Friday, January 14, 2011
Roman Turek Profile In Courage Award
It's Friday, and that means just one thing: I want my MTV.
What? Huh? Oh yeah, that's right. It is also that time of the week when we present the Roman Turek Profile In Courage Award (the RTPIC)!
The award actually hasn't been presented yet in the new year. How crazy is that? We are sure you are all eagerly awaiting the news on who the winner is. Even though you, dear Reader, are probably foaming at the mouth with all the anticipatory tension, we still must present the nominees before we present the winners.
And what great nominees we have this week. Let's begin with the first nomination, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council. Why? Because this week they took the unusual step to ban a song, 'Money for Nothing', on Canadian radios because that songs lyrics were...inciting hate?
Let us walk you through the ridiculousness of this situation. We think the ban is ridiculous not because of who it is in favour of. We have no problem with homosexuals. People are people, and serious people can understand this. We have fucked up, not normal shit about us too. Everyone is a little skewed. No, the problem we have with the ban is, well, it's actually problems, so let's numerate them.
1) Banning a song that has been on the radio for 30 years. Not a shred of evidence is around to suggest that the homosexual slur used in the song has made anyone hate homosexuals more than they would normally hate them. If someone is a bigot, it's not because they heard a lyric in a Dire Straits song. The notion that banning this song would make people more tolerant is therefore ridiculous.
2) We have a little bit of a beef with the people who lobbied for this decision. We would have preferred that if a homosexual was offended because a radio station was playing the song, that they lobbied that radio station to get it removed, or for them to play the radio edit version that doesn't include the slur. The radio stations would have complied, because they are in the business of serving their customers. To go to an unelected body of the government to get them to ban songs because of words is policing thought.
3) Why the need to police thought? The implication of this ruling, and we may be overly sensitive, is that the enlightened in Ottawa think that the peasants in the Canadian hinterland are a bunch of homosexual killing hate mongers. We object to this vehemently. No serious person, in a serious setting, can use the homosexual slur that is used in the song to describe anybody. If you do, you risk your reputation, business, ect. The implication that Canadians need to be told not to drop homosexual slurs on people is deeply insulting.
4) The guy who wrote the song wasn't even talking about homosexuals. The story about 'Money for Nothing' is that the songs writer was in an appliance store. The appliance store had a back wall full of TV's and they were all on MTV. The band that was on the TV was Motley Crew. Motley Crew, although you can call them a lot of things, homosexual is not one of them. Going further, the song is written in the perspective of a construction worker. The construction worker is commenting on a group of pierced men with mascara on their face and fingernail polish on their hands, in the 80's. The word fits in the context it was written in, and is actually not even directed toward homosexuals proper.
5) Finally, Canadian broadcasters are allowed to play unedited rap songs. Do we really need to spell this argument out? It's patently ridiculous you would ban a word that slurs a minority but not another word that slurs a minority.
It's thought police, pure and simple. Nothing against homosexuals, but everything against thought police, and the government treating us like we are all waiting for an excuse to start a lynch mob. Plus we loved that song, man!
Our second nominee for the week is Mike Labinjo. In case you had not heard, the Grey Cup hero was traded away to Montreal for basically nothing, just because he was trying to do his best Feaster impression. Look, we don't mind the trade. In Huff We Trust. We would just point out that while the guy can't play for the Stampeders, the most recent Grey Cup Champions have no problem with him on the roster.
The real reason Mike is nominated is because of the treatment he received in the media upon his departure. Mike Labinjo won this city a Grey Cup almost singlehandedly. His performance was that dominate. We didn't win because of Hank. Anyone who follows the team probably thinks we win despite of Hank, to be honest. And that's the thing. Mike Labinjo manned up big time when the moment called for it, and won a championship. He also did the Big Brother Little Brother thang. He was a good member of this community. He was never caught in a photo wearing a bra standing next to a woman who was not his wife. And when he is traded away, for whatever reason, all this is forgotten and the knives come out. What the fuck, media?
Do you know why guys are nice to the media? Because it buys them leeway. Mike Labinjo won a championship. That buys him leeway. Look, we all know he got fat and lazy after he won. You don't have to say it when he is on his way out. What really pissed us off was Al Cameron going on the radio and saying that Labinjo only lost his weight because of a clause in the contract. Al was implying Labinjo was greedy. That's fucking horseshit. First off, it's professional sports, everyone is greedy. Second, Mike Labinjo is the only player in the CFL with a weight clause in his contract? He is the only D-lineman in football with this stipulation? Football players would all get fat if they could, especially guys who way 250 - 300 pounds. They all have these clauses, and guess what, they must all be greedy too because they adhere to them.
