This is my thirtieth year in radio and I'm still inspired by the spirit of the business, with all of its varied aspects. There are layers stacked on entertainment, journalism, community service, marketing and a camaraderie that has always spoken to me. It touches people and binds us to those in other worlds and about town.
There's also a moving timeline that is intriguing and exciting. There's a rich history that creates this aura of heritage, yet it's full of people always working to enhance and polish the processes that make the sound come out of the speakers and the words ever-relevant.
I'm not a purist. I think that's too limiting for such an evolving medium. I love new ideas and exploring ways to change up my craft. Besides, pure is relative to an individual and the period of his entry into the business.
The earliest broadcasts were always live, as there was no means to record them. Later, programming was produced using test acetate (lacquer-coated discs cut using a needle modulated by sound), reel-to-reel and "carts" (continuous loop tape cartridges of various lengths). However the basic gear -- the mic, a transmitter and many inexpensive receivers -- still comprises the magic of radio.
It's okay to wear your tape-splicing ability on your sleeve or to extol the virtues of the cart deck, but you have to be amazed at our ability to edit in the digital realm and file reports, with photos and video, armed with nothing more than a mobile phone and the radio smarts to know what to capture.
Radio is as it's always been; people with eyes on the streets and a smile in their voices. The constant is that talent creates the imagery of a window that looks over the city to an extent that one might think of them as omniscient. Listening makes you feel connected to the world outside while you may be confined to your home or your car or your office. They are a collective voice coming from several places seemingly at onces, providing comfort and a sense of companionship.
People will forever pontificate about whether radio is dying. Until it's dead. But I know on this day it's not. It's thriving as a medium and reaches impressive audiences over-the-air -- and now across a global digital fabric. The biggest challenge today is not that the medium is losing its viability, but rather the challenges facing the guiding business model.
I have been extremely fortunate to be able to work at some of the most prolific radio stations of the midwest. I've always worked alongside stellar performers who carry on the positive spirit. They've been unquestionable assets to our industry and the stations they support.
But if radio ever does die, I hope entertainment, journalism, community service, marketing and a camaraderie survive.
Thursday, February 02, 2012
Voter ID efforts suspect
I keep hearing that Iowa needs to pass legislation that prevents voter fraud. And the proponents of the measure use language that appeals to the sensibilities of regular people, saying, "If you need an ID to (insert any common activity), then why not require ID to make sure elections are fair?"
And that's when my ears perk up. That sure has the ring of demagoguery, the same rhetoric used in every debate on nearly any polarizing issues where someone has a thinly veiled agenda.
I must ask if this insistence on requiring government identification at the polling place is based on actual voter fraud problems or does this amount to statistical wizardry crafted by some organized elite faction to sway outcomes to their preferred side.
Voting is a fundamental right in our republic and it should not be a difficult undertaking for citizens to exercise. True, government and businesses are pushing harder to ask us to prove our identity at every turn, but the reasons for that climate are not the fault of the citizen. It's a mere convenience for the automation of information, correspondence and transactions.
The question you ought to ask is, should people have to jump through extra hoops to exercise their rights as US citizens? If I, as an American, have the right to be left alone, for example, then I have a right to not obtain government identification papers. You must not be forced to forfeit one right in order to exercise another.
If every time we turn around, the government demands that we produce papers, then we become a controlled state; we forfeit our personal sovereignty. We associate that kind of state-control with Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, which we vehemently oppose and find repulsive. We value the idea that the government has no cause, right or standing to stop, detain, inconvenience or generally bother people for any reason, unless the people have committed a crime against other people, or their property, or that public safety requires it.
There's no public safety issue here. And there appears to be no voter fraud issue either. People are trying to solve a problem in Iowa that simply doesn't exist -- at the behest of a well-funded organization that wants to use the peoples' government for its own profit and purpose.
Those who value liberty and freedom need to think critically about what this will mean for us. We need to understand the direction such measures would take us as a nation; more toward government control and the loss of the freedoms guaranteed by our charter.
And that's when my ears perk up. That sure has the ring of demagoguery, the same rhetoric used in every debate on nearly any polarizing issues where someone has a thinly veiled agenda.
I must ask if this insistence on requiring government identification at the polling place is based on actual voter fraud problems or does this amount to statistical wizardry crafted by some organized elite faction to sway outcomes to their preferred side.
