About Me

Name: Charles Mudgeon
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Write an Essay - Get Arrested

Posted by Charles Mudgeon on Monday, April 30, 2007 11:36:48 AM
 This will disturb almost everyone in some way, but some will be disturbed differently than others.  It was written by a high school senior.  What do you think?

"Blood sex and Booze. Drugs Drugs Drugs are fun. Stab, Stab, Stab, S…t…a…b…, poke. "So I had this dream last night where I went into a building, pulled out two P90s and started shooting everyone…, then had sex with the dead bodies. Well, not really, but it would be funny if I did." Umm, yeah, what to wright about…… I'm leaving to join the Marines and I really don't give a [expletive] about my academics, so why does the only class that's complete [expletive], happen to be the only required class…enough said. The model citizen would stay around to vote in new board member to change the 4 years of English policy, but no one really stays around to vote for that kind of local crap, so whoever gets there name on the Ballet with a pretty face gets to do what the [expletive] ever they want with local ordinance. A person is smart, but people are dumb selfish animals. We can't make rules for ourselves so we vote others to do it for us, but we can't even do that right, I meen seriously, Bush for President? And our other option was John Kerry who claimed to parktake in Vietnam Special Forces missions that haven't been declassified…. [expletive]. So Power Flower Super Mario. Pudge, hook, rot, dismember "Fresh Meat." Most new/young teachers are laid back, and cooperative with students as feedback and input into the curriculum and atmosphere. My current English teacher is a control freak intent on setting a gap between herself and her students like a 63 year old white male fortune 500 company CEO, and a illegal immigrant. If CG was a private catholic school, I could understand, but wtf is her problem. And baking brownies and rice crispies does not make up for it, way to try and justify yourself as a good teacher while underhandidly looking for complements on your cooking. No quarrel on you qualifications as a writer, but as a teacher, don't be surprised on inspiring the first cg shooting."  (CG refers to the name of the high school.)

Suppose you were the English teacher who received this in response to an assignment.  In light of recent events at Virginia Tech, what would you do?

How about some more information?  This was an in-class writing assignment.  The students were told not to censor their thoughts, but to write whatever popped into their minds - to express their emotions through writing.

Now what do you think?

More information:  The writer is a straight A student who currently ranks 21st out of approximately 450 seniors.  Oh, yeah, he's Asian.

So, is he a tragedy waiting to happen?  If so, what should have been done to prevent another Virginia Tech?  Ignore the situation?  Talk to him?  Counseling?  A psyche exam?  Jail time?  What?

Or is he just a high school student who failed to use good judgement?  I checked the Thesaurus.  The set of words "high school student" and "good judgement"  are not synonymous.  You can write that a high school student showed good judgement and not be redundant - it might show your lack of judgement but it isn't redundant.  I can tell you without fear of contradiction that there are at least two generations of Mudgeons who were fully capable of writing just such a paper in high school - with wording and language adjusted for the times.  We would have treated the whole thing as a total put-on.  But if we think this student was just having some perverted fun, then what happens if we ignore the writing and then he kills 32 people next week?  Do we say, "Oops, sorry, my bad"?

Here is what the student had to say about what he wrote:

"This production (above) of the writing is done in the most accurate manner I can depict of the original writing.

Grammer and spelling mistakes are included at the best accuracy possible.

The first phrase in questions is in fact a Green Day (the high school) song.  The second reference to drugs is in relation to the schools history of drug problems.

I am personally clean of all controlled substances.  The statement in quotes is done so as a non personal statement as I would have done in reference to a character for a story.

The reference to the gun P90 is from a video game, combined with a reference to necrophillia as a comment regarding a seriously messed up situation.  A situation such as the rape of villagers during a raid by U. S. troops in Vietnam.

I really do not care too much about by continuing academia as in relation to grades.  I do however believe on continuing my personal education, and I am actually still working for my classes.

My views on the graduation requirements explain themselves.

The reference to Mario and Pudge (a DOTA character) are completely random as is this essay.

The reference to a person being smart and people being dumb is based on a quote from "Men in Black."

I generally do believe the public opinion is best.

The rest of the essay is rather self explanatory, the main statement in question I have already released a comment online about.

I request that all information I have released is read together, and nothing is given separately or as an excerpt as the administration has seen fit to do.

On an additional note, I have completed the MEPS ( Military Entry Processing Station) examinations, and yes a psychiatric evaluation is included in the process.  If I'm qualified to defend the country, I believe I'm qualified to attend school." 

