The Crate Gate Fakeroversy

For God's sake, could everyone please just pipe down about Mitt Romney's freaking dog?! The dog is long dead. How is it that I keep hearing about this dog and what may or may not have been inappropriate travel conditions for the beast? Aren't there more important issues to discuss? We have an unstable economy, outrageous gas prices, a couple of wars and unemployment that is still a bit too high. And all these yahoos want to talk about are birth control and Seamus! See how doomed we are?!

If you haven't heard the story, here it is: This happened back in the eighties. (Yes, the eighties. Yes, when Reagan was President. Yes, those eighties.) Apparently, Mitt Romney and his large family were taking a road trip somewhere. Along with the family traveled the family dog, Seamus. Seamus appears to have been some sort of Irish setter. He was definitely a dog. That I know. Anyway, for some reason, Mitt decided that the best way to go traveling with a bunch of kids and a dog would be to put the kids in the car and to put the dog on top of the car.

Now, when I first heard about this, I pictured a dog just strapped to the top of a station wagon. (You know the kind. The ones with the faux wood paneling on the outside. Whose idea were those, anyway? Why is it that someone out there wanted us to think that a car was carved out of a tree? I've never understood the reasoning behind wood paneling on things that would never be made out of wood. But I digress. Where was I? Right! The dog.) But it turns out that ol' Seamus was inside of a pet carrier crate that was strapped to the top of the family vehicle. But the way that everyone has reacted to this, you'd have thought that it was my original scenario that actually occurred.

I suppose that I should mention that the little trip that they went on was a twelve hour drive. That's pretty long. I should also mention that at some point, ol' Seamus apparently had a violent bout of diarrhea whilst he was up there. This was evidenced and noticed by the passengers of the vehicle when said diarrhea began dripping down the car windows. So gross. But why am I the only one who is thinking that it was good that the dog wasn't inside of the car when his bowels exploded? You want that IN your vehicle? While you're driving for twelve hours? When you already have five boys all under the age of thirteen in there with you? I don't think that you do.

At some point, they stopped at a gas station or a rest stop and Mitt cleaned up Seamus and hosed out his crate. Then it was back to driving with the dog on top and the people inside. Normally, this is where someone would type "The End". But it hasn't ended. It won't end. I'm afraid it may never end. People keep bringing this up as if Mitt had put one of his kids in that crate. (And let me tell you, having been a child, that would have been awesome. I would have donned a cape (aka, a pillowcase) and crawled in there for what would have been sure to be the adventure of a lifetime for a six year old!) And for some reason, the North Carolina-based Public Policy Polling decided to ask American voters questions that referenced this incident about a dog (who wasn't killed or anything) from 1983.


The Wall Street Journal had a story yesterday (almost thirty years after the freaking fact) about said poll. (How this has anything to do with Wall Street is beyond me. And people wonder why newspapers are struggling. I can't imagine.) They asked people "... whether they have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of both Barack Obama’s and Mitt Romney’s treatment of dogs". Because...that's important? It says that "20% of the 900 voters polled last week said they have a favorable opinion of Mr. Romney’s treatment of dogs, compared with 29% who hold an unfavorable opinion." The good thing about this particular result is that the percentages only total to 49%. That leaves me some hope that the other 51% said, "Are you effing kidding me?" (By the way, President Barry managed to get 44% of the people polled to see his treatment of dogs favorably, compared with only 14% who saw his dog treatment as unfavorable. How do you see President Barry as having unfavorable treatment toward dogs. Does Bo seem particularly unhappy to those folks? He's a dog who lives in the White House. I'm pretty sure that his life is rather luxurious for any animal.

But get this: They actually asked "Who do you think would be a better president for dogs?” What the crap does that even mean?! A better president for dogs? Dogs don't have presidents! They're dogs! Isn't that the sort of question that you would expect to be asked of first graders or something? How is that a polling agency's question? If you didn't think that we've totally come off the rails before now, are you thinking right about now that might be a little too optimistic? If you weren't, you should be. A better president for dogs?! Good Lord...


