Don Imus and mediamatter.org

Don Imus has been a regular topic since he uttered a sophomoric description of the Rutgers Women’s Basketball team. It was horrible and stupid and, as I have written here before, he should have been fired.

My wife offered me the April 23, 2007 issue of Newsweek magazine. Keep in mind that Newsweek is a “strategic partner” to NBC, who was one of Imus’ employers.

The article “The Power That Was”, written by Weston Kosova, was mostly a recap of what happened recently regarding Imus’ idiotic attempt at humor and the wrath that poured down upon him afterward.

Kosova makes one point that I did not realize until I read the article. On Wednesday, April 4, 2007, the day of the incident, millions of people listened on the radio and watched on MSNBC. Nobody flinched at the remark.

Okay, maybe somebody flinched, but nothing was said. It was just the I-Man doing his schtick. Imus makes fun of people. It is what he gets paid to do.

It was not until later that things boiled over. An employee of Media Matters, Ryan Chiachiere, watched the show on tape and brought the comment (among others) to his employers. His employers then began make the statement available at their website, but more importantly, added the clip on YouTube.

It was then that the controversy sparked and caught fire. Hours after the program had ended; people had the comment pointed out to them and became incensed.

Think about this for a moment. People who normally do not watch or listen to Don Imus became aware of the comment and became upset. Within a week, Don Imus was out of work.

Even I, who did not watch or listen to Imus regularly, became caught up in the discussion, and I have always stated that I enjoyed Imus when I could listen.

If I run a stop sign, and there are no cars or pedestrians in the area, but a local television crew accidental, but clearly, tape my car running through the intersection, can I get a ticket a week later? I clearly violated the law. Would it be right if the news crew ran a story on the late news that Alexander Dimm ran a stop sign and then the police ticketed me because they heard about the story on the news?

Somehow understanding that the Imus controversy did not spring up from the initial statement bothers me. The fact that his firing was generated, not by regular listeners, but by people who look to the internet for issues they can champion colors the whole affair.

At the core, should Imus have been fired for his statement? Of course. As it states in the Newsweek article, Imus normally saves those kinds of remarks for newsmen, writers and politicians. Still, he should not be making these kinds of remarks about anyone.

Should Media Matters have spread the word once Chiachiere made them aware? Of course. Media Matters is a great organization who works hard to point out the misinformation being spread in the world of news today. Everyday they point out errors by people you would expect and people you would not. If you have not seen it, I urge you to visit their website at http://mediamatters.org/.

Imus was not considered by Media Matters to be a frequent offender. People do not get upset about offensive statements by Howard Stern and/or Glenn Beck because these people, and others like them, are consistent. Everyday they utter things that are offensive and stupid.

Imus did not take a step “over the line”. He took a step “over his own line”. He made a statement he would not normally make. He offended a group of people he would not normally offend. He did it and he paid the price.

There are many others getting paid today who frequently step over the “Imus line” but not over their own line. They are still working, and will likely continue to work. That is the saddest statement about this affair.

Imus, who understood the workings of Washington, did not hold with a political party, and was willing to puncture a republican as easily as a democrat, no longer has a voice. Many others who spew misinformation and venom like it is the weather report will continue to go merrily on their way. They do because their statements are not out of character for them.

If you are unhappy with comments made by any news reporter or political commentator, speak up. Be specific. Tell them what you heard and how you felt. Do not make it a personality issue. Write down what was said and when. Then let those in charge know.

I have already written that I feel Glenn Beck should be removed from his nightly program at CNN Headline News. If you agree and want an opportunity to be heard, contact CNN at this link, http://www.cnn.com/feedback/. You may be surprised what can happen.

Thank you for reading. We’ll talk again soon.

Presidential Debate

The next presidential election is still about nineteen months away. Apparently the Democrats believe they had better get started.

