The White Community needs to speak out! - Did that get your attention? Imagine the awesome magnitude of shit that would befall anyone of note who might utter a bigotted, racist comment like that on, say, a top-rated (#1 at the time this was written) morning-drive radio program? I don't say shit lightly, just in italics, and by it I mean the negative response of the entire media establishment. Nod your head if you agree that the above comment is bigotted and racist, and if you're a liberal, write down yay or nay on a sheet of paper so you can't convince yourself that you thought otherwise after you read the rest of this.

The #1 rated morning radio program in Atlanta is the Frank Ski program. Frank Ski, from the data I've seen (google his name, you can see it, too), seems to be a nice guy, a decent person. Hard working. Successful. Idiot.

No, fucking idiot is more appropriate. He's a racist bigot to boot.

I listened to Mr. Ski complain, on his show, about Pepsi's decision to end it's advertising/marketing relationship with the rapper Ludacris. Bill O'Reilly took a few moments of his FoxNews broadcast to comment on that relationship, and urged his viewers to pressure Pepsi to end it. That same evening, Pepsi announced that it had ended the relationship, and apologized for any offense it may have caused. Now, the Pepsi / Ludacris flap is not a serious issue in and of itself. The point of this rant is Mr. Ski's reaction to it, and everything that follows from that.

Mr. Ski has spent a lot of time on the air discussing this issue, mostly encouraging the "Black Community" to "speak up for itself" and to not let white, "corporate america" make decisions for it. He sees the Pepsi flap as an attack on black people, and it is. Pepsi is using the poorest possible example of what any person should strive to be, in the form of Ludacris, and using his ethnicity to market a fizzy beverage to people of similar ethnicity. Reebok is doing the exact same thing, but with shoes and clothes. The AJC story that really started it all pulls a typical, stupid liberal error: it rats out another stupid liberal. The entire article is premised on how Pepsi is using "multicultural" and "urban" performers to focus marketing to the "mainstream" and on "promotions aimed at youth ages 12 to 24." To any liberals reading this, the above linked article was printed before the O'Reilly comments, and was most likely what precipitated his comments.

Mr. Ski tries to equate Ludacris to Eminem and Britney Spears, the former because of the similar performance style, and the latter because of her focus on sexual appeal and similar Pepsi ad deal. I do not see Eminem helping to sell Pepsi (or any other "mainstream" product), and it seems that Ludacris' lyrics are much more explicit than Eminem's anyway. Britney Spears may dress like a 'ho, but I don't hear her songs glorifying violence, or sex, or profanity.

Mr. Ski glosses over the fact that kids, especially those with similar ethnicity to Ludacris, will be negatively influenced by his "art" if exposed to it at too early an age, and Pepsi's use of him in advertisements makes it very easy for young children to be exposed to him, and subsequenty to his "art." I agree that it is the parent's responsibility to protect their children from such filth, and any kid in school is going to learn who he is sooner or later, but it is one thing to be exposed to his music at a young age, but quite another to have the aura of appropriateness, in the eyes of a child, given to the music because the musician was featured in an ad for an ok company. As the AJC noted, the entire campaign is focused on the 12 to 24 age bracket, specifically "multicultural" and "urban" groups. That means black kids, for those of you on the North Side. If I was a black parent, I think I might be a little bit upset at the notion of my children being targeted by Ludacris in Pepsi ads, knowing that my children have been exposed to him at school from older kids, because those ads will be saying to my kids, "Look at me, I'm hip, I'm cool, and I'm making the bling-bling with this Pepsi deal. And you remember my CD? That's why I'm here, that's why I'm famous." Famous for what he sings about, and this is fine and dandy, except when my kids are looking up to their peers who are all listening to Ludacris, because it's hard enough trying to explain to them that singing about the 'ho's is wrong without them looking up at those ads and wondering if I'm not being up front, wondering if I ain't just a little out-of-touch, because Pepsi doesn't think it's bad, and their friends don't think it's bad, and their parents aren't stopping them from listening to it. Even if your kids are smart, or really smart, they aren't going to listen to you explain the details of multi-level, targeted marketing, nor think you're cool for trying. The bottom line is that the ads undermine the credibility of parents in the eyes of their children, when those parents try to control their children's access to filth like Ludacris.

Frank Ski's program is number one in Atlanta. His target audience is predominately black, from the "South Side," as his show proudly proclaims. His program works hard to tell its audience that black people are oppressed, that they need "a voice," that his program is that voice, and then it proceeds to demonstrate the worst aspects of the "Black Community." For any "white" people listening, it stinks of black stereotypes, making jest of them while denouncing those who might believe them. It's sad that, most definitely, his audience believes the stereotypes.