There is even a website called Dogs Against Romney. Now, while that's a catchy name (I suppose), I highly doubt that there are any actual dogs involved in that website. Why is this even an issue? I don't get it. How is having your dog in a dog crate on top of the car any different than having your dog in the back of your pickup truck? I'm not seeing this as a problem. The dog wasn't hurt. The dog was just fine. Probably because it's a dog. I don't know that I would recommend this as a way to travel with your animal, but I'm not seeing it as being particularly cruel or harmful. I realize that the dog has evolved into a rather domesticated beast, but it's still an animal. I think it would be OK. But the real point here is that everyone has lost their minds. Keep your eye on the ball, people! FOCUS! This is not, I repeat, NOT important! Also, let me reiterate that there is NO SUCH THING as a "president for dogs". That's NOT a thing! FOCUS, people! Keep your eye on the ball! A president for dogs?! We're so doomed.

Sphere: Related Content

Why Would You Buy That?

I think that it's been well established here that I simply do not get people. I don't. I don't understand what makes a lot of people work. Or maybe it's that I don't understand how they make themselves work for them. I mean, how can some people be so incredibly dense in the thinking department, yet still manage to find employment at which they perform poorly at best? Here's my most recent example of this phenomenon which I think I just explained terribly. Look at this "greeting card" that Target was carrying. Behold!

That's right. It says "next time you think of dating the bad boy, consider whitney houston. that's all i'm going to say." I'll get to that in a minute, but I'd first like to say that the next time that you think of writing a asinine greeting card, consider punctuation and capitalization. That's all I'm going to say...about that. I've got plenty to say about the rest of it.

First off, in what sense is this a "greeting" card? What exactly are we "greeting"? It's not for a specific holiday. It's not for a specific occasion. So what is it for? Is it for when you really want to give snarky advice to someone but you just can't find the words on your own? Is it for butting into someone else's business under the guise of the "greeting"? I don't get it. I can't think of a single "occasion" on which I would want to give this card. Not one. Can you? Of course you can't.
You know why? Because it's stupid, that is correct.


Now, Target claims that they were carrying these cards loooooong before Ms. Houston decided to explore the underwater depths of her tub sans snorkel but not without copious amounts of alleged Xanax. But now that she's newly deceased, somehow that makes these cards suddenly in poor taste. I can't quite grasp why that is, though. I'm not saying that it was ever in good taste. I guess I just can't get past how stupid this card is to begin with and still cannot fathom why anyone would have bought this in the first place.


But now that Target knows that Whitney Houston is dead, they have begun removing the card from their shelves. Sooooo...it's OK to mock someone's poor choice in partners as long as they're alive? But after they're dead, then it's completely forbidden? How does that work? Target, I'm adding you to my list of pansy retailers who cower at the very thought that they might be involved in some sort of fakeroversy. (Fakeroversy. That's a fake controversy. I haven't used that term in a while, so I thought I'd just clarify.) If anyone actually complained (and I can't imagine that anyone actually did), Target should have just told them to get over it and kept the card on their shelves. I still don't get how it would be offensive after she died. Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to be offended when she was still alive? (Then again, in this scenario I think that I'm assuming that Whitney Houston would have given a crap about a Target "greeting" card that poked fun of her poor choice of a husband. I don't think she would have cared. Nor do I know how she would have known. Was she often seen frequenting the aisles at Target? I can't possibly imagine that.)


Furthermore, I am so not buying into their claim that they had this on their shelves before she died. Whitney Houston wasn't exactly a household name anymore at the time of her untimely submergement. There wasn't someone more well-known that they could have gone with? Katy Perry, perhaps. Her short-lived union to Russell Brand could have been seen as a "bad boy" marriage. At least people would know who Katy Perry is (after they realize that she isn't Zooey Deschanel), even though they still wouldn't have a freaking clue as to which occasion such a card is appropriate.

And look, I got so agitated with the whole concept of the card that I completely forgot about my initial point. That point being that some softhead out there had to design this card and think it was a good idea. Another softhead had to think that this card was a good idea and OK it after that. There had to have been several other softheads involved in the production of this card who thought it was a good idea in order for it to get the point where it's actually on the shelves at Target. Who are these people who thought this was a good idea, especially if it was done after Whitney's death (even though I don't believe for a minute that's the case)? How are these people making decisions like that and they're still getting through life? How do they have jobs where they're allowed to make any decision at all?! These are questions that I will likely never get an answer to. Such questions used to keep me up at night, but now they just make me sad. Sad because we're doomed.

Sphere: Related Content

You're Not Really Offended

In another example of a company caving into allegedly "offending" a consumer (or potential consumer, I guess), we have a brewing company being informed by some overly sensitive individuals that their label was offensive and contained am image that should not be tolerated in our society anymore. Note: The person was a Wiccan astrologist and "healer". (Translation: She fancies herself a witch.) Side note: The image on the beer bottle was of a "witch" being burned at the stake. Wait. What now?