Last night MSNBC broadcast a debate between the democrats. My wife and I would have loved to have watched, but I was unaware of the program and my wife forgot until after it had ended. I assured her that the network would rerun the debate, and then promptly forgot to look for it again.

On one hand, the election is nineteen months away. There will be many, many more debates and speeches in the meantime. On the other hand, I love this stuff and it would have been fun to watch.

It has been awhile since I have written about the candidates. I still encourage everyone to read as much as you can and listen and find your candidate. I have not yet solidified my choice for next fall. We do not have to vote until the spring 2008 primaries, so I am taking my time.

I am keeping my eye on the obvious contenders, including Barack Obama, John Edwards (who gave a great speech recently that is available as a podcast from www.johnedwards.com) and Christopher Dodd on the democrats’ side. I am also keeping my ears open to Sam Brownback, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain among the republicans.

I would love to consider people like Joe Biden and Tommy Thompson, but both have let themselves down by uttering foolishness. Biden attempted to praise Obama and ended up offending previous African-American candidates. Thompson recently offended people of the Jewish faith while attempting to compliment them. If they cannot properly offer words of simple praise to the people of our country, in relatively non-stressful circumstances, are we going to allow them to speak to the leaders of the world?

Then there is Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich (who hasn’t officially announced but acts like he has). These two continue to spout statements that in my mind fuel the fires of hate within this country. Romney has made clear his beliefs regarding the rights of those wishing same-sex marriages. Gingrich is notorious for his attitudes toward women. Neither is worth our time.

Have the candidates I have mentioned favoring uttered foolishness? Occasionally they have, but they have not taken positions that fall totally in my disfavor, although McCain does support the war, and their statements have not done undo harm to their campaign. In the cases of Biden, Thompson, Romney and Gingrich, their past statements will make them easy targets as the months fly by.

I love a good presidential campaign. There is a lot of good information on the internet and some bad information. Never take what I say as gospel. Take what the candidates say and scrutinize it carefully. Understand what they stand for and decide who you would like to see as our next president. If you can choose soon enough, consider volunteering for a campaign, even if typing a few words of support on someone’s blog is all you can afford.

If there is anything you disagree with here, let me know. I would love to hear what you think.

Thank you for reading. We will talk again soon.

Is Glenn Beck a Liberal?

If Don Imus is considered racist, sexist and a misogynist, how do you define Glenn Beck?

Remember when “conservative” meant being careful. Looking at a definition of the word conservative, it states:

1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.

Think about this. It uses words like “cautious” and “restrained”. Yet I notice that many of those who describe themselves as conservative are anything but “cautions” and “restrained”.

Would someone described as “conservative” call anyone a “fat witch”? Glenn Beck does. March 21, 2007.

Would someone go on the radio and refer to a neighboring nation as a “dirtbag country”? Glenn Beck did. April 27, 2006.

On February 28, 2007, Glenn Beck was interviewing an American Idol contestant who had been scandalized by racy photos that had become public. Beck’s “conservative” response? “I’ve got some time and a camera. Why don’t you stop by?”

Is this an example of "traditional values"? Dr. Dobson, are you listening?

Are these types of barbs considered witty? None of this would be funny or thought-provoking if it were uttered by Larry the Cable Guy. Don Imus is a first cousin to Bob Hope compared to the “funny, conservative” humor of Glenn Beck.

How is this for a funny observation: On the August 24, 2006 broadcast of his program on CNN, Beck complained about hotels that put Braille markings next to the doors of the rooms. “Just to piss them [blind people] off, I'm going to put in Braille on the coffee pot ... 'Pot is hot.' "

I wrote recently that I believed a broadcaster I sometimes enjoyed, Don Imus, should have been fired for his recent remarks regarding the students and athletes of Rutgers. I stand by that statement.

The truth remains that if Imus deserves to be sent home, so do many other broadcasters. Glenn Beck is someone who liberally offends and openly hates people. That does not make Beck a liberal. In fact, he is far from being either a good conservative or a good liberal. He is far from being good at anything.