Voting is a fundamental right in our republic and it should not be a difficult undertaking for citizens to exercise. True, government and businesses are pushing harder to ask us to prove our identity at every turn, but the reasons for that climate are not the fault of the citizen. It's a mere convenience for the automation of information, correspondence and transactions.
The question you ought to ask is, should people have to jump through extra hoops to exercise their rights as US citizens? If I, as an American, have the right to be left alone, for example, then I have a right to not obtain government identification papers. You must not be forced to forfeit one right in order to exercise another.
If every time we turn around, the government demands that we produce papers, then we become a controlled state; we forfeit our personal sovereignty. We associate that kind of state-control with Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, which we vehemently oppose and find repulsive. We value the idea that the government has no cause, right or standing to stop, detain, inconvenience or generally bother people for any reason, unless the people have committed a crime against other people, or their property, or that public safety requires it.
There's no public safety issue here. And there appears to be no voter fraud issue either. People are trying to solve a problem in Iowa that simply doesn't exist -- at the behest of a well-funded organization that wants to use the peoples' government for its own profit and purpose.
Those who value liberty and freedom need to think critically about what this will mean for us. We need to understand the direction such measures would take us as a nation; more toward government control and the loss of the freedoms guaranteed by our charter.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
While you were busy fighting, thieves stole America
I've suggested divisive infighting has been a useful distraction that enables corporatism. Much evidence of that in social conversations I read on facebook.
There's plenty of common ground among the wage earners, but folks in the cheap seats are paired into political and social subsets, provoked to attack each other instead of directing their energy at restraining Washington.
We're the useful idiots perpetuating the crime by doing...nothing but bickering and name-calling.
The political parties have become bastardized versions of their former selves, directed by operatives who have but one common interest: to suck from the enormous teet of the federal government.
OWS and Teaparty movements are symptomatic of common unrest by the populous, yet the perception is sold to us that their forces oppose one another.
Seeing a thread here?
We're never allowed to forget the fights. The black/white issue keeps popping up in the media. But ask yourself who is advancing these conversations. It's either those on the dole or unwitting shills for said cause.
You know the message permeates the American psychie when the talking points of group X are exalted in man-on-the-street stand-ups.
I don't know who's responsible for provoking, nor would it be useful to argue over it, but I do know the left-right, black-white, rich-poor battles are playing out in all forms of TV, talk radio, blogosphere and social media.
Whether the ones we see on TV have anything to gain personally is less important than transcending the rhetoric altogether and working as a people in this and every election, firing incumbants of all stripes until Washington is rid of the bug that sucks the life blood from this republic.
We can break down immorality into its most basic form by relating it to something as primal as suffering, something most of us can relate to on varying levels and degrees.
Abortion is subject usually presented as a polar issue, either hard-left or hard-right position. But attitudes change when you present it this way: "How about an abortion today?" In its most basic form, no one wants one or thinks it's a suffer-free zone. From that common ground, we can begin a thoughtful conversation.
There's plenty of common ground among the wage earners, but folks in the cheap seats are paired into political and social subsets, provoked to attack each other instead of directing their energy at restraining Washington.
We're the useful idiots perpetuating the crime by doing...nothing but bickering and name-calling.
The political parties have become bastardized versions of their former selves, directed by operatives who have but one common interest: to suck from the enormous teet of the federal government.
OWS and Teaparty movements are symptomatic of common unrest by the populous, yet the perception is sold to us that their forces oppose one another.
Seeing a thread here?
We're never allowed to forget the fights. The black/white issue keeps popping up in the media. But ask yourself who is advancing these conversations. It's either those on the dole or unwitting shills for said cause.
You know the message permeates the American psychie when the talking points of group X are exalted in man-on-the-street stand-ups.
I don't know who's responsible for provoking, nor would it be useful to argue over it, but I do know the left-right, black-white, rich-poor battles are playing out in all forms of TV, talk radio, blogosphere and social media.
Whether the ones we see on TV have anything to gain personally is less important than transcending the rhetoric altogether and working as a people in this and every election, firing incumbants of all stripes until Washington is rid of the bug that sucks the life blood from this republic.
We can break down immorality into its most basic form by relating it to something as primal as suffering, something most of us can relate to on varying levels and degrees.