Correct. According to the delicious folks over there at Slashfood, the Port Brewing Company concocts a "...wheat beer, spiced with grapefruit zest, orange peel and coriander" called Lost Abbey Witch's Wit. Yummy. But it wasn't the deliciousness of the beverage that sparked the outrage of a one Vicki Noble. She is the aforementioned "witch" from the paragraph above. She saw the label on the bottle and flew off the proverbial broomstick handle! (That means she wrote a strongly worded email to the company.) Behold! Said label!

Huh. Cool. Kinda creepy. Good for Halloween sales, I would imagine. Sadly, capitalism isn't the focus of this tale. No, it's that there was a drawing of a person seemingly being burned at the stake with throngs of onlookers gathered 'round. THAT was the nugget of contention that Ms. Noble had with the beer. In her email she wrote: "Can you imagine them showing a black person being lynched or a Jewish person going to the oven?...Such images are simply not tolerated in our society anymore (thank the Goddess) and this one should not be, either." Oh, for cryin' out loud.

You know what the difference is between showing a black person being lynched or a Jewish person "going to the oven" and the depiction of someone being burned at the stake? The difference is that the first two might stir up some outrage because they actually happened. Witches being burned at the stake did not happen! You'd think that someone who claimed herself to be a witch would know that.

Are we really supposed to allow fake outrage at something that is allegedly offensive when it isn't even real? First of all, it's a drawing. It's not like there was a really nice color photo taken at the fiery event that was plastered on the bottle there. No, someone drew that. Second of all, witches that were tried during the Salem witch trials (which is what I'm assuming that she is wrongly referring to with all of her misplaced outrage) were generally hanged. I think that there were only around sixteen of them (not the gazillions like people have been led to believe) and they weren't burned at the stake. They were hanged. And finally, witches aren't real! Good Lord.

But what do you think the Port Brewing Company, of which Lost Abbey is a division, did? You got it. Instead of saying, "Tough witches teats" they instead will "...spend thousands of dollars to change the label." ::: sigh ::: What is wrong with you people?

Why would you do that? According to the article, a one brewery spokesman, a one Sage Osterfeld, said that "complaints flooded the brewery, accusing Port Brewing Company...of "inspiring violence against women. . . . We have been compared to the violence in Darfur." Oh, for Christ's sake! Are they burning people at the stake in Darfur? No? Then that's not a very good comparison then, is it? And it isn't crap like the labels on beer bottles that inspires violence against women. There are plenty of things that do inspire violence of all sorts, but I'm going to stick my neck out and say that beer bottle labels are NOT one of them. And I'd really like to know how many complaints "flooded the brewery". Ten? Regardless, if these people weren't loyal consumers of your brand, who gives a fat rat's ass? They can complain all they want; it's not like it's going to hurt sales or anything.

Port Brewing Company, I am deeply saddened by your actions. There is no reason why you should have had to change your awesome label. Why couldn't you have just told those who were all fake outraged that you were sorry? What did you think was going to happen if you didn't change the label? Were you afraid that they would cast a spell upon you? Psst! I'm going to let you in on a little secret. That doesn't work!

It's a shame, Port Brewing Company. Had I heard about this and heard that you did not cave in to fake outrage over a non-existent issue, I would have been tempted to go out and buy up your wonderful beverage by the truckload. But now? Now, not so much. Now I just see you as another cowardly company (not that I had ever heard of your before today, mind you, but I'm just saying) who would rather give power to the undeserving rather than stand up for what is right. I won't be buying any of your beverages in the future. Do you think that changing your label is going to make all of those "witches" flock to buy your product? I think not. Good choice, though. Reeeaaaalllly good choice.

Sphere: Related Content

Fakeroversy In The Governor's Race

It must be tough when you're running for governor and you have no idea what you're doing, so you figure that, since every candidate needs to start some sort of a scandal against their opponent, you'll just do that and see how it goes. While I don't recommend that approach, if you're going to take that route, might I suggest coming up with a scandal that people would give a fat rat's ass about? Acting all indignant because someone referred to you as a whore is really not going to do much to help you. It will be great fun for those who enjoy mocking you, however.