You wanna know who we would have laid the blame on? Coach Huff. Coach Huff knew the guy had motivational problems, yet Coach Huff gave the guy a long term contract coming off that Grey Cup win. If he had traded Labinjo when Labinjo was still a player, this franchise would have been able to recoup some value. Now, we trade away a guy who can dominate the league for nothing, while providing him incentive to get his game back on track. At least we traded him out East, otherwise the sacks he is going to get against Burris would look real embarrassing.
And while we are on the subject of trading players who don't perform up to their level of expectation, how about we deal with the QB?
Our third nominee this week is the reaction to the shooting of Gabby Giffords. It was bizarre. The People With Voices tried to paint a picture of a man who was so easily influenced by Sarah Palin, who is simultaneously the stupidest person in the world yet also the most brilliant evil genius, that he went out and shot a politician because several months ago Ms. Palin ran an ad that said she was 'targeting' Democratic politicians she thought were beatable. It's just a dumb theory on so many levels it's a bit of a joke that Serious People would lend their professional reputations to it (read: Paul Krugman has officially jumped the shark).
Evidence has since surfaced that the snivelling little shit who shot the congresswoman had a vendetta against her going back to at least 2007. He has been described by his former girlfriend as a 'left-wing pot head'. Do you think 'left-wing pot heads' are in the business of taking marching orders from Palin? This is a guy who read Marx, and because he is stupid, probably bought the talk of justified violence. If anything, we could point to the long history of political violence that is really the domain of the left, but we won't. Because it doesn't matter. Loughner was a kid who thought he had all the answers, could see the hidden truth. He was operating out of his own motives, which were fuelled by his own craziness. The suggestion that 'conservative political rhetoric' drove Loughner to commit crimes is made to silence 'conservative political rhetoric' because liberals are getting their ideas rejected en mass in American politics right now.
A little thought experiment: If rhetoric, conservative or otherwise, was the cause of the shooting, then you would expect that there would have been more than one incident. You would expect this because America has a population of 300 million people, and has a media saturation of a very large extent. Everyone has heard the rhetoric. Either the rhetoric was the cause of the violence or it wasn't. If rhetoric was the cause, we would have seen more cases of violence against politicians due to the size of the population we are looking at. Because we see only one case of political violence, we can probably safely conclude that rhetoric was not the cause.
Our winner of this weeks Roman Turek Profile In Courage Award: Killer Fox!
Yes, the Killer Fox. This one's for you, PETA.
Obviously, a story like the one we are about to tell only could have happened in the Russia. In America, you hunts fox, in Russia, fox hunts you.
Imagine you are in the Soviet wilderness. Equally sized tree's, godless squirrels, 5 year acorn plans, the whole bit. It's a little chilly in the air, you can see the vodka crystallize as you exhale, times are good. As you work your way through the shoddy, state planned forest, you come across a red fox (pun intended).
You put the Vodka down, by of course sending it down your throat into your stomach (where else would a good Russian boy keep his liquor?) and at the same time you pick up your trusty hunting rifle, an AK-47. Readying your sights on your quarry, the communist fox, you exhale your breath (never inhale before you pull the trigger, that's a little hunting knowledge we will pass on), steady your hands, and squeeze the trigger.
Blam. At first you don't see if you hit the fox or not, but that's because you are drunk. You move in on your prey, and you see that you have wounded the animal and it is ripe for the kill. Because you are a lousy hunter, you didn't kill the animal outright with your first shot, but that's ok, you like killing wounded animals. It's easy, they never fight back!
And this is where our little Russian protagonist runs into trouble. After shooting the fox, the hunter, we will call him Sascha (just because we like the fact that a people who trace their roots to the Rus barbarians, tough, tough people, call their men girl names), goes up to get the the pelt of the wounded fox. Sascha had to be drinking, because instead of putting a bullet in the thing, he runs up and tries to kill it by hitting it in the head with the butt-end of his rifle. Sascha, we love you, but that was stupid. It was stupid because Sascha had been drinking all day, and his accuracy was a little impaired. Somehow, when attempting to knock the fox's block off, he looses control of the rifle. It falls out of his hands. Guess who picks it up?
Comrades, the soviet fox picks it up. For reals. The fox somehow gains control of the gun. Then what happens? The fox shoots the hunter. The fox shoots the hunter. Only in Russia.
Of course, the other explanation is Sascha got so drunk he shot himself in the leg and then tried to pin the blame on a fox because that was much less embarrassing. But we like the whole 'fox shoots man' angle a bit more.
For turning the tables on his would be assailant, the Killer Fox wins this weeks Roman Turek Profile In Courage Award!
Furthermore, I think Peter Loubardias should be fired.