Abortion is subject usually presented as a polar issue, either hard-left or hard-right position. But attitudes change when you present it this way: "How about an abortion today?" In its most basic form, no one wants one or thinks it's a suffer-free zone. From that common ground, we can begin a thoughtful conversation.
Sunday, January 01, 2012
Voters need a class in American Government
I have a hard time understanding how such large numbers of citizens of this country don't understand what it means that states are sovereign entities. That means the federal government is restricted to power specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and all other powers of governance belong to the states and citizens. Put another way, it is required by law to stay out of the business of drug policy, marriage, education, abortion and host of other issues because these are not under the purview of the job of President of the United States, and candidates for the office thereof.
Many think of the US as a single assemblage of people under one governing body and that the President is sort of like a King commanding an army. I imagine some are just used to the fact that the federal government often comes along and tries to impose laws on all of us, even though our state-run schools are charged with the responsibility of teaching this stuff to every kid.
Many think of the US as a single assemblage of people under one governing body and that the President is sort of like a King commanding an army. I imagine some are just used to the fact that the federal government often comes along and tries to impose laws on all of us, even though our state-run schools are charged with the responsibility of teaching this stuff to every kid.
It is this very misguided assumption that is at the center of the confusion caused when candidates accuse Ron Paul of somehow being a proponent of drug abuse. Trust me when I say the candidates are banking on your ignorance regarding states' rights. Prove them wrong! Let them know you're more informed than they think you are.
You see this every day. The government is into everything it's not supposed to be into…and fails miserably at the very few fundamental things it is required to do, like regulate commerce, borders and currency. It's the ignorance that seems to enable the rhetoric candidates and pundits are using to describe Ron Paul, suggesting he's some sort of radical nut-job. But when you take more than a cursory look, you recognize he's the only candidate that really understands how this country is supposed to operate. He knows this stuff by heart, and he stands firmly for these principles, even against a wall of opposition. Ask yourself what might inspire opposition to what we know to be right and decent.
I feel sorry for all Dr. Paul has had to deal with and I'm truly sad so many people misunderstand such basic issues. I'm glad he's out there, that more people are beginning to figure out that he's exactly correct in his assessments, but I do fear it's too late to reach enough people to make a difference. The country's an airplane already on a steep downward spiral and any chance to pull the nose up is fleeting fast.
When I was younger I would never have guessed this country would take the very same hard-line stance in world affairs that our staunch enemies had once taken -- before their demise. Through our perpetual war footing, aggression toward innocent people, occupations and operations in other sovereign nations, we have now become the thing we once despised. All we have to do is ask the USSR how this will end for the USA. How has East Germany fared? What up North Korea? Ask Rome and Britain how their empires are doing now.
One moment you abhor Washington for their distance from Constitutional rule of law and the next you reject the most valuable morals purportedly guaranteed by that document, which was once thought to be a sacred promise to its citizens. You spout off about how our service members fight for our liberties, but you so easily dismiss those same liberties out of some irrational fear for your safety. This is disgraceful behavior and pure injustice to our military heroes. America is akin to Germany as the Reishtag burned and brought about the fear that enabled a monster to scorch the European landscape, leaving a stench that shocked the planet.
He who swears an oath to the Constitution and then so radically violates it should be exiled from this land. Yet he remains here and stands in judgment of another who committed his life to upholding those standards, calling him dangerous and out-of-touch. It is detestable these people are given any notoriety in the media. Dare I say Washington ought to be pushed into the Atlantic?
You are either for or against the principles of our Constitution. One of the very few reasons I believe it's proper to question someone's patriotism is on this point. If you want to be part of a civilized society that believes with it's heart and soul in freedom and liberty, then you should stand for that and not waiver. If, on the other hand, you wave your flag despite your ineptitude, and choose instead to advance a police state, virtual martial law, and don't mind forcing citizens to subsidize corporations and fellow politicians with hard-fought earnings, then perhaps you don't belong here, in the places where our ancestors willingly shed their blood so that their people could thereafter live unencumbered from such things.
If you can stand against man because he prefers we promote non-intervention over unjustified aggressions against other peoples, or that the federal government get out of the states' business, then you align yourself with the criminals and enemies of this nation. There might be a place for you at the axis of evil.