I hope CNN wakes up before he embarrasses their organization any more than he already has.

Jackie Robinson

Even though both Chicago teams lost on Sunday, it was still a great day. Three years ago, Major League Baseball declared that each April 15th would be Jackie Robinson day.

This year, different players on each team asked to wear the retired number of Robinson. Six Cubs wore the number while five Sox also took a turn. The Dodgers, for whom Robinson played, had all of their team where number 42.

Robinson was 28 years old when he broke in with the Brooklyn Dodgers. Over ten years, he played in nearly 1,400 games, batting .311 and hitting 137 home runs. The stats are not incredible, but very, very good. Robinson retired after being traded to the dreaded Giants. Seems he was more loyal to the Dodgers than they were to him.

What I did not know about Robinson was that, during his career, he played every position except the battery positions, although he only played shortstop once. He spent the most time at second base, where he finished with a nice .983 fielding percentage.

To compare, former Cincinnati star and Hall of Famer Joe Morgan had a .981 fielding percentage after playing three times as many games at second base in twice as many years. Rogers Hornsby, Hall of Fame player who spent most of his career at second finished with .965. Hall of Famer Rod Carew split his career between second and first base, and finished at .973.

Oh yeah, Ryne Sandberg finished with .989 at second base. He played for the Cubs for a few years and entered the Hall awhile back. He was pretty good, but he did not have to battle the demons Jackie Robinson did.

Crossing to color barrier could not have been easy. He endured insult upon aggravation. Players and fans alike showed disrespect and in some cases, hatred. Jackie Robinson was a special man. He handled the entire ten years and more with class and dignity.

It is amazing that this year’s wonderful celebration had to be shadowed by the horrible comments made by an eccentric old man who has 1940s values in a 21st century world.

Jackie Robinson had a career that was relatively short and, although he put up good numbers, were hardly overwhelming. Still, he accomplished so much in such a short time.

I hope someday we forget about Jackie Robinson. I hope that the relationship between all people is such that we do not have to celebrate those who helped prove that we are all one people.

Until that day, I will look forward to each April 15th. Nice play, Jackie. Nice play.

Let the Cry "Remember Virginia Tech" Ring Loud and Clear

This is the last thing I wanted to write about today.

There were other things I was had in mind. There is a book I am reading I wanted to discuss. There are thoughts about other radio and television performers who often make comments worse than those made by Don Imus last week that need to be shared. Yesterday, baseball celebrated Jackie Robinson day.

It all has to be set aside. Today, a man killed our children.

News reports differ. Some say thirty were killed. Others say thirty-three. Almost all use the words “at least”.

I heard about the first shooting of two people early this morning. The story at that time reminded us that on August 20, 2006 there was a shooting at Virginia Tech. At that time the campus was closed to protect the students.

At that time, it was the police doing the shooting. A convict, who escaped from Montgomery County Jail in nearby Christiansburg, close to eight miles away from Blacksburg, was suspected of killing a hospital guard and a sheriff’s deputy. The suspect was shot and killed just off the Virginia Tech campus.

Security was still working, even today, to protect the students of the University. Unfortunately, even with added protection, there were still two sets of shootings.

President George W. Bush got it right when he said today, “Schools should be places of safety and sanctuary and learning. When that sanctuary is violated, the impact is felt in every American classroom and every American community.”

Of course, schools are not the only places where there should not be guns and death. Churches, schools, government buildings, grocery stores, shopping malls, hardware stores, amusement parks, parks, parking garages, hospitals, restaurants and I could go on and on.

As citizens of this country, we have a right to protect ourselves, but we also have a right to expect to live our lives without the threat of being harmed at any time by any person. We need to rethink what is happening is this world today.

Today, our President is attempting to spread democracy overseas. It is a nice idea, but look for a moment at what democracy is giving us. There are individuals killing our children. There are no reasons. There are no excuses.

