Friday, August 16, 2002
Jay Love doesn't get it
Jay Love, afternoon talk show host on 1230 the Buzz, does not get it. On his 08/15/2002 show, he railed on a letter to the editor of the Enquirer. This letter discussed the Black Family Reunion in town this weekend, and the letter talked about how a "White" Family Reunion would be called racist. The letter writer is correct. A reunion would be called racist by many many blacks if it was called such and celebrated "White History and Culture". I really have no idea what "White History and Culture" is supposed to be. Is it European in basis? Well, parts of my family have been in this country since 1630 when they left England, and that same family only came to England in 1069 from France. I am really French? I don't want to be, but I can't fault My mega-great-grandfather Mr. de la Feld. I however am American. I really don't have any other culture to fall back on. That culture is a mixture of many elements of other cultures, but I don't view myself as needing to celebrate what I know I am. If I were to celebrate being an American, I am sure Jay would not want to attend my reunion and more than I would want to go the Black Family Reunion.
Jay is missing the point on his flawed comparison between having the Black Family Reunion and an Italian Festival or Octoberfest. He seems to equate being Italian or German to being Black. Jay wants to combine his race and his ethnicity into one item and expects others to not get a little miffed when he does it. If Jay were to have a Jamaican Festival or a South African Festival he can compare it to Italians or Germans.
The real problem with the name is what it means to most people. I think Jay views this as a Reunion of Black Families, but the name appears to compare itself to the Smith Family Reunion. The Smith Family Reunion is for Smiths. It is not about promoting being a Smith to the outside world, it is just for the Smiths of the world to get together and share their common lineage. When I hear the term "Black Family Reunion", I think of a get together for blacks together and share their common lineage. This just does not sit right with me. This Black Family Reunion is drawn not on blood relatives, but instead on race. The letter writer's point was valid and a name change would go a long way to draw in "whites".
Jay Love, afternoon talk show host on 1230 the Buzz, does not get it. On his 08/15/2002 show, he railed on a letter to the editor of the Enquirer. This letter discussed the Black Family Reunion in town this weekend, and the letter talked about how a "White" Family Reunion would be called racist. The letter writer is correct. A reunion would be called racist by many many blacks if it was called such and celebrated "White History and Culture". I really have no idea what "White History and Culture" is supposed to be. Is it European in basis? Well, parts of my family have been in this country since 1630 when they left England, and that same family only came to England in 1069 from France. I am really French? I don't want to be, but I can't fault My mega-great-grandfather Mr. de la Feld. I however am American. I really don't have any other culture to fall back on. That culture is a mixture of many elements of other cultures, but I don't view myself as needing to celebrate what I know I am. If I were to celebrate being an American, I am sure Jay would not want to attend my reunion and more than I would want to go the Black Family Reunion.
Jay is missing the point on his flawed comparison between having the Black Family Reunion and an Italian Festival or Octoberfest. He seems to equate being Italian or German to being Black. Jay wants to combine his race and his ethnicity into one item and expects others to not get a little miffed when he does it. If Jay were to have a Jamaican Festival or a South African Festival he can compare it to Italians or Germans.
The real problem with the name is what it means to most people. I think Jay views this as a Reunion of Black Families, but the name appears to compare itself to the Smith Family Reunion. The Smith Family Reunion is for Smiths. It is not about promoting being a Smith to the outside world, it is just for the Smiths of the world to get together and share their common lineage. When I hear the term "Black Family Reunion", I think of a get together for blacks together and share their common lineage. This just does not sit right with me. This Black Family Reunion is drawn not on blood relatives, but instead on race. The letter writer's point was valid and a name change would go a long way to draw in "whites".
Bill Cunningham hoax backfires
WLW should not be whining about this. You live by the crass hoax, you die by the crass hoax. Mike McConnell was all up in arms over this column by John Kiesewetter on his WLW radio program today. I think Mike and program director Darryl Parks need to rethink that which they spout off about when talking about their radio station. Mike says the Kiesewetter just "doesn't get it." What does he not get? Does he not get the inside jokes? Does he not get why your station does this kind of programming? I don't get that. I know this kind of programming goes on all the time on WLW, but unless you listen regularly, or know the hosts personally, you have little clue as to when WLW is being honest and reporting information, or when you are making stuff up. I don't mind that they make stuff up, and try to have fun. The problem is, as I have said before, they want to be both a serious radio station with news, and they want to be a sophomoric station where cheap stunts gets you a really "vanilla" audience. In this case it is intellectually simple, instead of being puritanically pure. If WLW wants to be a goof off station, fine, but don't try to be a news station as well. I can't trust anything I hear on that station as being factual. Mike even thought Monty Python's Life of Brian came out in the early 1970's. Damn, I was not born until 1972, but I could tell by the production value it came out later than that. Plus, I new where to look up that it was released in 1979. People do listen to what you say, and when you market your program on 15 minute segments, and when the average person listens for 15 minutes and can not tell that Cunningham is just "pretending", don't be shocked when one of those people act on Willie’s claims of fact. When I hear WLW hosts whine about the truthfulness of politicians or others they don't like, I will be laughing at that host, and I will be posting here their hypocrisy.