Okay, maybe not the most articulate bit of writing you've ever come across, but certainly not on the same level as his "essay."

This is what happened to him:  He was expelled from school then arrested and charged with two counts of disorderly conduct - the penalties are up $1500.00 and 30 days in jail for each count.  He was arrested because the teacher was "disturbed" by what he had written.  If you can be arrested because people find what you write is disturbing, Steven King had better watch his back - he could be charged with a capital offence.

We cannot simply arrest someone because we don't like what he is thinking or what he might do.  Re-education camps designed to get people to think "properly" are for some other culture, not ours.  And the only way I could accept jailing someone for writing or thinking "disturbing" ideas is if I was the one deciding what was disturbing - in which case Harry Reid had better watch out.

This is the most blatant frontal attack on free speech I've come across in a long time.  Talk to the kid.  Fine.  Talk to his parents.  Fine.  Perhaps even guide him into some kind of psychotherapy if it appears warranted after the talking.  But to leap from "essay" to disturbed to arrest short-circuits everything a free country ought to stand for.

And it needs to be stopped before any more people think it is a fine idea.

To read more about this go here, here and here.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Ham Sandwich or Holocaust?

Posted by Charles Mudgeon on Tuesday, April 24, 2007 2:41:41 PM
 Lily Tomlin is right: No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up.

A middle school student in Lewiston, Maine has been suspended and may be charged with a hate crime. He placed a ham steak in a bag on a lunch table where some Somali students were eating.

I concede that few things in this world are as terrifying as the sight of a marauding sixth-grader brandishing a ham sandwich. But a hate crime? However, I must also concede it would be interesting to see if a prosecutor actually could indict a ham sandwich.

Here is some news for the school officials and others who are so bent out of shape over this incident: Middle school kids aren't nice. They are brats. They haven't learned how to play well with others. They don't know the rules of a well adjusted society. In time, most of them will learn. But it will take time.

But a hate crime?

What, exactly, did this hateful kid do? He put an improvised ham device (IHD) near Muslim kids. Not nice, but he didn't wipe the ham on them. He didn't force them to eat it. He didn't even make them look at it - it was inside a bag that the Somali kids opened themselves. If there is some sort of distance rule that Muslims apply to pork products, I'm not aware of it. So the only problem is that an immature little jerk, egged on by his equally immature little jerk friends, did something thoughtless and stupid. If this kind of thing is a hanging offence, there aren't going to be many middle-schoolers remaining in the gene pool.

The Somali kids are playing their parts well. This incident, according to them, has scarred them for life. They will never forget it. This brand of whine is being brought to you by the Rutgers women's basketball team.

The only crime here is to put an insult on the same level as a real atrocity. Crimes are crimes and shouldn't be segregated by what the perpetrator was thinking at the time of the incident, but if you want to talk about hate crimes how about the slaughter of several million people by the Nazis? What about the murder of Muslims in Bosnia? When you put the thoughtless act of a middle-schooler in the same category as real barbarism, you diminish the vile nature of true evil.

So how do we combat this incontinence of political correctness? Throw a spotlight on it. Call it what it is. Point and laugh. Ridicule. These people take themselves so seriously that any kind criticism really gets to them. So criticize - long and loud. If we make enough fun of them, maybe they'll go away. Maybe, but don't count on it.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Virginia Tech: A Perfect Example

Posted by Charles Mudgeon on Monday, April 23, 2007 9:20:30 AM
Virginia Tech is a perfect example.  A perfect example of what, you ask?  Virginia Tech is a perfect example of anything you need a perfect example of.

Take gun control.  Gun control enthusiasts cite the Virginia Tech massacre as proof positive that there are too many guns available to too many people.  If the killer had not been able to buy the guns and ammo, there would be students and faculty alive today.  Clearly, they say, tighter gun control laws are needed.

This ignores the fact that there are more ways to slaughter people than with a gun - just ask the troops in Iraq about improvised explosive devices.  It also sidesteps the question of how you keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys while you are depriving the good guys of protection.

The second amendment folks say Virginia Tech demonstrates the need for more guns, not less.  They say if a faculty member or two or a student or two - lawfully carrying a concealed weapon - had been able to intervene, the loss of life could have been lessened.  And the knowledge that someone on the Virginia Tech campus might, might have been carrying a concealed weapon could have been enough to keep the killer from acting at all.