See, Meg Whitman is running for governor of California. For some reason, her being at the helm when eBay kind of rode itself to its own success is supposed to give her some sort of credibility as the Republican candidate. Well, that and the $140 million of her own money that she has poured into her campaign to get the nomination. (Apparently, she thinks the governor's seat is some sort of Buy It Now dealio.) And lately, she's been rocked by allegations of a former housekeeper that she...um...well....it's not real clear to me exactly what it is that she's being accused of doing. It might be that she didn't treat the hired help all that well, but I'm not totally sure about this. The fact that her ex-housekeeper was in this country illegally, used a fake Social Security number while Meg employed her and was then fired when Meg found out somehow plays a part in all of this, but again, I'm not quite sure how. It's definitely a fakeroversy (fake controversy), but I still have trouble grasping all of the straws that it contains.

Now, after that became the hooplah du jour (complete with Gloria Allred, the world's most awful human being, at the housekeeper's helm), Meg's campaign needed to have someone on her opponent, Jerry Brown. What did they come up with? I guess they had a hard time coming up with anything of substance because apparently, one of his staffers referred to her as a whore, so that's what they went with. Wait. What?

Yep. According to ABC News, Jerry Brown "...left a phone message in early September for a union official whose endorsement he was seeking, but apparently forgot to hang up...And either Brown or a staffer -- there is some dispute -- uses the word "whore" to describe his Republican rival Meg Whitman." Hmm. How about a little context to go with all of that nothing-ness there?

OK. The first part of the conversation that Brown has with one of his staffers after he thought that he had hung up goes something along the lines of Brown saying: "Do we want to put an ad out? … That I have been warned if I crack down on pensions, I will be – that they'll go to Whitman, and that's where they'll go because they know Whitman will give 'em, will cut them a deal, but I won't." So what he's saying (behind closed doors and totally off the record, as he didn't know that he didn't hang up) is that he's not going to cut a deal with the unions, but Whitman is, despite her saying publicly that she's not beholden to any group.

It's after that question that the staffer (or someone else) says, "What about saying she's a whore?" That's quite the idea. Call your opponent a whore in your ads. I don't know that I think it's the most politically savvy move, but Jerry Brown seemed to love it, as he responded, "Well, I'm going to use that...It proves you've cut a secret deal to protect the pensions." I don't know if calling her a whore would prove that, per se. But it would show that you're not afraid to call someone a whore!

Once Whitman's side became aware of this colorful depiction of her, they immediately issued a pansy-ass response. "The use of the term 'whore' is an insult to both Meg Whitman and to the women of California. This is an appalling and unforgivable smear against Meg Whitman. At the very least Mr. Brown tacitly approved this despicable slur and he himself may have used the term at least once on this recording,"

Really? It's an insult to the women of California? How is that? I'm a woman of California and I'm not insulted by Jerry Brown's staffers calling Meg Whitman a whore. It's hard to say if I'd be insulted if they called me a whore. Then again, I don't get insulted easily. That's a weak response. You know what would have been a better response? To DENY that you're acting like a whore by being in bed with the unions and promising them deals in exchange for their endorsements. Now THAT would have been something!

Did she dispute the essence of why they were calling her a whore? Not that I can find. No, she just decided to take the "You hurt my feelings" angle on it. And that seems to be how this is being reported. Why is it that we're focusing on the alleged name calling instead of the fact that she seems to be cutting back room deals with unions? Why aren't we focusing on the fact that Jerry Brown said in private (or what he thought was private) that he wasn't going to make deals with the unions? For him to have said that in private seems to lend credibility to him really meaning that. After all, why would you say something like that if you didn't mean it? It's not like you knew the whole world was going to hear you. It seems pretty credible to me.

But no. Instead, Meg Whitman wants to us to be all up in arms that Jerry Brown's staffer called her a whore. Well, I'm putting down my arms, as they are not up. This is ridiculous. Her allegedly cutting deals with the unions in order to win their support is the real story here. But she's not mentioning that. She's just whining about being called a whore. And by the way, if she is cutting back room deals with the unions in exchange for their support, then she absolutely is a whore. A big, big whore. Whore.

You know, if she can't handle being called a name, I'm not real confident in her ability to lead this ridiculously corrupt state out of the s***hole that it has been in for years. And if she's being a sneaky weasel and saying one thing to the public, but doing another thing in private, I'm absolutely positive that she won't be able to get anything done. Please don't take this as an endorsement for Jerry Brown, however. While the real story might be whether or not she is actually cutting deals, I think that the secondary story might be that Jerry Brown can't figure out how to hang up his phone after leaving a message. It doesn't do much to distract folks from the fact that he's a little old.

