kind words of him on his passing, and so on and so on. I am sorry, but I just can't garner up any sympathy for someone who brought about their own death under less that stellar circumstances. If I want to see people run the risk of overdosing, there are plenty of abandoned, boarded up homes within walking distance of my place that serve as the crack den du jour. Yet the inhabitants of such a place aren't known for their acting ability so their overdoses are far less compelling, even if they are equally lethal in their outcomes.

I'm sorry, but romanticizing someone's death simply because of who they are with no regard for how they died seems to be a little too simplistic for my tastes. I can't get choked up over Heath Ledger, just as I couldn't get choked up over Kurt Cobain, or anyone else whose behavior ultimately leads to their own demise. One may think that if this would hit closer to my home maybe I might have a different opinion, but I don't think so, simply because I have already been down that path when my brother committed suicide. Maybe I should have felt different, but to me it was simply a coward's way out, and I can't get choked up over something like that. I would rather save my sympathy for those that are suffering rather than those that are selfish. So a brief memo to the future Heath Ledger's out there, waiting for people like me to mourn their passing, I can quit you, more than likely I will not even start you, as starting to mourn you is just a waste of my time.

BFT Version 2.0 - A "Brand New Day" without me

I have made my liking of comic books known on the pages of this blog in the past, mostly Marvel comics and in particular Spiderman comics (though I have been reading New Avengers, Mighty Avengers, Thunderbolts, Captain America and Moon Knight to name a few others). That being said, something has happened recently that has recently that may cut back my book buying severely.

Comic books tend to run in story arcs, that being most stories are longer than one book and the fallout from one book slips into others. I have blogged in the past about one such storyline called "Civil War", which affected many of the Marvel books. To give you a brief rundown on what happened, a group of superheroes, The New Warriors, used their abilities to make a reality TV show, where they would apprehend villians and the results would be broadcast on live TV. During one such mission, they encountered some villians and through the course of trying to bring them in, one villian by the name of Nitro, whose ability it is to make things explode, fires off an explosion that kills approximately 600 children and some of The New Warriors.

The fallout from this tragedy (if a work of fiction can be called such, but its my blog, I get to choose the words) was the imposition of the Super Hero Registration Act, where all people that had powers had to be registered with the government. It became an argument of the security of the public versus the civil liberties of those with special abilities and it split the super hero community pretty much down the middle, with Iron Man taking the pro registration side and Captain America leading the side of the non registered. One of the first things that led people to joining the side of the government was that Spiderman unmasked for the world to see that he was in fact Peter Parker. Through the course of the Civil War, Peter would change his mind about registration and switch sides to fight alongside Captain America, after seeing that non registered super heroes were being locked up by the government without benefit of trial, and that some villians had taken the opportunity of the registration act to switch sides and work for the government in hunting down people who used to put them in jail.

A final battle between the sides would be played out in the streets of New York, and it appears that the side against registration was winning when Captain American looked around and saw the damage that was being done by super heroes fighting each other, both in property damage and how it was putting the public at risk, at which point he surrendered, leaving those that oppose registration very much an underground rag tag group.

One of the things that happened as a result of this storyline was the death of Captain America, who was shot while entering the courthouse to stand trial for his role in the Civil War. Another, less publicized thing that happened (I say that because the death of Captain America actually made the news) was that the Kingpin put out a hit on Peter Parker, who the world now knew was Spiderman. Peter, his wife Mary Jane and his Aunt May had all been living on the run from the law, seeing as how by opposing registration, Peter was a wanted criminal. Well, the Kingpin's hitman located the Parkers and when Peter came back to the hotel they were staying in, attempted to shoot Peter, but his spidersense kicked in and he was able to avoid the bullet that while missing him, would end up hitting his Aunt May.

The shot would prove nearly fatal to May, and leave her on life support in the hospital will little to no chance of recovering. This course of events would lead to a story arc titled "One More Day", where Spiderman would seek help from people, some friends and some now enemies because of the SHRA in an effort to save May's life. He would seek out Tony Stark (Iron Man) who helped, albeit reluctantly, by assisting in paying for May's hospital care, though the doctors at the hospital warned that it was just a matter of time until she passed. He then sought out Doctor Strange, in hopes the master of the mysitic arts may know of a way of saving May, but he couldn't help either. It was at this point that Mephisto enters the scene. For those that don't know, Mephisto is a devil like being that inhabits the Marvel Universe and has the ability to take souls if bargains are struck. He offers Spiderman a deal, he will save May, in return Peter has to give up his marriage to Mary Jane (unlike the movies, the pair have been married in the comic for 20 years now, though it wouldn't be twenty years comic time, otherwise he would be much older, alas I digress). After talking it over, Peter and Mary Jane agree to the deal and May's life is spared, and the marriage of Peter and Mary Jane is wiped from the books (as is also everyone's knowledge of Peter as Spiderman, even though he unmasked on TV).