At some point it's time to stop blaming Congress for the shortcomings of our nation and take some responsibility for our own weaknesses; our failing to hold our elected leaders' feet to the fire. There is a proper remedy, but it takes people who will exorcise the strength and decency to cast out the corruption and greed. That means even America's most passive citizens must stop sitting on the sidelines saying, "it's not my job; my vote doesn't count."
We must ignore the electability rhetoric and vote with integrity and our brains for a leader who has spent more than forty years fighting for the same values that made America the land of the free and the home of the brave. There is only one person who has, without fail, come down on the side of Constitutional principles, even when it caused great conflict with his colleagues. One single member of Congress has stood out above the rest in defense of this nation. And this nation desperately needs him on that wall to defend the rule of law.
But true change will only occur if we dramatically change the way we think and act about our responsibilities as citizens. Every able-bodied person should get out and make commanding choices this election. By pressing Ron Paul to lead the executive branch of government, you will cause shock & awe among the corrupt and inept elements. You will horrify Washington lobbies, corporations and the media. But you will flex your muscles as a strong citizen and cause sweeping improvements in the future of our country.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Endorsements
It seems like everyone has an endorsement proclamation to share, so I decided I wanted one too.
Mine is simple and based on something rational, for a change, like the rule of law. And in order to restore the rule of law, we need leaders focused on limiting government to only the powers permitted under this nation's charter.
We have been drawn so far from these core American values that they seem radical, naive, dangerous and idealistic by today's standards. But returning to these standards must be our aim if we are to preserve this republic.
Foreign Policy
It was never the founders' conception that the US government would intervene in matters of other sovereign nations. We know that doing so causes unintended blowback. One example came to us in 1967 during the six day war, when Israel blasted the USS Liberty, a ship sent to the Sinai Peninsula on a listening mission. Candidates who demonize non-interventionism, characterizing it as isolationism, either don't understand history or they fully understand, but count on your ignorance to get away with it. Wanting to withdraw standing armies deployed overseas is not naive or dangerous, but necessary to restore America's dignity in world affairs. Denying foreign countries' access to our earnings is not disrespectful toward our supposed foreign allies, but an equitable human rights policy inside our borders.
Domestic Policy
Rejecting federal interference in states' sovereignty is completely proper. Restoring sanity in monetary policy is critical to America's common welfare and failing to do so is a national security crisis. It's immoral for the US to embark on policies that cause suffering on entire segments of our population. To create laws that are tantamount to racist is repulsive. Federal regulation of marriage and medicine is an indignity on families and individuals that cannot be allowed to persist.
There's only one candidate that will resist entering the homes and pocketbooks of American families, whose aim is to put a leash on federal reach, and seek to bring costs of government back to a rational level.
The only candidate with the integrity and honor to hold the office of President of the United States of America is Dr. Ron Paul, the Republican Representative from Texas. I urge you to help me restore America to its former prestige by participating in caucusing and voting for candidates for all elected offices in this country that hold firm the principles I've outlined above, beginning with Dr. Paul.
Beware of detractors like Newt Gingrich who use inflammatory tactics to paint Dr. Paul in a poor light. They say he will not be the nominee because he is for the legalization of drugs; he blames 9/11 on America; he thinks it doesn't matter if Iran gets nuclear weapons; he seems totally unwilling to defend Israel; he basically came out for the abolition of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security; he can't defend and won't take responsibility for his own newsletter, even when they have very negative, very destructive things in them. Newt is conning people into voting for him. It doesn't take much research to see through each of these cheap tactics he is using.
Let's face it, if you say you believe in the federal government staying out of states' rights, then you will be accused of supporting the legalization of whatever the federal government had been improperly regulating. If you say the government should not intervene in certain foreign matters, then you are for the destruction of our allies. If you criticize a popular government program whose very existence is unconstitutional, then you're too radical. The irony here is that every other candidate will spit on the very doctrine many of them have already sworn to uphold. That tells me that in American politics today, if you truly honor America, you'll be vilified by the establishment.
I would love to see Mr. Gingrich to lay his finger on that part of the Constitution that properly lays down the power for our government to legally prevent Iran from developing weapons of its choosing. I want to know where Newt thinks the federal government gets its authority to supersede a state's right to regulate plant-life.