Sphere: Related Content

Another Cartoon Fakeroversy

I guess that whole deal that some Muslims do with freaking out over cartoons that they find offensive or blasphemous or whatever the heck they want to call it, must work for them. And it must have been noticed by other groups as well. Or at least some Mexicans who are flipping out over "An American cartoonist's rendition of the Mexican flag" which depicts a "...normally a regal-looking eagle at the center of Mexico's flag riddled with bullets and bleeding." Uh-huh. And they've got their tortillas in a wad because why? Because they claim "...it's offensive to taint their national symbol with images of drug violence." Wait. What now?

Correct. According to AOL News, a one Daryl Cagle, who is employed by MSNBC.com (I'm not sure why that's important, but AOL News included it, so I figured that I would, too), drew the cartoon of the flag with the gunned down eagle as a "...reference to the drug wars that have riled Mexico and left more than 28,000 people dead there in less than four years. " That seems like a pretty reasonable visual metaphor to depict. Oh, but not for everyone. No, there are plenty of asshats out there who think that because they don't like something that other people should give a crap. And a lot of people don't. Oh, and by the way, here is the cartoon drawing in question. Behold!

One reader of some sort of a Mexican newspaper called el Universal (I have no idea what that it. It could be like The National Enquirer for all I know. After all, in that picture over there on the left, they have prominently featured a one Rihanna. Who knows what that's all about?), wrote in to say "It is a shame that a patriotic symbol like our flag, which is so beautiful to me, can be mocked by a stupid cartoonist...I think there are many other ways to graphically protest what's happening in our country." Unfortunately, he did not give any suggestions as to what those other ways might perhaps be. And really, the guy shouldn't just single out "stupid cartoonists". It can be mocked by anyone, regardless of intelligence and/or the ability to draw, and it probably has been.

Cagle has a blog which I have perused and found to be most excellent. A sample of his work can be seen on the right. He has several of his political cartoons which feature Mexico and it's impact/relationship on/with the United States. He's definitely right on target. But the fact that he has a blog means that people have easy access to communicate with him. It goes along with the blogging. (You should see some of the emails that people write me. They're not always happy if you can imagine that!) And on this issue, they certainly did. A one Ramon De Leon wrote, "I think your idea of bringing the violence in Mexico to light is excellent. Too bad you butchered it along with the Mexican flag. Laws in Mexico with regards to the use and depiction of the flag are in place to prevent this sort of stuff. Please consider taking it down and issuing an apology to the Mexican American community." Um, are you kidding?

See, laws in Mexico are different than those in the United States. Take your immigration policy, for example. Much, MUCH different. We don't have laws against freedom of speech, even when in regard to the flag. And even if we did, I doubt that those laws would extend to the flags of other nations. I can only hope that Mr. Cagle will not issue an apology. I'm pretty sure he's the kind of guy who isn't going to take it down, but a lot of people find themselves with their back against the wall and are sort of "forced" into apologizing for something that isn't worthy of an apology in the first place.

So, they're upset because someone doesn't respect their flag? Tell you guys what. How about you start respecting anything having to do with America and then we'll talk about your flag? Or, perhaps, do something about your drug violence and then we'll talk about the cartoon. But with over 12 million of your countrymen living illegally in this country and having zero respect for our laws, I'm not going to feel all that bad that you folks are all bent out of shape about this flag cartoon. It didn't get the Muslims anywhere and it isn't going to get you anywhere, so just pipe down. Or draw a cartoon about the American flag if that makes you feel better. I really don't think I care what you do, just stop making it out to be a big deal because it might be a lot of things, but a big deal certainly isn't one of them.

Sphere: Related Content

It's Not Racist; It's A Fakeroversy

You know why no one watches CNN anymore? I'm guessing it's because they lead with ridiculous stories with descriptions such as "Radio talk-show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger engages in a racially charged discussion with a caller to her show" as well as "Dr. Laura's racist rant". Good Lord, people. Seriously?

For those of you who are unfamiliar with Dr. Laura, allow me. Dr. Laura is a somewhat sanctimonious radio talk show personality who takes calls from people who don't know what to do about some sort of problem that they're having in their life. Dr. Laura believes in not having sex before marriage (she tends to call woman who engage in such behaviors the lovely pet name of "whores"), not living together before marriage, stay at home moms, two parent families and stuff of that nature. Her message is wonderful. It's a little unrealistic on some fronts, but very few. There isn't a lot that people who don't like her can say in disagreement with the messages that she sends. Granted, she can be hard to take at times. But the things that she advocates are excellent messages to send to people.