Why would this irk me you may ask? Because it means that for the last 20 years I have been pissing money away on a book only to find it didn't happen. Fans of the old show Dallas know what I am talking about, how Bobby died, the show started tanking in the ratings, the next season there is Bobby in the shower, Pam had dreamt the entire last season and the viewer had just wasted a year of their lives following it. Multiply that by a factor of 20, and add the fact that unlike the TV show, you have to buy comic books, therefore there is a financial investment in the storyline as well, and all Marvel Comics has to say is, thanks for the money, here's a big f@@@ you for ya.

They are trotting out "Brand New Day" as the newest story arc, in it the marriage never happened, Peter and MJ dated but split up and MJ now lives in Hollywood, and Peter is jobless and still living with his aunt, despite the fact he has to be in his 30s by now. If the people at Marvel wanted to split up the Parker marriage (the editor in chief, Joe Quesada is on record of never liking it) they could have done better than a magic trick and wiped out 20 years of book continuity to do so. Maybe this story idea will catch on (though the online stuff I have been reading tends to make me think, not so much) but all this has done for me is guarantee I will not buy another Spiderman comic book, because in 20 years, who knows, it may be made irrelevant as well.

BFT Version 1.0 - Bum Fucked

This will start with an admission and a geography lesson. The admission is relatively simple, I understand that there are people in the world worse off than me. Plenty of regions on this planet suffer without enough food or clean drinking water, other people are in places where those things that we take for granted are to them, quite difficult. A trip to the market is of relative inconsequence to us, to them it is a matter of taking ones life into their own hands. Still others have befallen a tragedy of some sort, a loss of a home to a fire, a natural disaster that turns their world upside down or any of a number of unwritten potential tragedies that could fill up this page.

Second things being second, a geography lesson. I mention quite frequently that I have two jobs, a full time job that I enjoy in radio, and a part time job, that while not offering career fulfillment (how much fulfillment can you get out of dishwashing after all?) serves its purpose of adding to my menial income as well as working around my full time schedule in such a manner that they do not conflict, and it is relatively close to my apartment, being between 4-5 blocks away. I can usually walk to work in about ten minutes.

It isn't the walking to work that is the problem however, it is the walking home. When I leave work, I have the option of cutting down a bunch of side streets, or walking the main drag, Forbes Avenue, and making the appropriate turns. Usually I will opt for the latter option, it is more well lit, as well as taking me by some places that are still open, even at that late of an hour. One never knows when a craving for late night McDonald's may happen, or a need to stop by Rite Aid or CVS, both of which are of the 24 hour variety. The thing is, on the way home I am consistently accosted by the same sing song mantra of "you got any change?" Literally, on a ten minute walk, I can be asked that question 3 to 4 times nightly, often by the same people that had asked me previously.

Unlike the people that I listed at the beginning of this rant, these people are nothing but bums and I have no sympathy for them. Yes, I am speaking to you with the change cup. When your shoes are nicer than mine, when your clothes are newer than mine, when the only time you have word one to say to me is when you are begging for something, the chance of me honoring your request is slim and none and slim just left town. If someone at work were to ask me for a couple of bucks for bus fare to get home, I would have no problem giving it to them, chances are I wouldn't even ask for it back. What's the difference? It is simple, they have a job and are making an effort. Nothing is more annoying than someone standing outside of a business that is taking applications and asking me for money. Did you bother to go in and fill one out? Did it occur to you that the potential for money is merely feet away, but it requires you to do something besides stand there and beg? I will admit, some of the places don't pay the greatest of wages. It is not about how much you make to me, it is about trying. The notion that there are no jobs just isn't true.

Over the holiday I, like many people, spent time taking in the the sport of consumerism, and a funny thing happened while out spending cash, most of the stores I visited had Help Wanted signs in the window. On that same walk home from work, I pass 4 businesses, including the one I work at that are also seeking potential employees with signs in their window and I know of at least another two that are constantly hiring, even though they have no such sign. When I have sought secondary employment, it hasn't been a matter of finding something, but rather picking between potential jobs. When I took my dishwashing gig, I had another job offer on the table, and could have had an interview for a third. The time before this, I again had my choice of jobs, so lets be honest, don't cry to me there isn't work, there just isn't work that you want to do. And while we are on this honesty kick, I can in all honesty say that in will be a cold day in hell before you ever get a single penny from me.