In reality the Republican Party has become a bastardized version of itself. Its members used to purport to want to stop overreaching policies that facilitated welfare programs aimed at subsidizing individuals or subsets of society, and instead encouraged volunteerism, philanthropy and the good will of fellow citizens. This compulsory charity is now so engrained in our system that it takes radical thinkers to remind us what the charter we celebrate every Fourth of July actually says. This new version of American politics preys on the ignorance of its citizens to leverage personal gain and advance illegal policies that cause suffering within its populous.
We should ignore pundits who try to replace your intelligence with their propaganda, polling data and social engineering efforts. We should be less concerned about who is electable and more proactive about what this country needs most right now. Let's get together and start coming up with similar answers to the most important questions facing America today. Let's fire the establishment and bring equitable change to this beloved republic. We must not sit on the sidelines for yet another election cycle.
Mine is simple and based on something rational, for a change, like the rule of law. And in order to restore the rule of law, we need leaders focused on limiting government to only the powers permitted under this nation's charter.
We have been drawn so far from these core American values that they seem radical, naive, dangerous and idealistic by today's standards. But returning to these standards must be our aim if we are to preserve this republic.
Foreign Policy
It was never the founders' conception that the US government would intervene in matters of other sovereign nations. We know that doing so causes unintended blowback. One example came to us in 1967 during the six day war, when Israel blasted the USS Liberty, a ship sent to the Sinai Peninsula on a listening mission. Candidates who demonize non-interventionism, characterizing it as isolationism, either don't understand history or they fully understand, but count on your ignorance to get away with it. Wanting to withdraw standing armies deployed overseas is not naive or dangerous, but necessary to restore America's dignity in world affairs. Denying foreign countries' access to our earnings is not disrespectful toward our supposed foreign allies, but an equitable human rights policy inside our borders.
Domestic Policy
Rejecting federal interference in states' sovereignty is completely proper. Restoring sanity in monetary policy is critical to America's common welfare and failing to do so is a national security crisis. It's immoral for the US to embark on policies that cause suffering on entire segments of our population. To create laws that are tantamount to racist is repulsive. Federal regulation of marriage and medicine is an indignity on families and individuals that cannot be allowed to persist.
There's only one candidate that will resist entering the homes and pocketbooks of American families, whose aim is to put a leash on federal reach, and seek to bring costs of government back to a rational level.
The only candidate with the integrity and honor to hold the office of President of the United States of America is Dr. Ron Paul, the Republican Representative from Texas. I urge you to help me restore America to its former prestige by participating in caucusing and voting for candidates for all elected offices in this country that hold firm the principles I've outlined above, beginning with Dr. Paul.
Beware of detractors like Newt Gingrich who use inflammatory tactics to paint Dr. Paul in a poor light. They say he will not be the nominee because he is for the legalization of drugs; he blames 9/11 on America; he thinks it doesn't matter if Iran gets nuclear weapons; he seems totally unwilling to defend Israel; he basically came out for the abolition of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security; he can't defend and won't take responsibility for his own newsletter, even when they have very negative, very destructive things in them. Newt is conning people into voting for him. It doesn't take much research to see through each of these cheap tactics he is using.
Let's face it, if you say you believe in the federal government staying out of states' rights, then you will be accused of supporting the legalization of whatever the federal government had been improperly regulating. If you say the government should not intervene in certain foreign matters, then you are for the destruction of our allies. If you criticize a popular government program whose very existence is unconstitutional, then you're too radical. The irony here is that every other candidate will spit on the very doctrine many of them have already sworn to uphold. That tells me that in American politics today, if you truly honor America, you'll be vilified by the establishment.
I would love to see Mr. Gingrich to lay his finger on that part of the Constitution that properly lays down the power for our government to legally prevent Iran from developing weapons of its choosing. I want to know where Newt thinks the federal government gets its authority to supersede a state's right to regulate plant-life.
In reality the Republican Party has become a bastardized version of itself. Its members used to purport to want to stop overreaching policies that facilitated welfare programs aimed at subsidizing individuals or subsets of society, and instead encouraged volunteerism, philanthropy and the good will of fellow citizens. This compulsory charity is now so engrained in our system that it takes radical thinkers to remind us what the charter we celebrate every Fourth of July actually says. This new version of American politics preys on the ignorance of its citizens to leverage personal gain and advance illegal policies that cause suffering within its populous.