You'd imagine that it would be unlikely for a person of that caliber to go on a "racist rant". Yeah, that's because she didn't. Here's what happened: A called phoned her show

"I'm having an issue with my husband where I'm starting to grow very resentful of him. I'm black and he's white. We've been around some of his friends and family members who start making racist comments as if I'm not there or if I'm not black. And my husband ignores those comments, and it hurts my feelings. And he acts like..." And here is where Dr. Laura jumps in with "Well, can you give me an example of a racist comment? 'Cause sometimes people are hypersensitive. So tell me what's...give me two good examples of racist comments." The woman continues, "OK. Last night, good example, we had a neighbor come over, and this neighbor, when every time he comes over, it's always a black comment." (Well, if he's commenting about her grammar skills, given that sentence right there, he might be right.) "It's 'Oh, well, how do you black people like doing this?' And, 'Do black people really like doing that?' And for a long time, I would ignore it. But last night I got to the point where it..." Fortunately, Dr. Laura broke in with exactly what I was thinking when she said, "I don't think that's racist." I don't either. Inquisitive, perhaps. Racist? Nah.

The caller tried to defend her position by saying, "Well, the stereotype..." And unfortunately, we didn't get to hear what stereotype she was referring to. Was it some sort of archaic watermelon or fried chicken stereotype? We'll never know. Dr. Laura responded by saying, "I don't think that's racist. No, I think that..." And the caller was a bit surprised by this and uttered a, "Seriously." (You know. Because if a black person says that something is racist, it is automatically, by definition, racist. That's why all us white folks are racist. Some black person said that we were and voila!) Dr. Laura was, apparently, serious as she explained, "No, no, no. I think that's...well, listen, without giving much thought, a lot of blacks voted for Obama simply because he was half-black. Didn't matter what he was gonna do in office, it was a black thing. You gotta know that. That's not a surprise. Not everything that somebody says...we had friends over the other day. We got about 35 people here...the guys who were gonna start playing basketball. I was going to go out and play basketball. My bodyguard and my dear friend is a black man. And I said, 'White men can't jump. I want you on my team.' That was racist? That was funny." Wow. That was quite a diversion. (She needs a bodyguard to play basketball at her house? Maybe she does, what do I know. It was just a little surprising, that's all.) Oh, boy. Here we go.

And we did go. Well, the caller went. The caller went to the place where if you're white, you're going to lose. That's right. She went to The N-word Land. She said, "How about the N-word? So, the N-word's been thrown around..." And here is where Dr. Laura took the opportunity to make a most excellent point. She said, "Black guys use it all the time. Turn on HBO, listen to a black comic, and all you hear is N-word, N-word, N-word." Only she didn't say "N-word". No, she said the word. And no, the caller didn't like it.

"That isn't..." But Dr. Laura wasn't going to stop making her point there (which seems like a good idea as I would imagine it would be hard for your point to stick if you ended your argument with the N-word). She continued, "I don't get it. If anybody without enough melanin says it, it's a horrible thing. But when black people say it, it's affectionate. It's very confusing. Don't hang up. I want to talk to you some more. Don't go away." And somewhat to my surprise, the caller didn't go away. And neither did the demonstrative spewing of epithets. Awesome!

She comes back after the commercial and says, "I'm Dr. Laura Schlessinger, talking to Jade. What did you think about during the break, by the way?" That's a nice way to ease into it. But I don't think that Jade was quite on the same page as Dr. Laura was. "I was a little caught back by the N-word that you spewed out. I have to be honest with you. But my point is, race relations..." Oh, OK. So, during the break, you thought about the ways in which you were just wronged by the white woman. Grand. But Dr. Laura stayed on her toes and said, "Oh, then I guess you don't watch HBO or listen to any black comedians." (I don't know what the stretch is there that implies that everyone on the planet has HBO. I get the part about the comedians, but HBO? I find that odd. But, go on...) The woman responds, "But that doesn't make it right." Good Lord....

I wasn't the only one thinking that. "I think you have too much sensitivity..." Dr. Laura said to Jade. Jade, completely missing the point, said, "So, it's OK to say N-word?" No, you twit. That's not what she said.

Dr. Laura: "...and not enough sense of humor."

Jade: "It's OK to say that word?"

Dr. Laura: "It depends how it's said." (She's right, by the way. Jade, it won't likely surprise you, doesn't really agree.)

Jade: "Is it OK to say that word? Is it ever OK to say that word?"