Okay, fine.  But the thought of a bunch of testosterone laden, possibly high or drunk frat boys carrying a gun does not strike me as the quintessential safety precaution.  How do you tell the crazies from the responsible people?  I've seen many a fine upstanding citizen turn into a very nasty, mean, rebellious drunk.  The thought of these guys packing heat is not a comforting one.  What kind of tests are there to determine the happy drunk from the mean ones?

Both sides agree that guns ought to be kept out of the hands of a loony-tune killer.  But considering privacy rights, how do you tell a loony-tune who is apt to go no a killing spree from a recluse who just wants to be left alone?

Virginia Tech is a perfect example of exactly how the media should cover a story of this kind.  It got out as much information as possible as quickly as possible.  The public's right to know was fulfilled.  When video tapes, pictures and writings of the murderer (I refuse to use his name.) became available, the public saw the face of evil and how his twisted mind worked.  There were stories about the victims, their friends and families, the impact on the Virginia Tech community, the impact on the country, and some historical perspective was given.  A terrific job by the media.

Virginia Tech is a perfect example of exactly how the media should not cover a story of this kind.  There was oversaturation and exploitation for the sake of ratings.  When video tapes, pictures and writings of the murderer became available, the media pushed it to the front of its coverage, making the killer, not the victims, the story.  The effect was to glamorize the killer and subsequently to guarantee copycat crimes.  An awful job by the media.

Virginia Tech is a perfect example of how political or cultural agendas can be massaged into fitting a tragic situation.  It is a perfect example of how some people will use any situation to advance their personal theories of how the world ought to be.

Virginia Tech is a perfect example of everything and a perfect example of nothing.  It is a perfect example of just how dangerous the world is.  Guess what?  I knew that before.

Words will be written.  Words will be spoken.  No minds will be changed.  But with the perfect example of Virginia Tech opinions will be solidified.

"So it goes." - Kurt Vonnegut
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Insensitive! McCain? or Reid?

Posted by Charles Mudgeon on Friday, April 20, 2007 1:09:56 PM
Bomb-Bomb-Bomb....Bomb-Bomb Iran.  Senator John McCain is taking heat for using these words in answer to a question asking if an attack on Iran is in the works.

It is acceptable to criticize his singing - I wrote the tune about as well as McCain sang it - but the thought is right on the money.  Nonetheless, some reporterette asked if wasn't insensitive to say such a dastardly thing.

McCain should have said, "Insensitive?  Insensitive?  You're asking me if it is insensitive?  What is insensitive is a rogue nation funding the terrorist activities of the people who are today doing whatever they can to kill the men and women who have put themselves in harms way so that you can ask a dumb-heinie question like that.  What is insensitive is a regime trying to acquire nuclear weapons so that they can kill us and our friends in a more efficient manor.  And you ask me if I'm being insensitive?  You should be ashamed of yourself."

That's what he should have said.  What he did say was, "Get a life."  I like my reply better.

While McCain was being "insensitive," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was having his own problems on the callousness front.  He said the war in Iraq is "lost."

Imagine being in Iraq today - having volunteered to serve and perhaps die for your country - and hearing that from a leader of one of the two major political parties in this country.  So, Senator Reid, does that mean any American who dies fighting for the country has thrown away his/her life?  Does it, Senator Reid?

The first thing Senator Reid should do is hop an a plane - at his own expense - and fly to Iraq.  Then he should apologize to all of our men and women serving over there.  Personally - to as many as possible.

And when Senator Reid gets back he should be thrown out of his leadership position.  I say thrown out because he doesn't have the class to resign.

Insensitive?  Which of these two men is insensitive?

Is it the senator from Arizona?  He just updated President Reagan's remark, "The bombing starts in five minutes."  And John McCain has more credibility on war matters and how the troops will be effected than many, if not all in congress.

Or is it the senator from Nevada?  He who claims to support the troops while doing everything in his power to undermine and demoralize them.

I've heard the "insensitive" word used about John McCain.  I've yet to hear it directed at Harry Reid.

Why am I not surprised?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

My Neighbor - The Stalker

Posted by Charles Mudgeon on Thursday, April 19, 2007 1:14:25 PM
It is perhaps unfair to call my neighbor a stalker, but it's the best word I can think of at the moment.  I don't know him well; he is neither friendly nor unfriendly; he is just there.  He is always there.