WLW should not be whining about this. You live by the crass hoax, you die by the crass hoax. Mike McConnell was all up in arms over this column by John Kiesewetter on his WLW radio program today. I think Mike and program director Darryl Parks need to rethink that which they spout off about when talking about their radio station. Mike says the Kiesewetter just "doesn't get it." What does he not get? Does he not get the inside jokes? Does he not get why your station does this kind of programming? I don't get that. I know this kind of programming goes on all the time on WLW, but unless you listen regularly, or know the hosts personally, you have little clue as to when WLW is being honest and reporting information, or when you are making stuff up. I don't mind that they make stuff up, and try to have fun. The problem is, as I have said before, they want to be both a serious radio station with news, and they want to be a sophomoric station where cheap stunts gets you a really "vanilla" audience. In this case it is intellectually simple, instead of being puritanically pure. If WLW wants to be a goof off station, fine, but don't try to be a news station as well. I can't trust anything I hear on that station as being factual. Mike even thought Monty Python's Life of Brian came out in the early 1970's. Damn, I was not born until 1972, but I could tell by the production value it came out later than that. Plus, I new where to look up that it was released in 1979. People do listen to what you say, and when you market your program on 15 minute segments, and when the average person listens for 15 minutes and can not tell that Cunningham is just "pretending", don't be shocked when one of those people act on Willie’s claims of fact. When I hear WLW hosts whine about the truthfulness of politicians or others they don't like, I will be laughing at that host, and I will be posting here their hypocrisy.
BRONSON: Defending Iraq Why the media get no respect
Bronson should look before leaps, or in this case read before he pontificates his preposterous prejudices. Bronson seems to be acting like Kathy Wilson in one respect. Both seem to like to live with dual ideologies. Kathy switches between liberal and progressive populist, while Pete goes from right-wing conservative to a conservative libertarian. Pete seems to want the press to just shut up and let Bush rule by decree, no questions asks. This is not the kind of article I would expect from a Journalist. I don't even think the hard-line conservative columnist Cal Thomas would agree with Bronson. Sure Cal would spout his usual neo-theocratic rantings, but he wants a critical press. Bronson seems to want a New York Times that is a cheerleader what ever adventure his buddy Dubya wants to go on.
If Dick Armey, Henry A. Kissinger, and Brent Scowcroft are not enough for Pete to see that his trite 1950's anti-commie attitude really even falls flat on its face in the eyes of some conservative heavyweights, then nothing will. I know Pete lives in a bubble, and he trying to force that bubble on the rest of us, but I wonder if knows how fragile it is. Don't look now Pete, you might just be the odd man out in the GOP someday. Well, that is a reach on my part. The GOP by definition can only regress, progress goes against their National Platform.
And another thing:
Bronson writes: "There's ample proof that Saddam collaborated with al-Qaida and Osama. "
Where the hell does Peter get this kind of information from? If he has the ample proof, then let his readers read it. Either Peter is talking out of his ass on this one, or he has sources in the government that would make any Washington Journalist jealous. Since Peter is only a lowly columnist in Cincinnati, and not working for Gannett at the Pentagon, I will bet on the former.
Bronson should look before leaps, or in this case read before he pontificates his preposterous prejudices. Bronson seems to be acting like Kathy Wilson in one respect. Both seem to like to live with dual ideologies. Kathy switches between liberal and progressive populist, while Pete goes from right-wing conservative to a conservative libertarian. Pete seems to want the press to just shut up and let Bush rule by decree, no questions asks. This is not the kind of article I would expect from a Journalist. I don't even think the hard-line conservative columnist Cal Thomas would agree with Bronson. Sure Cal would spout his usual neo-theocratic rantings, but he wants a critical press. Bronson seems to want a New York Times that is a cheerleader what ever adventure his buddy Dubya wants to go on.
If Dick Armey, Henry A. Kissinger, and Brent Scowcroft are not enough for Pete to see that his trite 1950's anti-commie attitude really even falls flat on its face in the eyes of some conservative heavyweights, then nothing will. I know Pete lives in a bubble, and he trying to force that bubble on the rest of us, but I wonder if knows how fragile it is. Don't look now Pete, you might just be the odd man out in the GOP someday. Well, that is a reach on my part. The GOP by definition can only regress, progress goes against their National Platform.