Dr. Laura: "It's...it depends how it's said. Black guys talking to each other seem to think it's OK." (They do seem to. I get that impression and I don't even have the HBO.)

Jade: "But you're not black. They're not black. My husband is white."

Dr. Laura: "Oh, I see. So a word is restricted to race. Got it. Can't do much about that." (And here is where Jade becomes completely irrational. She also starts making stuff up.)

Jade: "I can't believe someone like you is on the radio spewing out the N-word, and I hope everybody heard it." (She has over nine million listeners. I'm going to bet that at least one of them heard it. Now if only Jade could have heard her point.)

Dr. Laura: "I didn't spew out the N-word."

Jade: "You said, 'N-word, N-word, N-word." (She heard that, but not much else.)

Dr. Laura: "Right. I said that's what you hear."

Jade: "Everybody heard it." (Ahh. So she's well versed on the concept of the radio. That's good.)

Dr. Laura: "Yes, they did."

Jade: "I hope everybody heard it." (I take back what I said about being well versed on the concept of the radio.)

Dr. Laura: "They did...and I'll say it again..."

Jade: "So, what makes it OK for you to say that word?"

Dr. Laura: "N-word, N-word, N-word is what you hear on HB..."

Jade: "So what makes it..."

Dr. Laura: "Why don't you let me finish a sentence?"

Jade: "OK."

Dr. Laura: "Don't take things out of context. Don't double N...NAACP me...didn't call anybody a n---er. Nice try, Jade. Actually sucky try. You need a sense of humor."

I still don't see anything wrong with what she said or how she handled it. But someone must have. Someone with power over her (ie, advertisers, syndicators, radio gods, etc.) must have seen something wrong with it because she ended up apologizing. I found it odd. Apologizing when you've done nothing wrong. This is what she said:

"I talk every day about doing the right thing. And yesterday, I did the wrong thing. I didn't intend to hurt people, but I did. And that makes it the wrong thing to have done. I was attempting to make a philosophical point, and I articulated the N-word all the way out, more than one time. And that was wrong. I'll say it again. That was wrong."

Is that how it works for reals? Even if you didn't intend to hurt people, if it does, then it's wrong? I'm not so sure that's true when it comes to pointing out factual instances. Just because someone isn't good at dealing with reality, does that mean that when people point out reality to them and it hurts them that it's wrong? I don't think that it does. What about her apology? What if her apology hurts people who believed that what she was saying at first was right? Does that make her apology wrong? I don't think that it does. It's strange. It's all very strange.

This is so not a "racist rant". It's also so not a controversy. It's nothing more than a few folks trying to stir up a fakeroversy (fake controversy). Granted, Dr. Laura's apology makes it sound like more of a real controversy, but don't be fooled! There is absolutely nothing to this. NOTHING. And anyone who tries to make something of it is a complete moron.

I am disappointed that Jade wasn't able to explain why it is OK for black people to say it to each other. I understand that it's a slur for white people to say it. That doesn't need to be explained to me. But how come a slur isn't always a slur? Why is this word allowed contextual acceptance? I don't get it.

But to end things on a more amusing note, here is a snippet from an episode of South Park that kind of deals with just this very issue. Enjoy!

Sphere: Related Content

Fakeroversy at the Super Bowl

We've got the Super Bowl just right around the corner. Well, it's next week. I realize that's a pretty big corner, but it's still pretty close. And when it's Super Bowl time, that's when the station that's airing the game starts to wrap up finalizing all of the commercials that are going to be shown during the game. Already there is a lot of controversy over some of the ads and they've got nothing to do with those cute Clydesdales.

What we have stirring up some fake controversy (yep, another fakeroversy) is an ad that was paid for by the Christian conservative group Focus on the Family. Conservative. Family. Yep. You guessed it. They're "pro-life", also known as anti-abortion. This ad is going to convey the meaning behind the theme of "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life." It is also going to contain a one Tim Tebow (apparently a really good collegiate quarterback for Florida) and a one Pam Tebow, the mother of the aforementioned Tim.

According to the huffy folks over there at the Huffington Post the ad will be "...chronicling Pam Tebow's 1987 pregnancy. After getting sick during a mission trip to the Philippines, she ignored a recommendation by doctors to abort her fifth child and gave birth to Tim." Um, OK. But can I just say something here? I want my freaking Clydesdales back!!