I do not care how today's killer was treated as a child. I do not care if he was abused. I do not want to know this man’s life story.

There are over thirty life stories that need to be celebrated and mourned. There are over thirty people whose promise-filled futures were cut short. Every life is precious. Every life is important.

Today, a co-worker made a joke. He referred to another co-worker as someone capable of pulling a “Virginia Tech” where we work. It was not funny. It will not be funny tomorrow or a month from now.

We need to find solutions. We need to reach out to each other in a spirit of love and friendship.

Instead of talk of weapons and wars, we need to be finding ways to make every citizen feel they count. That is what we all want. As a people, we want to feel we contribute.

Today, I bow my head and close my eyes for a moment for those children we have lost throughout the world. Tears fall for those students from Virginia Tech. Tears fall for those young men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. Tears fall for those in Darfur.

For a middle-aged man from central Illinois, there is not much I can do. I can smile at everyone I see today. I can lend a hand where I see a hand is needed. I can write and hope that as you read this you will do the same.

Thank you for reading. We will talk again soon.

Guns and Schools

During the film “Apollo 13” you see how the average United States citizen developed apathy toward the space program. By the time Apollo 13 was launched, space travel was not new and exciting anymore. Networks were happier to run “I Dream of Jeannie” rather than footage of these heroes in space.

It was not until there was trouble that anyone paid attention.

I worry that the same thing is going to happen with shootings in schools. Yesterday, a student was able to bring a 9 mm handgun into a Chicago school. He was showing it off to friends when it discharged by accident, wounding its owner and another boy.

Both are expected to recover and there is no evidence that there was a planned attack. That said, we still have the issue that the boy BROUGHT A GUN TO SCHOOL!!!

The south side of Chicago is a rough place. There have been plenty of songs written about organized crime, gangs and disorganized crime in the area. At the school in question yesterday, there were security officers and metal detectors due to a previous shooting.

Still, someone was able to bring a gun into the school.

That begs the next questions: How does a fifteen year old boy get his hands on a 9mm handgun? The first look is toward the parents. Then you look for older siblings. Then you look to where he spends his time. This boy did not build this gun in metal shop. He either purchased it somehow or, knowingly or unknowingly, borrowed it from someone.

I am not a big believer in gun control. I feel that gun control tends to control those people who are already responsible with their firearms. They are not the ones who need controlling. There does not need to be an outright ban on firearms in this country.

Still, laws can be tightened. You can make statistics say anything, but there are statistics that show that in areas with tougher laws, the number of homicides, crimes involving handguns and/or fatal accidents have declined.

Guns do not belong in schools, shopping malls or anywhere there are crowds of people. Guns belong on firing ranges and in marked hunting territories. Guns also belong with people licensed to protect us.

The story about the fifteen year old boy yesterday was front page news relegated to the inside pages because his name was not famous and his intent was not malicious. Still, there was a gun inside a school. People were hurt.

Can we not stop this?

Thank you for reading. We will talk again soon.

Child Safety and Attorney General Gonzales

Chicago, Illinois is a friendly town. It is the “windy” city. The home of those loveable Chicago Cubs.

As Carl Sandburg so eloquently stated, “Hog butcher for the world, tool maker, stacker of wheat, player with railroads and the nation’s freight handler.

“Stormy, husky, brawling city of the big shoulders.”

How can anyone not like Chicago and its fun-loving people? Apparently, United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales does not like Chicago. Gonzales was able to make a brief news conference even briefer, much to the disappointment of Chicago reporters.

Yesterday, Gonzales was scheduled for a fifteen minute news conference. He was there to talk about the safety for children on the internet. Now that is a topic begging to be discussed for at least an hour or more (and no, I am not being sarcastic).

Somehow, however, Gonzales must have believed that all the concern about the fired U.S. attorneys was only in Washington D.C. He must have thought the people in Chicago either had not heard about the controversy, or were so happy and friendly that we did not care.