Surely, there are many parents listening to his show. Do they not care that their kids are listening to filth, and watching filth on TV? Judging from the comments made by callers to the program, I would bet that they have already given up the fight for their kids, and that their kids are already falling into the poor lifestyle promoted by the likes of Ludacris. Poor in morals, poor in the pocket, poor in intelligence, poor in manners, poor in esteem, and poor in the future. But hey, that's already what I see when I go to the "South Side," why should it not be that way for the next generation? There is no excuse. The "Black Community" needs to truly fend for itself against "big media," and if the number one rated morning radio show in Atlanta isn't "big media," I don't know what is. "Big media," including the AJC, CNN, the big-three, the little-two, they are all pulling a fast one on black people and poor people, expecially poor black people, and only they can choose to wake up, realize it, and fight it. The "Black Community" needs to realize what "big media" means when it says "the Black Community" (read: poor, uneducated black people, for those of you who didn't vote for Cynthia McKinney), and decide if that's really where it wants to be. As long as people like Frank Ski are getting the ratings, and are acting as "the voice," expect a bumper crop of poor, uneducated black people for the "next generation" in the South Side.

How Many Cartersville Police Does It Take... - to investigate a shooting? Apparently, quite a bit. It seems that a few men brought baseball bats to a gun fight at a Chevron station in Cartersville, GA, on Friday evening. According to a bystander, who was at a QuikTrip just across the street when the fight broke out, and still there later when I drove by, there was a bunch of screaming, cursing, and then about 10 shots fired. Three men had tried to pick a fight with a fourth man, and when the motley group brandished their weapons, the lone opponent pulled a gun and emptied it into the other three. A State Trooper, who heard the shots from the QuikTrip, apprehended the gunman without incident, and summoned backup to assist with the wounded.

I came upon the scene while on my way to appropriate some Blizzards, and found about five ambulances, 10-12 police cars, the entire gas station blocked off with crime scene tape, a shot-up car sitting at the pump with the nozzle still in the tank, and more officers arriving by the minute. There were a couple dozen onlookers at the QuikTrip, where I got my eyewitness account of the goings-on. The cops were searching the pavement around the pumps, probably for bullet shells or the like. What I'm trying to figure out is why, exactly, did it take that many police officers to conduct the investigation. The "perp" surrendered calmly to a single officer, no one was killed as far as I can find out, and if anyone else was involved, they were on the losing team's side and fleeing.

I'm going to try and find out if the other participants, if any, were caught, if there are going to be charges against the gunman, who appears to have been simply defending himself, and if there are going to be charges against the losers. Hopefully, this info is in the pulp referenced by the above-linked article. Maybe they'll also have an accurate count of how many of those police officers were just there to turn the ladder.

UPDATE - While the local newspaper in Cartersville references the losers as hispanics, WSB-TV in Atlanta is claiming that race was indeed a factor. They also confirmed that at least two others were involved, and that no one has died as a result of the incident. I didn't see any hispanics gawking from the QuikTrip that night, so I wonder how the "racial disputes" came into the equation.

News Flash - Sports - From tonight's telecast of the Arizona Diamondbacks vs. Atlanta Braves on Turner South Network, regarding the lackluster debut of pitcher Jung Bong:

That's seven hits off Bong tonight.

I'm not sure which announcer said it yet, but I'll try to find out.

Treasure Trove of Bullshit - Another way to get to this site is by googling "reuters terrorist" via their nifty "I'm Feeling Lucky" button.

In other dreck, I've coined the term stratoblogosphere, in reference to sites such as the venerable InstaPundit.Com. It's not googleable, so if you think you or someone else used it first, e-mail me. (Note: this is just a feeble attempt to see if you are reading, I don't really care who coined it, but it's now claimed here by me for eternity, as defined by the lifespan of the blogspot.com server, muahahahah!) However, I'll be checking Google periodically to see if anyone uses it next (anyone important enough to get their website indexed by Google, at least).

Type until your fingers bleed - Then, turn in what you have done, and type some more.

I have 20-20 vision.

Good for you, asshole, wanna cookie?

Sure, but I was just about to point out that I have never, ever required the use of any vision-correcting device, which leads me to tonight's incident.

The Pre-pre-conjugal Unit decided that her glasses were dirty, as she does from time to time, being of the vision-impaired persuasion and all. So, she applied her lens-cleaning device (read: shirt bottom) to the problem, and subsequently popped the left lens out of the frame. This new problem, she informed me, had never happened before, and neither of us knew exactly what the correct solution was. I, being the All Knowing (read: stubborn) Man of the House, decided to examine the lens closely for a better understanding of the problem. I learned that there was a channel on the inside of the frame that wrapped snug around a ridge located on the lens. Ergo, I started looking for the correct angle to squeeze the lens back into place, presumably the angle with which the lens made its escape. This led me to various methods of squeezing the frame around the lens, none of which impressed the Significant Other, who decided to try using her teeth. I meanwhile, pondered the nature of the magic device that would be employed by the Eyeglasses Shop clerk to make the lens go into the frame, without bending the frame. I thought, gee, it must be some Potteresque contraption that can stretch the frame around the lens and also get the lens past that screw grommet.

Screw grommet. Damnit to hell!

Upon the conception of my new theory, I started nagging the Better Half to let me see the frames again. My efforts were met, of course, by more frame-gnawing. When I finally got the frames back, I looked in the area of the screw grommet, and discovered that it was, in fact, the frame loosening method I had hypothesized. I can imagine that clerk now, sure, we have a tool in the back (wide grin) we can use to fix these right up, give us about 30 minutes, and they'll be ready. So, with the glasses restored to their full diffractive glory, I set upon the sisyphean task of washing and putting away laundry.

I really enjoy putting my clothes away. Except for the standing-up part, it's a most pleasant chore. I beam with pride when I look at all my crisp, creased pants and my sharp polos and dress shirts, all eagerly waiting for a quick pressing and the honor of being worn by me. I have only recently acquired a decent business/formal suit, a nice one by Ralph Lauren, reasonably priced but not cheap. This, of course, required the further purchases of dress shirts, ties, shoes, a belt, black socks, etc. All because I wanted to look sharp for an interview that I knew I only had a snowball's chance in hell of getting a job out of. But, just having that one suit, knowing that when I get another big interview I'll be able to dress professionally, makes shooting for the big jobs a lot easier, and a lot more fun.

Treasure Trove of Bullshit - This issue has been pissing me off to no end lately: the use of the words "alleged" and "suspected" in various forms, by news reporters and the media in general, when describing criminals, suspected or otherwise. There are too many cases to try to link to, but I'm going to post new ones as I find them.

If you are reporting something as "alleged," it is required by prudence and ethics to report the source of the allegation. A better word is "suspected," but prudence and ethics still dictate a disclosure of the reason behind the suspicion. Admitting bias and disclosing a reason are anathema to and impossible by, respectively, the leftist-tilted media.

Take as example the case of Ahmad Alghamdi, as reported by alleged news source Reuters (link and story skimmed from the Best of the Web). BOTW points out that Reuters calls Alghamdi a "suspected Saudi hijacker." What does "suspected" mean, in this case? I would take it (as would many readers) at first glance as meaning that some law-enforcement officials somewhere suspect Alghamdi to have been a hijacker who happens to be Saudi. The article does not specify a third party that suspects the guilt of Alghamdi. It does not specify what, exactly, Alghamdi is suspected of hijacking (in case you do not know, Alghamdi was one of the hijackers aboard United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in rural Pennsylvania on 09-11-2001).

I believe the term "suspected" is totally appropriate, perhaps even necessary, as long as you specify that the FBI is doing the suspecting, and as long as you take the space to mention (yes, again) just what the suspected crime is. To the informed, it's redundant, but the journalist must always err on the side of ethics, and account for the possibility that their audience is not informed. Ommiting these critical facts leaves only the "suspected Saudi hijacker" phrase as fact, further leaving the logical reader to assume (correctly) that it's the journalist that merely "suspects" the guilt of the accused, which is a biased stance, just as stating only "Saudi hijacker" would be a biased stance in the opposite direction.

There is no place on a news wire for bias and blatant opinion unless it is so marked and disclaimed, and there is no disclaimer on this article by Reuters. Bias of and in itself is not bad or wrong, but sleighted, propagandistic bias of this nature is more than wrong. It's deplorable, a threat to the very freedom that allows it, and must not be tolerated.

Connect the Dots - I wish I could write like this man. Too much sleeping through English class in high school, I suppose, has damned me to only being able to spew this almost unbearable chunder. I still say, emphatically, fuck you to my AP English teacher, for making that class so unbelievably mind-sapping and worthless. I further say to her, with no small amount of spittle, that my college GPA for my four English classes is 3.4. Thppt!

Anyway, go check out James Lileks, and when he has you trapped in his death-grip of amuesement and enlightenment, remember you can come back here to have it all drained happily away again...

I could have had lunch... - ...but I purchased lottery tickets instead. Actually, my girlfriend did. Five of them, $5 spent. The impetus for this frivolous purchase is today's Big Game drawing, which will pay an estimated $325+ million, annuitized, if there is a winner. I don't consider the money a total waste, because I have already derived much, much more than $5 worth of entertainment from the ticket (you only get one ticket, physically, with up to five lines containing your numbers, for those of you who have never, ever played. Sourpusses!). I consider it a partial waste because I am dead certain that there are no winning numbers on my ticket, at least not in such a combination as to actually win anything.

What kind of entertainment could be derived from a lottery ticket? Hearing about the source of the complex formulas that allowed my girlfriend to select the ripest numbers. Possessing a little piece of cultural history. Being able to shoot-the-shit with my co-workers about "how close" we were to the millions (when in fact we were about as close as we would be standing next to the vault in a bank where we had no account). Working in a manual labor position (data entry) you get to meet people with this "just a few numbers away" mentality, and an equal amount of people who think the whole lottery thing is a sham, crock, and waste of time, which makes for interesting conversation indeed. I won't call it a sham or a crock, because I think it's a good tax on stupidity, and I feel a responsibility to pay my share. As far as being a waste of time, well, it might have been a waste of my girlfriend's time.

Just like that $5 could have bought me lunch, that 5 minutes could have been spent doing other more interesting or productive things, perhaps, but if the experience helps her to decide not to play in the future, then the tuition was cheap and the lesson was short, and I'm a happy man.