I was out and about town for the day last week.  My neighbor was there, taking pictures.  He followed me to two or three banks - taking pictures of everything I did.  I wasn't doing anything wrong so there was no reason to object.  But perhaps I ought to use only one bank.  I wouldn't want my neighbor or anyone else thinking that I might be laundering money.

It was a beautiful day so I stopped on a bridge to enjoy the river and the scenery.  My neighbor was there, taking pictures.  I wasn't doing anything wrong so there was no reason to object. But I moved on.  With the climate in the country these days, I wouldn't want my neighbor or anyone else thinking I was casing the area in order to do some kind of damage.

I must say, though, it bothered me a little when he gave his twelve year old kid a bullhorn.  When I cut across the street, the kid bellows out, "Hey, jaywalking is against the law."  And when I threw a gum wrapper on the ground, I heard, "Hey, don't you know it's illegal to litter?"  All the while, the pictures were being taken.  But I know everything was for my own good and safety.  I ought to obey the laws if I expect others to do so.  Besides, if something bad were to happen to me, my neighbor would be there to call for help to protect me.

Now read all the above again - only this time insert the word "government" where the word "neighbor" is used.  This is what is happening in England today.

There is one surveillance camera for every 12 people in England.  It is estimated that a person spending the day in London can expect to be photographed by 300 cameras during the day.  And the government is in the process of adding loud speakers to the cameras.

The speakers will be manned by school children, who, having won poster contests to get the jobs, will remind grownups how to behave. The poster competitions encourage the school kids to draw pictures that demonstrate the dangers of anti-social behavior.

So runny-nosed, pimply faced, but right-thinking little brown shirts will be nagging Brits to conform to socially accepted standards.  And how, you may ask, will they know who to nag?  Software, of course.  Software that decides if you are walking too fast, or too slowly.  Software that decides if you are acting suspiciously.  Software, of course.

People who are being watched behave differently.  Maybe they will only use one bank so their "neighbor" won't think they are up to something illegal.  Maybe they will move on instead of enjoying the view lest the "neighbor" think something unacceptable is afoot.  But they will act differently.  They will do nothing to call attention to themselves.  They will blend in.  They will become indistinguishable from each other.  They will become indistinguishable from cattle.  But isn't that what the "neighbor" wants?  Aren't people easier to control that way?

This week after the tragic events at Virginia Tech, I heard comment after comment that the tragedy could have been averted if only there had been more cameras focused on the area.  More cameras in the dorm.  More cameras in the open areas.  More cameras in the class rooms and hallways.

All those who agree, please moo.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Tax the Poor

Posted by Charles Mudgeon on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 2:44:02 PM
At last we've found something those in the federal government enjoy more than relieving us of our money: Time off.

Today is the final day for filing your 2006 federal tax returns.  Yippee.  But you will notice that the date is April 17, not April 15.  This is because April 15 fell on a Sunday - nothing new there.  But April 16 was something called Emancipation Day in the District of Columbia.  So naturally the federal government, being in located in the District of Columbia, also closed - which in turn delayed the filing of your federal taxes.

Actually, I believe the real reason for the one day delay is the following:  To make us file federal taxes on something called Emancipation Day (emancipation being defined as freeing someone from the control of another) would be too much irony even for the feds.  How can you control someone any more effectively than depriving them of their earned income?  And to deprive them of their income on a day called Emancipation Day, well, it's just too much newspeak.  Too much.

Like Punxsutawney Phil showing up on February 2, tax day brings out those who would alter the tax code by instituting a flat tax or a fair tax or whatever they feel will bring equity to the business of taxing those who produce in this country.  Their chances of success can be summed up in one word: Forgetaboutit.

There is only one way to move toward fairness in the tax code and simultaneously take control of those who have a gluttonous lust for our money:  Tax the poor.

As things stand now, those earning the least are not paying federal taxes.  A family of four making $40,000.00 or less will not have any tax burden.  I'm not suggesting we change that.  But these people have no stake in America.  Why should they give a rip if higher incomes are taxed more when they aren't effected one way or the other.  Yet they may well receive additional government services when others get a tax hike.  As the old saying goes, if you plan to rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's support.  I am suggesting we change that.

Every new tax should be distributed evenly.  Bill Gates is already being hit with the highest rate, while welfare recipients pay nothing.  A new tax ought to hit Mr. Gates and the welfare recipient with the same dollar amount.  And any new tax cut should also be distributed evenly.