And another thing:
Bronson writes: "There's ample proof that Saddam collaborated with al-Qaida and Osama. "
Where the hell does Peter get this kind of information from? If he has the ample proof, then let his readers read it. Either Peter is talking out of his ass on this one, or he has sources in the government that would make any Washington Journalist jealous. Since Peter is only a lowly columnist in Cincinnati, and not working for Gannett at the Pentagon, I will bet on the former.
I have been marooned since Wed Night
9,000 Cincinnati Bell customers lost all telephone service Monday Night. As of this morning I still had no service. I think this has clinched that I will be getting a cable modem in the near future and maybe a cell phone too. I am happy to be back blogging, but I may not be back again until Saturday at 5 PM.
Almost 10,000 Customers Are Without Telephone Service
This is what caused my outage, and here is a story of the same from WLWT. This morning the phone company's spin was that the 9,000 were down to only 2,800 people. I was still part of the 2,800 people. The Enquirer and the Post seem to have just ignored the story, I guess they believed the 24-hour claim made yesterday, which has since gone by the wayside. I hope Cincinnati Bell makes me happy with a reduction of my bill. I want something reasonable, like a free month's service. I will be lucky if they give me 10% off on the monthly charge, not including taxes and fees of course.
Also, I will not have access to my email during this period. I feel like I am living back in 1989, oh the humanity.
9,000 Cincinnati Bell customers lost all telephone service Monday Night. As of this morning I still had no service. I think this has clinched that I will be getting a cable modem in the near future and maybe a cell phone too. I am happy to be back blogging, but I may not be back again until Saturday at 5 PM.
Almost 10,000 Customers Are Without Telephone Service
This is what caused my outage, and here is a story of the same from WLWT. This morning the phone company's spin was that the 9,000 were down to only 2,800 people. I was still part of the 2,800 people. The Enquirer and the Post seem to have just ignored the story, I guess they believed the 24-hour claim made yesterday, which has since gone by the wayside. I hope Cincinnati Bell makes me happy with a reduction of my bill. I want something reasonable, like a free month's service. I will be lucky if they give me 10% off on the monthly charge, not including taxes and fees of course.
Also, I will not have access to my email during this period. I feel like I am living back in 1989, oh the humanity.
Wednesday, August 14, 2002
CityBeat: Editorial -- Festival Seating Return Is Past Due
I agree most strenuously with Mr. Fox. I really don't know what drives the mainstream media to make this issue more than it is. Well, I do know why they do it, they can't live without drama, without carnage, without another chance to show the archive footage of clothes strewn on the ground outside Riverfront Coliseum. Nothing can drive the local media like a tearjerker.
I agree most strenuously with Mr. Fox. I really don't know what drives the mainstream media to make this issue more than it is. Well, I do know why they do it, they can't live without drama, without carnage, without another chance to show the archive footage of clothes strewn on the ground outside Riverfront Coliseum. Nothing can drive the local media like a tearjerker.
CityBeat: Your Negro Tour Guide The Scarlet 'L'
I thought I could avoid it, but I am a sucker for a cliché. You go Girl!!! I have leveled Kathy with lots of criticism on her dance from progressive populism to liberalism and back again, but on this I have to applaud her means of handling Dwight Patton.
I also wish to point out that Dwight Patton is not a liberal; he is a populist of the worst kind, socially extremely conservative, and economically socialist. I will not understand how anyone could align themselves with a bigot like Patton or the BUF. I do not know why Stonewall joined forces with this group or the other similar groups in the boycott. This guy is not that far from the bigotry of the likes of Jerry Fallwell, but you don't hear the condemnation from the PP's or many Libs. I for one am sick of the bigots that seem to get free rein on 1230 the Buzz spouting hate speech toward every race but their own, and at homosexuals particularly. I hope Jay Love reads this column.
I thought I could avoid it, but I am a sucker for a cliché. You go Girl!!! I have leveled Kathy with lots of criticism on her dance from progressive populism to liberalism and back again, but on this I have to applaud her means of handling Dwight Patton.
I also wish to point out that Dwight Patton is not a liberal; he is a populist of the worst kind, socially extremely conservative, and economically socialist. I will not understand how anyone could align themselves with a bigot like Patton or the BUF. I do not know why Stonewall joined forces with this group or the other similar groups in the boycott. This guy is not that far from the bigotry of the likes of Jerry Fallwell, but you don't hear the condemnation from the PP's or many Libs. I for one am sick of the bigots that seem to get free rein on 1230 the Buzz spouting hate speech toward every race but their own, and at homosexuals particularly. I hope Jay Love reads this column.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)