As it turned out, Gonzales ditched the Chicago reporters once he realized they were aware of the firings. Three pointed questions into the press conference and the U.S. Attorney General was history.

He did get out these verbal jousts, “I look forward to working with Congress. I believe in keeping accountability. Everything that I've done in connection with this matter supports that principle."

If he believes in accountability, why not answer a few, friendly questions? To be fair, Gonzales has likely been told by his own attorneys and others not to say much to the media. After three questions, he had probably used all the stock answers he was provided and decided it best to fold up camp.

Since Gonzales did not have much to say yesterday, we will report on what was said about child safety and the internet. Wait a minute. I am not finding anything in the papers about Gonzales, or anyone else, discussing child safety and the internet.

So what was Gonzales doing in Chicago? Maybe we will never know. In the meantime, if you want to know a little more about child safety and the internet, check out www.safechild.org. It has a lot of good information you may find interesting and/or helpful.

In the meantime, thank you for reading. We’ll talk again soon.

Chief Illiniwek

The dance may be over but the “Chief” will live on forever.

Of course, in this case, we are talking about the fictional “Chief Illiniwek” who roamed the halls and sports stadiums at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign since 1926. Since 1988, the question of whether it was morally right to continue to present the Chief during sporting events has been debated.

Let me be more accurate. Whether the University should continue promoting and presenting the Chief and his ceremonial dance at sporting and other activities has been pondered, questioned, argued, discussed, talked about, thrashed about, fought about, bickered, squabbled, disputed and fussed about for close to twenty years.

Let us think about that for a moment. For a quarter of the Chief’s existence, the point of his existence has been under fire.

In Urbana-Champaign, there are two types of people who live there. No, I don’t mean the democrats or republicans. No, I don’t mean the smokers or non-smokers. No I don’t mean those who are pro-choice or pro-life. No, I don’t mean men or women.

In the area you will find those “For the Chief” or those “Against the Chief”. There are few (Outside the Board of Trustees) on the fence.

Those who support the Chief have been called insensitive, arrogant, bigoted, unfeeling, unsympathetic, uncaring, callous, cruel, cold and heartless.

Those who support the retirement of the Chief have been called oversensitive, over politically correct, touchy, prickly, thin-skinned, over-emotional, whiney, moaning, complaining and bleeding hearts.

The debate will never be totally over, but hopefully it has been tempered. The Board of Trustees for the University of Illinois has announced that after Wednesday night’s performance, the Chief will be retired.

I have been one of those who have not voiced their opinion. I have always viewed the Chief as a character, like Paul Bunyan. I never felt he characterized a specific tribe or a specific, “true to life” lifestyle. He has always been a fun story that symbolized strength and pride.

The University could have used space gladiators or Roman gladiators. They could have used a pack animal or revolutionary war soldier. Instead, they chose an American Indian.

Considering the time and non-white attitudes of the day, it was an easy choice. Still, it is not 1926 anymore.

This is the twenty-first century. What our country did to minorities of all types through the past two hundred plus years is reprehensible. We continue to fight with those whose beliefs are contrary to ours overseas. In many ways, we still have not learned our lessons.

In the small community of Urbana-Champaign, the University of Illinois Board of Trustees have taken a brave stand (thanks to a gun to the head by the NCAA) and said that since the Chief is offensive to some, we must find another way to promote bravery, persistence and honor among the students, faculty, alumni and just plain fans of the University.

It is not a popular move, but it is the right move. Maybe the decision was not made for the best reasons, but it was the right decision.

In the hearts of the supporters of the Chief, I hope they will take the good that the Chief represented and find new ways to express themselves. Many things were said that should not have been said. Much money was spent that could have been spent elsewhere.

Let us enjoy the last dance and then move forward. The Chief will always be remembered, if not displayed. That is as it should be.

Long live the Chief.

Snip

A big part of living in the twenty-first century is adapting to the fast pace of our environment. Those who are not able to move quickly are left behind. That is why many employers today are looking for people who are able to “multi-task”.