Even a low income earner who philosophically opposes tax increases, but who himself pays no taxes, is going to be less enthusiastic about opposing tax increases than if he, himself, will partake in the joy of paying more taxes.  This isn't rocket surgery here, it's human nature.

Every time a politician comes up with a "fair" tax plan, the number of those who will pay no taxes increases.  Soon there will be a tax plan that exempts all those making $100,000.00 or less from paying taxes.  If you are in that bracket, why would you oppose it?  And when there are more people not paying taxes than people who are paying taxes, who will stop the politicians from further gouging those remaining to carry the load?  Who will speak for the most productive in society?

I further propose that all property taxes be paid by both the property owner and the property user (if rent or a lease is involved).  A 50-50 split.  If the property user knows that he will be writing a check for the tax increase he just voted for, he may think twice about his vote.  He may well decide that it is worth it, but at least he'll have a stake in the decision.

And finally, let's put stickers on all products - similar to ingredient labels - that will list how much of the price to the consumer is due to taxes.  Maybe we can get the lawmakers to stop hiding their dirty work.

I know, all these suggestions come under the "forgetaboutit" category, too.  But if we don't get a handle on the tax-and-spend politicians of both parties soon, the economy will not survive.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Some Insensitive Thoughts

Posted by Charles Mudgeon on Monday, April 16, 2007 2:06:24 PM
>>>>> Governor John Corzine of New Jersey got himself bent, spindled and mutilated in an automobile accident last Thursday evening.  He was on his way to "mediate" an apology a shock jock was offering the Rutgers women's basketball team.  Where did he find that task in his job description?  If the offending remarks were made by a person who didn't have such a high profile, would he have injected himself in the proceedings?  Was he simply pandering for political purposes?  Just asking.

Corzine's injuries wouldn't be nearly as extensive as they are if he had been wearing a seat belt - which, by the way, is mandatory in New Jersey.  The state trooper who was driving could have insisted that Corzine buckle-up, but according to the governor's chief of staff, Corzine is "not always amenable to suggestion."  Like many politicos of both parties, he does not feel bound to follow the laws he imposes on the great unwashed riff-raff he rules. 

In his role as a fellow human being, I wish John Corzine a speedy and complete recovery.  But in his role as a pandering, pompous politician, I have trouble working up much sympathy.

>>>>> The Rutgers women's basketball team has accepted the apology from the shock jock who called them a three-word name that has undoubtedly scarred them for life.  Isn't that special?  But I don't buy it.

Consider this, ladies:  Sunday we celebrated the sixtieth anniversary of Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier in baseball.  In one day he endured more humiliation, hatred, verbal abuse and intimidation than you young ladies have had to handle in your collective lives.  (To a very real extent, you have Jackie Robinson to thank for that.)  And in one day you have collectively played the victim card and demonstrated more self-pity than Jackie Robinson did in his entire life.  And yes, I was in New York City at the time Robinson played - I didn't read this stuff in a history book.  I saw it.

I've been told that you handled the whole affair with dignity and class.  Point of order:  The fact that your reaction did not mimic that of Al Sharpton's does not constitute dignity or class.  Having dignity and class means you suck it up, stop whining and get on to fulfill the potential you clearly have.  Remember, there are more horses' heinies in the world than there are horses.  One meathead radio personality does not a life define.

On Sunday entire baseball teams wore Jackie Robinson's number: 42.  Many black players throughout the league also wore the number.  But at least one player declined to wear Robinson's number. He said that he wasn't worthy.  The way you have handled this so far ladies, you aren't worthy either.

There!  I got through the whole thing without once using the name Don Imus........Oh, wait........Damn.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Nappy-Headed Hos and the 14th Amendment

Posted by Charles Mudgeon on Wednesday, April 11, 2007 2:03:45 PM
Suppose I were constantly to refer to my sister as a fat, ugly sl*t.  Should I really be surprised if other people start to talk about her in those terms?  I think not.  (Incidently, I don't have a sister.  I would have used my wife or daughter in this example, but a high regard for my personal safely prevented it.)

Suppose you use bad language around your home all the time - the air turns blue with your rhetoric.  If that adorable little eight-year-old of yours suddenly suggests you perform an impossible anatomical act upon yourself, are you justified in being outraged?  Do you think that saying you are shocked, shocked will be taken seriously?  Or are you simply being served the produce you have planted?

