Telling it like it is (without saying what "it" is)

The new rule of racism apparently is that if someone isn't directly addressing a specific group through copious use of a racial slur, then they aren't being racist.

This post that is definitely not racist is going around today (though, like all good Internet memes, it's a few years old). The true bigots, you see, are the ones who cry racism in instances like this.

The good doctor is just telling it like it is.

Which is why I think it's safe to say that I'm just as annoyed by a certain segment of the American population. They complain about how terrible the government is, and yet all of them rely on it. They use public infrastructure every minute of the day and they don't want to pay for it like some leeches. Many of them live solely off government stipends and even use them to buy drugs. They have false teeth and Cadillacs and lavish homes and vote largely based on race. Many of them line up in the streets during the day with poorly spelled signs while dressed in baggy, colorful clothes. They often invoke the spirit of a protest involving a certain caffeinated beverage. But despite constant claims of being Taxed Enough Already, they often have pricey electronics that they bought on credit because they couldn't afford them.

I deal with these people every day. They make me mad.

Here's a picture of me not being those people.

Yep. All American.

If you think I'm talking about that nonpartisan, grassroots group that emerged in 2009 to protest perceived excessive taxation in the Obama administration as a front for racism, well, you're the real hater. I'm just telling it like it is! 

Sometimes, the truth hurts.

Depressing Sitcoms

(Brought to you by a sleepless night on Twitter)

Charles Is Charged

Happy Days of Reckoning

The Golden Graves

The Brady Bums

Slaved By The Belle

My Two Deadbeat Dads

It's Always Eagles Football in Philadelphia

Saved By The Bell: The Reunion Year

Full House: Empty Nest

What's Eating Gilbert Grape NOW!!

Fartin

Will Smith of Bel Air

Living Single Mom

Sanford Sans Son

Hey Vern, It's Shirley

My Mother the Czar

Acquaintances

Tied Families

Tree's Company

Head of the Class Action Suit

RALF

WKRP in Reality

A little thing called perspective

Taking the class that hates class to school

Some things in life are so white, they’re blinding.

Saying no to college is one of them.

I get that some people can’t afford college. I get that some are better suited for trade school or for specific certifications. But this article barely touches on those situations, instead focusing on the short-sighted, greedy, bourgeoisie reason to quit college: because you’re too smart for class and those billions won’t make themselves.

But really, anyone who doesn’t see that the examples of Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are such outliers that they merit being written about are precisely the people who need an education the most. It’s like that one time I read about a homeschooled girl who got into Harvard, because I think that only happened one time.

The article touts the idea, without much skepticism, that college is no longer worth the investment because it’s easier to create, say, an app. Even if it was true that the entire American economy and job market were exactly like the tech sector, how awful would it be to have a nation full of get-rich-quick, know-nothing types?

(Yes, I'm well aware that life is also a teacher. But how open is your mind once you've stuffed enough money into it? And don't get me started on the educational value of travel. If you can afford to travel the world after dropping out of college, you're too ridiculous to like.)

Education isn’t just about getting gainful employment; it’s about learning how life works and how to get by socially. It’s about expanding your mind not only to know more, but to learn how much you don’t know. That, in turn, makes you a better person. But yes, it also does help you in the career regard. Even in bad times, employers generally want a person they know can handle commitments and is smart enough for the rigors of the job. We need more of that, not less.

We also need more trade schools, because trades always need qualified personnel as surely as any collegiate field.

Most people aspire to a higher education. These are the people most deserving of our help, because they will lift themselves up and, in turn, society.

Others never have to worry about money and venture capital, nor do they feel they will gain anything from school due to their perceived high standing in life. Those bourgeoisie types shouldn’t be anyone’s role models. They’re only hurting themselves in the long run. And us.

On the other hand, think of the apps!

Further thoughts about Bob Costas

So here's the video of Bob Costas talking about guns in the aftermath of the Jovan Belcher murder-suicide. I shared my thoughts last night before having seen it, but knowing his main point.

The only thing I find surprising about Costas' speech that he gave it at all. But my surprise is linked not with disgust, but with admiration. I get that a lot of people are indignant that he did it. But here are some things to consider:

• Costas had to address the issue. Many, many people argued that the magnitude of the shootings was so severe that the Chiefs-Panthers game shouldn't even have been played. Given that, it's awfully audacious to assume that Costas wouldn't have taken some time before a national audience to mention the tragedy. It's hard imagining anyone would object to that. And yet many did, perhaps because of how he did it. 

• He said something substantial, which guarantees someone will hate it. He could have taken the easy route and said something to the effect of, "Our hearts and prayers are with the team and their affected families." But frankly, there's way too much of that already. It's such a default human emotion that it shouldn't even pass for commentary. But, so often, it does. And it does so because we, the public, have decided that we really don't want to hear anything that might ruffle our feathers — at least, not during our completely family-friendly and safe-as-milk episodes of sanctioned violence. Costas' real sin, then, was taking a stand when much of America wanted to sweep the elephant under the rug.

• Speeches like these are a proud tradition in journalism. Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite, to name just two of the most revered journalists of all time, both famously took stances when they felt it necessary and relevant. They didn't do it willy-nilly, but that only made it all the more biting when it happened. Generally, they did so when a problem was so out of control, that it made no sense not to address it. And when they did so, they brought with them decades of experience and expertise that ensured their opinions carried weight. Costas may not be Murrow or Cronkite — or even Howard Cosell, who integrated sports and true journalism like no other — but he is a respected sportscaster with decades under his belt and a continuing national presence. He is relevant enough to have people mad at him. 

• If anything, Costas lowballed it. Much of his hardest-hitting points are nearly verbatim quotes from this Jason Whitlock article. Costas presented it almost as if to say, "Here is an interesting argument to ponder," which is an escape clause more than anything. I happen to think it's what he actually believes, based on what else I've known him to say (his point about perspective, for one, is very similar to what he said in a Playboy interview 12 years ago). But quoting Whitlock does allow him to say to critics, "Those were his words. I may or may not believe them, but I chose to bring them into the conversation." Which is actually quite journalistic.

• If you don't like it, hell, ignore it. That's what I do, at least in situations like this. Having lived where I have, I learned long ago to ignore all the "we need harsher penalties" bluster that sprouts absolutely everywhere whenever something happens (as long as it doesn't entail reducing access to guns for white Republicans, that is). As long as someone isn't trying to enforce their beliefs upon others, I don't care. It's a waste of energy to get steamed over some opinion someone said on TV that has no real bearing on anything. So Bob Costas sort of said something critical about guns. OK. Why does that ruin your day? If Terry Bradshaw made the opposite argument at halftime, that wouldn't bother me. Which reminds me...

• Costas didn't even argue for gun control. His speech was about how the gun caused the situation to escalate. As I said in my last blog, handguns are dangerous to have in a moment of fury in a way unique to virtually all other weapons. We could argue just as much that Costas was urging everyone to settle down and think twice before exercising poor impulse control — an absolutely true point that even gun owners should agree with. You could perhaps argue that what Costas said had a decided anti-gun bent, but you can't say that he advocated restricting guns or otherwise called for radical reform. That's a stretch. He didn't imply that, much less say it outright.

• This wasn't about politics. Costas was just being human here. He, like so many of the rest of us, felt that he just had to say what he did. And so he did, despite the fallout he knew was coming, because he felt that the message was more important. Kudos to him. I hope more broadcasters feel ennobled to do so when appropriate, because that's what a vibrant press is supposed to do. Whether or not I agree.

(Hat tip to Mike B)

When defense gets offensive

So I just heard that Bob Costas made what amounted to an anti-gun segment during a football game tonight, prompted by the murder-suicide of Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher. I haven't yet seen the segment, but I do know Bob's main point was that if Jovan didn't have a gun, he and his girlfriend would still be alive today. 

Along with the usual suspects' outrage about how politics has no place in anything if it's liberal, another line I've read 100 times already is this: If Belcher was determined enough to kill his girlfriend and himself, he would have found a way no matter what. Also, Second Amendment. Rah rah. Go America.

But here's the thing.

The difference between handguns and virtually all other types of weapons in existence is time. A handgun rewards poor impulse control. Whereas crossbows, knives, bats, shivs, shanks, nun-chucks, brass knuckles, blunt objects and other weapons can be deadly, today's modern guns can be picked up in a split-second's time and used to end someone's life. No thought, no skill, no technical limitations, just anger and go. (This goes even more so for automatic and semiautomatic assault weapons.)

Nothing like this existed when the Second Amendment was drafted. I wonder how their existence would have affected the wording. It's hard to imagine that in their interest to preserve an armed citizenry, the Founding Fathers wanted Americans to be able to kill fellow citizens on a whim. To do so would seem to contradict freedom.

So while guns don't kill people, and it's fair to argue whether or not Costas' spiel was in an appropriate venue, I think he's right. I don't know what was going on in Jovan's head — none of us do — but my bet is that if he'd had a weapon other than a gun in the act of attacking his girlfriend, he might have failed to kill her or at least had a few moments to reconsider following through with it (in which time he might have cooled down and/or she could have escaped). And perhaps, just perhaps, he wouldn't have decided his life was over and killed himself in a second round of rash impulse.

The Second Amendment, steroids and stress don't even factor into what is a much bigger problem, one that guns make especially dangerous — momentary lapses of judgment. 

As long as that's an epidemic in a country with such lax gun laws, America will have a problem.

A good spanking (no, not that)

More beatings, fewer Beastie Boys.

As many of you know, I'm not a fan of spanking. I think of it as a violent relic and a desperate form of discipline. Too many parents relish spanking for me to not think it's at least partially rooted in aggression transference. "I spank the hell out of my kids. My daddy spanked the hell out of me, and I turned out fine! You got a problem with that?" But then, I'm not a parent, so nobody cares what I think.  

But my opposition to spanking isn't what I find dumb about the graphic above. At least, not entirely. No, what I find ridiculous about it is the example they chose. Those guys aren't gangbangers — they're pathetic suburban white boys, assuming that this isn't a joke photo. For all we know, they're dressed up as the Beastie Boys for a costume party. Assuming they're serious about their look, though, that's just teen rebellion — and from the look of the photo and the clothes, these guys are probably 35 by now. And the shame they must feel from being a bad Internet meme has to be a more severe punishment than a pop in the chops could ever be.

Anyway, who raised this generation? Properly Spanked Little Timmy up there! The baby boomers are kind of famous for being the picture of rebellion from suburban conformity. At least until they became suburban conformists themselves.

If you asked me who here I'd prefer to be stuck with in an alley late at night, I'd take my chances with the Beastie Boys up there. I'm pretty sure I could flash a picture of Ice-T (or Wayne Brady) and scare them off. 

Suburban dad with anger issues? That's who I'd worry about.