Look, do I personally care if this group wants to buy this ad time? No, not really. I'm not offended by it. It doesn't particularly bother me because of the subject matter. However, lately it has come to light that abortion has been illegal in the Philippines since the 1930s and it would have been odd for the doctors there to recommend such a procedure. See, that does bother me. You want to send your anti-abortion message to a bazillion people watching a football game? I guess if you have the money for that, you can do so. But I'd really rather that you didn't. And here's why:

I like the commercials during the Super Bowl. I find them to be interesting and hilarious. (And in the case of the GoDaddy commercials, I find them to be interesting and...uh....um...what? Oh. Sorry. I was just envisioning GoDaddy commercials of the past and got distracted. GoDaddy isn't so much pro-life or pro-choice as much as it is pro-breasts.) I want to see interesting and hilarious commercials during the Super Bowl. I especially want to see interesting and hilarious commercials during the Super Bowl if I am watching said game at a venue with other people, some of which may or may not have imbibed just a little bit too much of any sort of alcoholic beverage furnished for said viewing.

You're never going to come to a nationwide consensus on whether or not abortion is OK or not. And from what I can tell, people have some really strong opinions about the whole matter. Don't believe me? Just ask that dude down in Kansas who blew away the abortion doc whilst he was sitting in church. I'm thinking that if your opinion is so strong that it leads you to justify blowing other people away with a gun while they're in church that you're not going to be swayed very easily to see the other side's point of view, you know what I'm saying?

And the last thing I want is a room full of people who may or may not have been drinking and who may or may not have extremely strong opinions about this whole abortion matter. That right there could turn the Super Bowl into the Super Brawl. It's supposed to be fun! Why do are we being subjected to commercials about abortions?!

Can you imagine if this sort of thing catches on? What if next year, instead of having all of the cute little dogs and horses unite in their ways to pull some sort of decrepit wagon into Small Town, USA so that all of the residents can have icy cold beer (some with a minimal amount of calories), we were instead subjected to political ads? And abortion ads? And gay marriage ads? And grandparent visitation rights ads? Oh, my God, I'd hang myself.

We could find ourselves in the not so distant future, sitting down for the big game with our family and friends with some youngsters, hopefully belonging to said family and friends. We could find ourselves saying to said youngsters, "You know, Billy...it wasn't that long ago that the commercials during the Super Bowl were really funny! Yes! Funny! There used to be these horses...Clydesdales, they were called...furry hooves, boy were they a hoot! But now, we've just got these political commercials all the time and...my God! How many of these with President Hillary are we going to have to sit through?!" That would be rough. Really. Rough.

It's not a controversy that CBS sold a commercial spot for an ad that is going to be anti-abortion. It's not. It's a fakeroversy. If there's such a problem with it, what say you pro-abortion folks roll out your own ad and get your message out there as well. And actually, I wish that they would. I'd find that very interesting, because I'm not all that aware of many pro-abortion advertising mediums of late. It's a tricky thing to advocate without sounding like a villain, I get that. But maybe try the Clydesdales! People really enjoy those!

Really, what are people worried about? That the ad is going to sway people into what? Not having abortions? I don't think that's going to happen. I don't think that anyone out there that is contemplating an abortion is going to change her mind simply because of the possibility that their child could grow up to be a college football quarterback. I don't think the reason that they're considering the abortion in the first place is because they're worried that the youngster won't be good at sports. I think that has next to nothing to do with the decision. Besides, the only people that one would have to be concerned with being swayed by something like this would be the Supreme Court. And from what I can tell, they're about as anxious to have anything to do with the subject as I am, that is to say, they don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole. Nor do I think that they're the sort of bunch that's going to be swayed by a freaking ad airing during the Super Bowl.

By the way, below is a Bud Light ad which was rejected as a Super Bowl ad a couple of years ago. Apparently, its subject matter was not suitable for the big game. Suitable or not, its freaking hilarious. And I'd rather watch that than I would watch a commercial having anything to do with abortion.

I can only hope that this will be the last "serious" ad which will air during the Super Bowl. We're not wanting to have brawls with drunken family members because of an argument instigated by an anti-abortion commercial. We're wanting to be happy drunks. Drunk and happy and covered in grease and sauce from too many Buffalo wings. That's what we want. We're America. It's what we strive for. Now...where are those horses? What about that talking E*Trade kid? He's a riot.

Wait! It's just come to my attention that the actors in the above disallowed Bud Light commercial have an encore commercial. Please, please, please let it make it to the Super Bowl this year. We can handle this can't we?

Sphere: Related Content