I'm having trouble with all the criticism aimed at comments Don Imus used about the Rutgers women's basketball team.  He used language that I would not have used - although I have read, heard, written and used it more in the last three days than in the previous several decades of my life.  He called them "nappy-headed hos."  I suggest he would not have used the terminology, or have even heard of the term if it weren't used so prolifically in the rap/gangsta culture.

Doesn't Whoopi Goldberg call her company One Ho Productions?  Why is that okay, or even humorous?

A black sports writer said he often jokes with his friends by calling them hos.  He also said he would refer to his own hair as nappy.  But somehow, Imus crossed the line.

A Jewish broadcaster said comparing what Imus said and what rappers say is comparing apples to oranges.  Really?  He also said it would be fine if he joked that his people don't fish, but if someone else were to say it, it would be offensive.

Still another PC commentator noted that Imus said he was just trying to be funny.  "What," he asked, "is so funny about calling black women nappy-headed hos?"

One word for these three and the scores of others who have seen fit to call for the Imus head on a stick: Crap.

The fourteenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution calls for equal treatment under the law.  How about some equal treatment under the language?  I don't accept that there are words that I can say, but you can't say them.  If the words are unacceptable for one group to use, they are unacceptable.  Period.  Don't two-step me into some fuzzy logic that some groups are more equal than others and can, therefore, claim the use of words forbidden to the unwashed.

As for the humor aspect:  There are very few things funnier than a well timed pratfall.  But I would be hard pressed to explain to another human - especially after a week of reruns and criticism - exactly what was funny about a person unceremoniously landing on his backside.  To demand an explanation of humor is classic straw man treatment.

Over 30 years ago I read these words by Robert Ringer:  Everyone acts in his own self-interest 100% of the time.  For over 30 years I've tried to disprove these words.  But I haven't made it yet.  How many high profile guests will no longer agree to appear on Imus in the Morning?  How many sponsors will drop the show?  How many networks or affiliates will no longer carry the program?  How many of these have any reason to be surprised by what Don Imus said?  (Hint: None.)

All of these weasels knew, and know exactly what Don Imus is and isn't.  All determined it was in their self-interest to associate themselves with Imus.  All will now make the determination as to whether or not further association will cover them in too much mud.

Years ago I heard Imus say that he makes fun of everybody - and it's always funny until it's about you.  Probably true.  That doesn't excuse what he said.  It was mean and stupid.  And the uproar that has taken place since is self-serving and equally stupid.

But don't we have more important things to occupy our thoughts?  Shouldn't we be concentrating on the issues that are threatening the country:  An exponentially expanding federal government?  A deplorable and declining government financed school system?  Sanjaya?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Don Imus and the 80-20 Rule

Posted by Charles Mudgeon on Monday, April 09, 2007 3:19:31 PM
What is the world coming to when you can't call someone a nappy-headed ho?
 
Don Imus is in the process of finding out.  He made the comments, which were aimed at the mostly black Rutgers women's basketball team, last week and the uproar has been building ever since.  Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are in full battle attire.

Sharpton has been calling for the Imus head-on-a-stick and Jackson has been busy, busy, busy organizing a protest in Chicago.  It is apparently acceptable for these words to be broadcast everyday in the context of rap music, if you will pardon the overstatement.  But if some white dude in a cowboy hat says them, western civilization is threatened.  Sensitivity training sessions are definitely in order - for Sharpton and Jackson, not Imus.

Here's what I can tell you about Don Imus:  Eighty percent of the time his show is interesting, informative, occasionally weird and often witty - sometimes downright, laugh-out-loud funny.  Twenty percent of the time, it isn't.  I'm not offended by his program, no one can offend me without my permission, but I sometimes am repulsed by it.  And the 20% of the time I am repulsed by Imus in the Morning more than wipes out the beneficial 80% of the time.

In short, calling black women what he did is not out of character for Don Imus.  That's what he do, when he do, what he do.  He is called, get ready, a shock jock.  That's how he makes his living.  Anyone claiming to be surprised, offended, repulsed or shocked just hasn't been paying attention.

But how ever will you get on with your life?

You'll be happy to hear that there is a solution.  Listen carefully now:  Years ago, I discovered that I cannot be repulsed or offended, or annoyed or anything else by Don Imus if I don't listen to, or watch him.  It's amazing.  During the time Imus in the Morning is on the air, I have found at least five other places on my TV/radio dial that interest me as much as the I-Man ever did.  And I unearthed all this without the aid, assistance, prodding or regulatory intervention of government.