We should ignore pundits who try to replace your intelligence with their propaganda, polling data and social engineering efforts. We should be less concerned about who is electable and more proactive about what this country needs most right now. Let's get together and start coming up with similar answers to the most important questions facing America today. Let's fire the establishment and bring equitable change to this beloved republic. We must not sit on the sidelines for yet another election cycle.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Go to Washington. Get rich.
One of the reasons I enjoy working in the media is the perks. At a large outdoor concert we put on, members of the staff and clients were shielded from long lines and the general filth that the "regular" goers endured. We were treated to a better class of faire and impressive access backstage and the performers.
It's all perfectly legal, but if I were a standard ticketholder, I might not have the same appreciation for such perks, especially as I'm being herded like cattle.
The Wall Street Journal reported numerous examples where members of Congress, their staff, friends and family were able to enrich themselves through insider trading. This elite class of folks can come to Washington with only a few bucks, but leave with millions more.
Is that fair? Is it true that Congress is exempt from insider trading rules imposed on us "regular" folk?
Ron Paul recently spoke on the issue after 60 Minutes did an expose on how Nancy Pelosi and others were getting rich from this kind of criminal activity.
It's all perfectly legal, but if I were a standard ticketholder, I might not have the same appreciation for such perks, especially as I'm being herded like cattle.
The Wall Street Journal reported numerous examples where members of Congress, their staff, friends and family were able to enrich themselves through insider trading. This elite class of folks can come to Washington with only a few bucks, but leave with millions more.
Is that fair? Is it true that Congress is exempt from insider trading rules imposed on us "regular" folk?
Ron Paul recently spoke on the issue after 60 Minutes did an expose on how Nancy Pelosi and others were getting rich from this kind of criminal activity.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
How the media distracts us from real issues
I'm often insulted when I see in the media that the most important issues are brushed under the rug and petty bickering makes the headlines.
On MSNBC's Martin Bashir program Friday (Oct. 27), Democratic analyst Karen Finney said of the white Republican base, "They think [Cain is] a black man who knows his place."
A cohort of mine subsequently shared a link to a Weekly Standard web page featuring the exchange and remarked, "Left wing racism rears it's ugly head again. Disgusting!"
Putting aside for a moment his misuse of the contraction, my friend uses circular reasoning to arrive at a conclusion that the Democratic analyst is racist for accusing the white Republican base of holding a racist viewpoint.
This is also a classic example of feigning dismay in order to arouse the right-wing base and distract them from the truly important issues of the day, like the poor economy and the high unemployment. Anyone that's paying attention should recognize that Finney was exhibiting GOPism and not left-wing racism.
Finney's remarks are reminiscent of Rush Limbaugh's racial overtones when he made disparaging remarks about Philly quarterback Donovan McNabb:
"Sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go," Limbaugh said. "I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."
Was Limbaugh the racist here? Or was he accusing the media of using race as a criteria for their desire to see McNabb do well? I don't often come to the big guy's defense, but in this case, his statement was not racist.
Now onto a lesson on the use of its and it's in American English writing.
On MSNBC's Martin Bashir program Friday (Oct. 27), Democratic analyst Karen Finney said of the white Republican base, "They think [Cain is] a black man who knows his place."
A cohort of mine subsequently shared a link to a Weekly Standard web page featuring the exchange and remarked, "Left wing racism rears it's ugly head again. Disgusting!"
Putting aside for a moment his misuse of the contraction, my friend uses circular reasoning to arrive at a conclusion that the Democratic analyst is racist for accusing the white Republican base of holding a racist viewpoint.
This is also a classic example of feigning dismay in order to arouse the right-wing base and distract them from the truly important issues of the day, like the poor economy and the high unemployment. Anyone that's paying attention should recognize that Finney was exhibiting GOPism and not left-wing racism.
Finney's remarks are reminiscent of Rush Limbaugh's racial overtones when he made disparaging remarks about Philly quarterback Donovan McNabb:
"Sorry to say this, I don't think he's been that good from the get-go," Limbaugh said. "I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."
Was Limbaugh the racist here? Or was he accusing the media of using race as a criteria for their desire to see McNabb do well? I don't often come to the big guy's defense, but in this case, his statement was not racist.
Now onto a lesson on the use of its and it's in American English writing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)