Today, I am multi-tasking. As I write this blog for your enjoyment, I am also trimming the shrubs that sit beside my garage. It is hot and messy, but I am confident that I can clear my mind enough to write and work on the bushes at the same time.

Snip, snip, snip.

This is really very simple because the two tasks are so different. For example, if I were to attempt to write a letter to my parents and write this essay at the same time, it could be more confusing. I may accidentally include a paragraph about how my cell phone dropped in a fountain of water while my son and I were playing miniature golf.

While such an anecdote may be hilarious to my parents, I know you really have no interest. Please do not be confused. I am not really telling you about the cell phone, which did turn into an expensive paperweight of no further value as a communications device. I am just using the story as an example.

Snip, snip, snip.

Just remember to keep your electronic devices, such as cell phones away from water.

Although, you would not think there would be such a problem at a miniature golf course.

Snip, snip, snip

But my point is that by trimming the bushes and writing, the two activities are so different it is difficult to be distracted. At my workplace, I often complete reports while listening to conference calls. It is the same thing as what I am doing now.

The reports are simply plugging mindless numbers and the conference calls include mindless people who nattering on about who knows what. Might as well do two mindless things at the same time, right?

Not that these two projects are mindless. I want to do both of these very well.

Snip, snip, snip.

I don’t remember if I mentioned that it is hot today. I am in the shade though and there is a bit of a breeze so it is not terribly uncomfortable.

But that really is not what I am writing about today. I am really writing about how productive we must be in today’s society. We have to work hard and work fast to accomplish great things! We cannot be content to simply come to work and do a simple job. We have to have ideas that will help the company, and help your self, move forward. We have to find ideas that will help everyone grow.

And how do we do that? We need to be thinking about what other people need! Sounds simple right? Like right now, I need a new pair of gloves. This pair is worn and my hands are starting to bleed.

So, it would be simple to run down to the hardware store and get some work gloves, right? Except that at this late hour of the day, the hardware store is closed. So I’m not going to get gloves today.

Snip, snip, snip.

They may have some gloves at the convenience store which is still open. They are always open.

But getting back to ideas, people need more than just the ability to do a job. The other day I was at the convenience store that might be selling the gloves for my hands that are not bleeding that much now, but still hurt a little. In line with me was a young fellow I remembered from my workplace.

Here is a great example of what I am trying to say. This fellow could do the job we asked him to do, but he could not see the big picture. Of course, when he worked for us, he was only nineteen. We really should not be hiring people at that age. People at that age can not see past their wallet. They can not see the big picture.

He had a few ideas about how to make his job easier. Eventually, he stopped coming to work. I figured he wasn’t cut out for the job.

Snip, snip, snip.

A few weeks ago, I heard he reapplied, but our human resource department turned him away. Anyway, he was good at the nuts and bolts of the job, but he had no real ideas.

Anyway, I saw him and asked after him. He told me he had enlisted in the Army.

He ships out in eight weeks. At any other time, this wouldn’t bother me so much. Still, in the world where we live today, this worries me. Were there truly no other options?

Snip, snip, snip. Snip, snip, snip.

That’s what I mean about ideas. A good idea makes the difference.

A good idea keeps your job. A good idea keeps you safe.

Anyway, these bushes are looking a lot better. I just have a little more to go. Tomorrow, I’ll swing by the hardware store for some new gloves.

Snip, snip.

The more I think about it, the more I think multi-tasking isn’t always the best way to solve some problems. Some tasks need more thought.

Sometimes we need to stop what we are doing. We should think about how what we do affects other people. We need to listen more, even to the mindless people, because in some cases, the process is more important than the end result.

Snip, snip.

Anyway, I am just about done with these two jobs at about the same time. The bushes are looking good.

As for my blog, I think I will go inside, wash and bandage my hands, and start again.

Network Neutrality

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." – Noam Chomsky

Noam Chomsky is the Institute Professor Emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is widely known for his political activism.

I have chosen this quote to write briefly on the subject of Network Neutrality. According to savetheinternet.com, network neutrality “ensures that the public can view the smallest blog just as easily as the largest corporate Web site by preventing Internet companies like AT&T from rigging the playing field for only the highest-paying sites.”

Congress is discussing a way to allow more popular websites to have higher access while slowing down access by competitors.

Senators Olympia Snow (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D-North Dakota) have introduced a bi-partisan measure, the “Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2006”. This could provide protection for Network Neutrality.

Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois) states at his website and in his weekly podcast, “It is because the Internet is a neutral platform that I can put out this podcast and transmit it over the Internet without having to go through any corporate media middleman. I can say what I want without censorship or without having to pay a special charge.But the big telephone and cable companies want to change the Internet as we know it. They say that they want to create high speed lanes on the Internet and strike exclusive contractual agreements with Internet content providers for access to those high speed lanes. Everyone who cannot pony up the cash will be relegated to the slow lanes."

I urge everyone to contact their U.S. Senator and let them know how important it is to protect your access to the internet.

To find your state’s senator, click http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?OrderBy=state&Sort=ASC

Hurtful Things

Remember the term “ranking”? You don’t hear the term much anymore. During the 70’s, one popular sitcom was “Welcome Back Kotter”. Gabe Kaplan, who played Mr. Kotter, talked about “ranking” in his stand-up comedy routine. The writers and producers developed the concept during the run of the show.

What is “ranking”? According to a “Welcome Back Kotter” website, http://www.rollanet.org/~khigh/kotter.html, ranking is “a competition between two people where each tries to top the other's insults.”

On the sitcom, the insults were pretty benign. “Up your nose with a rubber hose,” was considered scathing. Kaplan has another phrase he uses on stage that’s more descriptive and more anatomically possible, if uncomfortable.

On the program, insulting someone was funny and harmless. It was thought to show a quick wit and allowed you to appear impressive.

The purpose my blog today isn’t to reminisce about old, dated sitcoms. However, remembering the show and my experiences of the 70’s did flood my mind with a number of thoughts about what we hear today.

In today’s society, you don’t hear much about “ranking”. What I hear about today is something similar. Today it is called “labeling”.

I am a Caucasian male. When I was a teen I had no outstanding abnormalities. I would not have been “labeled” by nationality. I would not have been “defined” by size.

What I do remember was being “labeled” with the term “junior jerk”. I went to a relatively small high school and there were about thirty or so in our graduating class. Of that thirty, the male/female ratio was split fairly evenly.

For some reason, during our junior year, our class earned the label “junior jerks”. It seemed to stick because a year or so later I visited the school. A former English teacher tripped as she passed by several of us who were talking together. She turned and saw me and muttered the epithet “junior jerk”.

Likely, this was meant to be funny. Hopefully, it was meant to be a term of recognition and maybe an endearment toward a member of her old class.

Still, it tweaks me to remember it years later.

I know it is silly to complain about such a simple remark, but I find that simple remarks grow into more complicated remarks and sometimes less endearing comments.

I am not immune to making such comments. When watching various reality shows as “Survivor” or “American Idol”, I have been known to utter such descriptions about various contestants as “knucklehead” or “freak”. I do my best not to curse in front of my children, or in front of anyone, so I’ve adopted such language.

Yet today, I find myself working to phase even such minor sounding terms from everyday use. I can still forge colorful language if I lose my temper but losing one’s temper does not excuse poor behavior. Nor does another person’s ignorance or lack of verbal elasticity allow us to use unbecoming descriptive language.

There is a radio broadcast I like to listen to as a podcast. It is political and discusses issues from a more progressive attitude. On this program, one of the two hosts likes to refer to the President of our country as “the shrub”. He may begin the discussion using the President’s true name, but then he will slip into an attitude of superiority and start referring to “shrub”.

Although I agree with some of the points the host makes and understand and consider the others, I feel that the insulting name is not necessary to make the point. It is easy enough to get your point across without being demeaning.

To be clear, I also have listened to Al Franken’s program on Air America radio. Mr. Franken won’t hesitate to call someone a “liar”. I feel differently about that. Franken backs up his point with facts. Calling someone a “liar” isn’t so much a “ranking” game of being “one-up”, but simply describing someone for what they are.

In my original example, the President is not a “shrub”. The term clearly intended to be insulting, and thereby making only the host, and those who agree with him, feel good about themselves at someone else’s expense.

Let’s take this concept and broaden it some. The Governor of Massachusetts is Mitt Romney. Governor Romney is forsaking his current role to run for President during the 2008 election year. He has not officially announced, but has already begun to make speeches in places such as New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Now I like some of the things the Governor has accomplished. Universal health care for all state residents is huge. He did a great job with the Utah Winter Olympics a few years back.

Still, I have listened to the Governor speak (C-SPAN is wonderful). He is very charismatic. He can truly energize an audience. However, he loses me every time in one simple spot.

During most speeches, he likes to complain that the Massachusetts legislature “made a mistake” regarding same-sex marriage. He goes on about how he feels that same-sex marriage is a problem where the family is concerned.

During a February speech in West Bloomfield, MI, Governor Romney stated that he felt his state of Massachusetts “struck a blow against the foundation of the family.” He continued, “The right and ideal setting for raising a child is where there’s a mother and a father. The development of a child is enhanced by having both genders in their life. And even if there’s divorce or separation or even death the individual child can look at the father or can look at the mother and can learn from their attributes. The ideal setting for a child is where there’s a mom and a dad.”

So in a very subtle way, single parents of all shapes and sizes are not considered favorable to this Presidential contender. Anything outside of a theoretical nuclear family is not considered “ideal”. Male single parents. Female single parents. Single foster parents. Single grandparents. Single guardians. An uncle or aunt raising a niece or nephew. None of these children have it as good as families with two parents that are of opposite genders.

This bothers me. This type of thinking sets people back. I don’t have a personal axe to grind. I had opposite sex parents as did my wife. I have no homosexual members in my family (that I know for certain). However, I know a lot of single parents. I know some same sex partners who raise children. I feel strongly that most, if not all, of these people make better parents than some opposite sex parents I know and have known through the years.

You can’t look at two adults and say, “You are a man and woman. You’ll make good parents,” and then say, “You are two people of the same sex. Too bad your children won’t have as good a chance.” Guess what? They won’t have as good a chance because they won’t have the same benefits that opposite sex families have. By prohibiting same sex couples from the benefits available to opposite six couples, the children, or potential children, in their care will be limited.

Why would someone as intelligent as Governor Mitt Romney make some a statement? I could be wrong, but I think it is because we have many people in this country who foster destructive feelings toward other people. The sad part is that these people vote. The express their hate in many ways and one way is in the voting booth. I find it sad that the Governor, and undoubted other candidates, feel they have to pander to such a crowd.

On Sunday morning, and every morning, I listen to someone who believes all people are created equal. There are no labels. There are no ranks. There is no footnote that says “all are created equal, except for those with whom we don’t agree.” They don’t say, “All are created equal, except those who believe in other forms of religion.”

I know, I know. I need to get off the soapbox. I’m not really trying to change anyone’s opinion. Really. In order to foster change in today’s society, we need to stop ranking, labeling and otherwise hurting one another. We need to stop trying to make everyone the same and let people have their own beliefs and ideas about life.

As an individual, I can’t make the people of this world stop picking on each other. All I can do is control one person.

I believe that a God made and loves all people. I am going to do my best not to berate other people and value how they choose to live. From the neighbor next door to people of other races and religions countless miles away, as long as they are not picking up a stone against another, they have my respect.

Anyone care to join me?