Call me a cynic (which is something I would never do as I am too sweet and lovable to be a cynic), but I think it is entirely possible that Imus and Sharpton dreamed up the whole scenario to get Imus fired and Sharpton more of his drug of choice, publicity.  The up side for Imus may simply be that he wants out of his contract in order to go to satellite radio where there are no taboos.

Okay, maybe I am a cynic.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Supply Side Immigration Policy

Posted by Charles Mudgeon on Friday, April 06, 2007 10:58:55 AM
WALL STREET - An alliance of Fortune 500 CEOs has claimed to have found a solution to the sticky problem of illegal immigration.

As Chester Q. Peabody, acting head of this coalition of the willing, explains, "We wouldn't have this problem if Americans and legal immigrants would be willing to do the work that the illegals gladly do.  But there's the rub, isn't it?  Too much work that no one wants to do, and too few legal workers who will to do it."

In a move that illustrates why these top executives have achieved the great success that embodies their careers, the solution became apparent:  Supply Side Immigration Policy.

These 500 leaders are willing to leave their respective corporations for a brief period of time in order to bring the illegal immigration problem under control.  Each will actually do the work that other Americans are not willing to do.  And because their current compensation packages indicate that their productivity levels are so high, it is estimated that each CEO will be able to replace 1456 illegal immigrants.  That is nearly three quarters of a million illegal immigrants that will immediately be replaced.

In an off-the-record interview, Juan (last name withheld) said, "Somebody should do something about the influx of CEOs into the work force.  They are going to ruin it for everybody.  How can I be illegally employed when these guys insist on replacing me?  I guess I'll have to go home or end up in the joint.  It isn't fair."

By imposing the Supply Side approach to illegal immigration, the number of jobs available to those who would defy our laws will shrink significantly.  Without the prospect of a job the primary reason to sneak into the United States disappears; order will be restored; turmoil will subside; the republic will be saved; puppies will once again wag their tails.

In the words of Chester Q. Peabody, "This is but a first step.  We call on every CEO in the country to consider joining us in our crusade.  It is true that many will not have the productivity capabilities to replace as many illegal immigrants as 1456.  But even if they can replace as few as 1000, every little bit helps. Together we can beat this thing." 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

American Idle (Sic), Sick, Sick

Posted by Charles Mudgeon on Tuesday, April 03, 2007 9:43:31 AM
About a month ago my wife, Mrs. Bubbles Mudgeon, and I were talking about American Idol.  Neither of us had ever seen it - which clearly put us in the top one percentile of discriminating Americans.

But in a moment of weakness we tuned in when the field had been whittled to the final twelve.  It was quite an experience.  At least six of the twelve would have to fall into the train wreck category.  Three others had respectable voices, although stage presence and charisma were a bit iffy.  One fell somewhere in between.  And one had no business making the cut into the final 100 wannabees.

That one, Sanjaya Malakar, is probably a decent enough kid, but whoever told him he has a talent for singing or performing was just being mean.  Sanjaya Malakar stinks.  He isn't good enough to make it into a talent show at my granddaughter's high school.  I'd rather listen to rap music.

Now it appears that there is a movement on to see that Sanjaya wins the competition.  Howard Stern, whose own talent is questionable at best, is pushing his listeners to juice up the vote for Sanjaya.  The goal is to see that the few who do have some talent do not prevail; to guarantee that American Idol fails; to lift the second rate to great heights; to glorify inadequacy while diminishing achievement; to thwart the wishes of the millions of people who take the show seriously and would like to see their favorite performer win.

So, is Mr. Stern's prank just good wholesome fun - or is it something more sinister?  To vote for fun dial 1-800-IDOLFUN; to vote for sinister dial 1-800-IDOLSUX.

My vote goes for sinister.  The stunt that Howard Stern is attempting to pull off is the essence of what is constantly attacking our culture.  Equating a no talent buffoon like Sanjaya Malakar with people clearly superior in every way teaches that the excellent and the mediocre are indistinguishable.  Why struggle to be your best when equal rewards go to inferior people?

A culture will survive only as long as the people who built the culture remain in the majority.  Generations of Americans built our culture based on hard work, doing their best and striving for success through excellence.  Are they still in the majority?  Or are their numbers declining to the point that the culture can no longer endure?

One clue will be the number of weeks Sanjaya Malakar remains on American Idol.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »